Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Red Light Green Light

jamessevedge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 169 posts

Re: Red Light Green Light

#71

Post by dylan604 »

gmiller123456 wrote: post #66

As a kid my mom ran out of gas several times, and it was always on the same road, which had a gravel shoulder. We'd be riding along, she'd pull off into (what I call "the rocks"), the car would stop and she'd say "we're out of gas". Since the car was moving along fine before pulling off the road, and I had no concept of how cars worked, I made the connection that pulling into "the rocks" caused the car to run out of…

I got a similar teasing because I used the word "lightricity". Too too long ago to really know where/why my brain locked into that word. Lights=>electricity=>lightning, it all gloms together.

Re: Red Light Green Light

#72

Post by imgabe »

When my brother was very young, maybe 4 or 5, he wanted to get McDonald's one day. My mom, for whatever reason, didn't want to and told him McDonald's food was too greasy. He insisted that it wasn't greasy at all. My mom told him it was. This went back and forth with him getting more and more upset until he finally screamed "GREASE IS WHAT DAD PUTS ON THE WHEELS OF THE CAR".

My Dad always did all his own oil changes and lubed the wheels with a grease gun. My brother had watched him do this and was furious that he thought my mom was insisting that the thick axle grease that came out of the grease gun was what was on McDonald's food.

Re: Red Light Green Light

#73

Post by Jiro »

aeternum wrote: post #15

Similar things happen surprisingly often in companies. Many intense arguments can be diffused by first being specific about what we agree upon. Just to add to this, one strategy from the rationalist community that I rarely see practiced is to 'taboo' certain words. For example if two engineers are arguing about a solution not being scalable, taboo the word scalable. They both re-explain their POV without using the wo…

This is one of those things "rationalists" do that doesn't always make sense. It is possible to tell someone to "taboo their words" to obstruct someone, in order to make it hard for them to discuss something whose meaning you know very well. It's also possible to tell someone to taboo their words because you want to nitpick an imperfect definition--regardless of whether the flaws in thde definition are relevant to the current argument.

Re: Red Light Green Light

#75

Post by aaron695 »

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #68
maroonblazer wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you're 50. I'm 55, and for the large majority of my life (and presumably smaller than yours) kids were relegated to the back seat.

Remember getting stuck with the "hump" in the middle of the floor? I guess it was only a problem if you have more than one sibling and your parents had rear-wheel drive.

No post body was provided.

Re: Red Light Green Light

#76

Post by Infernal »

maroonblazer wrote: post #58
nkurz wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. I'm 50, and grew up before the common use of car seats for children. Children of all ages would commonly ride in the front seat, or even in the back of pickup trucks. Even today, only about half the states have rules specifying that the carseats must be installed in the rear: https://saferide4kids.com/car-seat-laws-by-state/ As a fun anecdote, my father grew up prior to the time that most cars even came with fac…

But you're 50. I'm 55, and for the large majority of my life (and presumably smaller than yours) kids were relegated to the back seat.

Maybe state dependent? I’m not yet 40 and recall being excited that I could finally ride up front when I turned 3.

Re: Red Light Green Light

#77

Post by ehnto »

troupe wrote: post #51
aeternum wrote: post #15

Similar things happen surprisingly often in companies. Many intense arguments can be diffused by first being specific about what we agree upon. Just to add to this, one strategy from the rationalist community that I rarely see practiced is to 'taboo' certain words. For example if two engineers are arguing about a solution not being scalable, taboo the word scalable. They both re-explain their POV without using the wo…

> first being specific about what we agree upon. Or even just trying to define the goal you are trying to accomplish. I've seen many disagreements on software projects because people's definition are completely different. The arguments are just a symptom of a deeper problem that no amount of careful discussions are going to fix.

It is very valuable to be able to spot differences in definitions, so you can address them before moving on. If you feel like you are talking past eachother, that might be the issue causing it.

Re: Red Light Green Light

#78

Post by mweatherill »

gmiller123456 wrote: post #66

As a kid my mom ran out of gas several times, and it was always on the same road, which had a gravel shoulder. We'd be riding along, she'd pull off into (what I call "the rocks"), the car would stop and she'd say "we're out of gas". Since the car was moving along fine before pulling off the road, and I had no concept of how cars worked, I made the connection that pulling into "the rocks" caused the car to run out of…

When my daughter was 5 she told me off for driving too fast to school. She was annoyed that whenever I drove fast she would be late for school.

Re: Red Light Green Light

#79

Post by danboarder »

This story highlights the value of putting yourself in the mindset and perspective of the "other" that you disagree with, to see things their way, for your own benefit.

The entire Tim Ferris podcast episode (from which the quoted story was told - https://tim.blog/2021/09/09/sheila-heen/ ) is good, and brought to mind an EconTalk podcast episode that explores how seeing and doing things in the interest of others is many times in one's own best interest in the long run:

https://www.econtalk.org/michael-munger-on-desires-morality-...

Re: Red Light Green Light

#80

Post by lumost »

aeternum wrote: post #15

Similar things happen surprisingly often in companies. Many intense arguments can be diffused by first being specific about what we agree upon. Just to add to this, one strategy from the rationalist community that I rarely see practiced is to 'taboo' certain words. For example if two engineers are arguing about a solution not being scalable, taboo the word scalable. They both re-explain their POV without using the wo…

So often I see engineers get sucked into arguing something based on a buzzword that they either believe the system they are building needs to conform to, they think other people (outside the company) care about, or because it agrees with their pre-conceived design notions.

Nuking words interrupts this, I often ban the words "scalable", "Automated", "platform", and "system". It forces the conversation back to specifics such as "Ability to handle X requests per second supporting Y users", "Process requires x, y, z steps rather than a,b,c steps", "service supports use cases A, B, C"

Post reply on HN