dimino

Everyone has a price tag, silly to pretend otherwise.

There's a certain old-guard zealotry that's a common thread on HN, amplified by the echo chamber.

Can't wait until it dies off.

So like, what is the counterargument? Google keeps projects alive that drain resources for longer?

I guess I don't understand what people want here.

I think of it in terms of energy gaining/draining, but I meant more from the "big 5" test perspective, as well as the other groups of personality tests you can take like DISC and Meters-Briggs.

In general I'm fairly skeptical of personality tests, beyond just intro/extro version, for the similar reason that a) I can test vastly different based on my mood and b) people tend to tie their self image to the results and you end up with a tail-wagging-dog situation.

I tend to be a bit skeptical when studies are based on extroversion and introversion, if only because I can test on all parts of the spectrum depending on my mood.

I think people shackle their identity to their *version, and it can be limiting.

You could tell your coworker (or your direct report if we're taking this analogy seriously) to clean up his work area. A child's room isn't a completely private space, and it's where they do their "work" (getting dressed, homework, play time, etc.).

Okay but you're flying into DCA, not BWI or IAD, and from there it's a ~15 minute metro into the heart of the city.

Agree with you on the other points, though.

Hey, it might be a bug that a "real" user could encounter, if you need any kind of motivation to actually look into it!

Bringing the database back up with a fix does improve your customer experience, however!

The example of the child being asked to clean his room reminds me a great deal of a bad engineer being asked to clean up his code.

A) I've been on HN for 10 years, I'm not "coming from" or "struggling to adjust" anywhere and B) I didn't mean "other message boards" I meant literally every other community I belong to, both professionally and personally. Online and offline.

HN isn't special, dang is the problem, specifically dang. He needs to go. If he goes, I can thrive just fine. During the times he leaves me alone I thrive in here. When he attacks me, that's when I struggle.

This addiction to HN being a special place is complete and utter nonsense, and if that's the koolaid you're drinking, we have little to say to one another.

Advice is good, I don't want to seem like I'm critical of the post or anything, I just thought it's worth pointing out the differences in goals of the folks who tend to give the most popular startup advice from your specific situation.

That difference might help explain why there might be a perceived gap in what's here vs. what's on pg's blog, for example.

It seems like startup advice is based on the repeatable observations that people who've worked with a lot of startups have discovered. That means there are a bunch of situations that don't get covered because they don't come up a lot.

When playing an odds game like startups, you want to do all the maximally viable things possible, but that doesn't mean other decisions aren't also viable, they're just not observed to be as successful, so they're not mentioned. Doesn't mean they won't work.

There's also opportunity cost. What could this team have done if they were working on something more... disruptive? The execution here is incredible, applying that to a new problem would have probably also done very well.

It's not a personal attack, it's my opinion. I've worked with people who think that way, and I'd prefer if they didn't exist in the industry. How would you prefer I shape that comment so it's not crossing some magical line?

I am aware, generally, how things are. My complaining here is not confusion, it's frustration. I know I can change my behavior to elicit a better response, but I'm frustrated that it's relevant. People should have thicker skin, and when people dish it out (as what was going on here), I should be allowed to give it back. Dang's not commenting on anyone else's posts here, though there were many other rule violators.

It's an unfair application of the rules.

Edit: This post is 0 minutes old, how does it have a downvote already? This is the shit I'm talking about...

You've completely misunderstood my goals in talking to you. This is a public forum, and I'm making a case for why I think the people who read what I write should believe what I'm arguing. This isn't about you, or me, it's about convincing others that the viewpoint I hold is a valid one.

Your opinion of me, your ability to help/not help me, and all the other interpersonal things you're bringing into this are just your baggage. I thought you wrote a great article that had a few specific passages I felt dang should in particular read, and I called that out publicly. If that's "thread shitting", I think maybe you need to re-evaluate the kind of personal relationship you have with people who read your writing.

I think your edit here is an emotional one, and I'm not really going to address it further beyond pointing out in the very comment you're replying to I take some responsibility for my role in how I'm treated here.