Live data from Hacker News

Crazy New Ideas

paulgraham.com

691–700 of 808 posts

Re: Crazy New Ideas

#691

The central thesis > Most implausible-sounding ideas are in fact bad and could be safely dismissed. But not when they're proposed by reasonable domain experts. Is later contradicted by a discussion on the quality of criticism > The lowest form [of criticism] of all is to dismiss an idea because of who proposed it. So which is it? Judge an idea by who proposes it or not? I think the essay stands without the tangent on…

Those two statements are not inconsistent.

The first statement isn't a suggestion that implausible sounding ideas can be dismissed on the basis of a lack of credibility of the person communicating the idea.

But I share in the dislike of an appeal to authority. The idea should stand on its own merits.

Re: Crazy New Ideas

#692

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but if you found out a quicker and more efficient way to stop people from reading HN, every business would want it because their workers would stop bloviating 4 hours a day for those who know what it is, and the rest of the world would continue on ignorant of it as it always has. But it's not worth anything. Sometimes you just can't clean up garbage. Graham has too many dishonest people in YC. They're like gollu…

This is not proof of what you think it is. It may be evidence but it isn't proof. dang detaching off-topic subthreads is the opposite of mods opaquely fucking around with rankings. He explicitly detached the thread, and posted that he had done so. That's a judgement call which you're welcome to disagree with and I'm not going to affirm or second-guess because I don't care much. As to the other: we don't know how HN s…

> dang detaching off-topic subthreads is the opposite of mods opaquely fucking around with rankings. He explicitly detached the thread, and posted that he had done so. That's a judgement call which you're welcome to disagree with and I'm not going to affirm or second-guess because I don't care much.

Yeah, you don't care about it much, it wasn't you that it happened to. I don't care that much either. I do care about this easily abused behavior, though.

> As to the other: we don't know how HN sorts comments, but I would be surprised if it was as simple as the highest-valued comments floating to the top. It is far more likely given what we know about moderation goals, that controversial comments are penalized.

I know, as do anyone that has experienced it, that they are penalized. If you say sane but controversial things around here you get downvoted, hidden, silenced. This sounds melodramatic, but think about what you are saying - HN is looking for boring, safe, everyone agrees commentary.

> So maybe your comment got 50 upvotes and 20 downvotes? The mods don't want us making huge subthreads about stuff which people disagree about, for the most part: they want some of that, but anything which is drawing a lot of karma from both sides is that much more likely to draw low-quality replies.

> Again, this isn't a comment about your comment: pretend I didn't read it, I barely did in fact.

With all due respect, I know. I can tell.

> But it certainly doesn't prove that dang put his thumb on the scale. The mods here seem to be pretty transparent about how everything works, without leaking actual formulas which are subject to change and could provide ammunition with which to game the system.

Yeah that's how abuse works, that's how loopholes work. Rules for me and not for you. Rules that are arbitrarily applied.

That's what I've never gotten about HN. You guys are so smart, but it's like you skipped politics 101.

Re: Crazy New Ideas

#693
post #659

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this is something the 45th US president did quite well

Trump is arguably one of the first successful reality TV stars. He basically laid the groundwork. The Kardashians took up the ball that Paris Hilton dropped.

This is a solid point about Donald Trump. I owned the Trump board game as a kid. (Released in 1989! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump:_The_Game) We thought he was such a goof, but he was definitely a social media star before social media networks.

Re: Crazy New Ideas

#695

The central thesis > Most implausible-sounding ideas are in fact bad and could be safely dismissed. But not when they're proposed by reasonable domain experts. Is later contradicted by a discussion on the quality of criticism > The lowest form [of criticism] of all is to dismiss an idea because of who proposed it. So which is it? Judge an idea by who proposes it or not? I think the essay stands without the tangent on…

Those two statements are not inconsistent. The first statement isn't a suggestion that implausible sounding ideas can be dismissed on the basis of a lack of credibility of the person communicating the idea. But I share in the dislike of an appeal to authority. The idea should stand on its own merits.

Surely it is saying exactly that? Changing the "but" to "except" I think makes it clear without changing the intent

Re: Crazy New Ideas

#696

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those two statements are not inconsistent. The first statement isn't a suggestion that implausible sounding ideas can be dismissed on the basis of a lack of credibility of the person communicating the idea. But I share in the dislike of an appeal to authority. The idea should stand on its own merits.

Surely it is saying exactly that? Changing the "but" to "except" I think makes it clear without changing the intent

He's saying implausible sounding ideas should be dismissed because they are implausible, not because of the credibility of the person behind it. Then he makes one exception which is when the person is credible.

That's different to saying that the idea should be dismissed merely due to lack of credibility of the person, which is what the second statement is talking about. The primary reason for dismissal in his first statement is the idea's implausibility, not the credibility of the person.

If his first statement said "all ideas should be dismissed, but for ones proposed by credible people", then that would be inconsistent with his second statement.

Re: Crazy New Ideas

#697
post #557
post #388

Lots of comments already, but I'll chime on in. I realized this very late in life, but I have a test for when it's time to pay attention to a new technology. It's when technical people look at what seems like a groundbreaking idea, seem unimpressed, and say "couldn't you just _____", were the blank is filled with something a nontechnical person doesn't understand or considers very cumbersome. The web: couldn't you ju…

I’m not convinced that’s a good rule of thumb at all, because there’s so many examples where it applies and is wrong, and many where it doesn’t apply but the tech was revolutionary. Not to mention the greater point: Im not even that convinced tech is ever really revolutionary (at least at the same time it gets mainstream adoption). Usually the big improvement it made existed years earlier or in competitors but the ti…

In many cases what people failed to anticipate was simply how successful online advertising would prove to be. Many of these ideas were just ways to lose money when they were first implemented.

Re: Crazy New Ideas

#698
Thomas Kuhn. I feel sorry for the guy. His work is the basis of so much armchair worldview building about the modern world and is relevant to a cultural practice of science that died out 200 years ago.

I can't help but roll my eyes whenever I hear anyone use the word paradigm shift anymore.

Re: Crazy New Ideas

#699
post #659

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this is something the 45th US president did quite well

Trump is arguably one of the first successful reality TV stars. He basically laid the groundwork. The Kardashians took up the ball that Paris Hilton dropped.

Kim Kardashian was Paris Hilton's intern and appeared on Paris Hilton's show. I don't think that was accidental.

Re: Crazy New Ideas

#700
post #388

Lots of comments already, but I'll chime on in. I realized this very late in life, but I have a test for when it's time to pay attention to a new technology. It's when technical people look at what seems like a groundbreaking idea, seem unimpressed, and say "couldn't you just _____", were the blank is filled with something a nontechnical person doesn't understand or considers very cumbersome. The web: couldn't you ju…

Canva - couldn't you just use photoshop? This isn't a dig at Canva, but praise.
Post reply on HN