It's the daily hate on google thread. It doesn't really matter what specifically google is or isn't doing you'll see the same litany of complaints repeated over and over. HN has become painful in that regard.
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.
Out of curiosity, how are you defining the two? I ask because a lot of people tend to define them at "enjoys interactions with (larger numbers of) people" vs "does not enjoy interactions with (larger numbers of) people". The definition I like is that an extrovert gains (emotional) energy from interacting with people, while for an introvert those same interactions are draining. Both can enjoy the interactions, it's just a matter of how long they can sustain it.
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.
This is generally a problem. We put people into these large categories like “liberal/conservative” or “introvert/extrovert” and then expect that to neatly explain a whole range of behaviors and preferences. In reality people rarely fall completely into these categories.
I'd almost compare it to gender. Yes there's a spectrum, but the outer areas are very lumpy. In the case of sensitivity to office noise, the only aspect I see as intersecting with extro/intro traits would be chitchat. Everything else seems like it would come down to distractibility level, which I don't think is tied to those traits at all.
I'm just glad so many managers are cool with responsible use of headphones & noise cancellation approaches these days. Certain tasks simply require more focus.
I think there are many factors that should be controlled for in these evaluations. I know for me getting enough sleep and being in good health make a big difference in how sensitive I am to environmental distractions.
A lot of people who label themselves introverts have sensory processing sensitivities. If you measure sensory overload you're going to find 'introverts'.
"His room" and "his code" is not comparable in the context. "His code" is part of a business's product and can impact the livelihood of many people involved in the product including customers.
"His room" is a private space that doesn't affect other people. I don't tell my co-worker to clean up his side-project on github.
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.).
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.
I’m definitely not trying to peddle advice, I was just approached about my story. I think there are tons of micro niche things like this that can be built to earn a living (I have a list of 5 I’d build on top of just Stripe if I had the time). Large companies can’t do everything, and I think Stripe owns that. Not to mention, they still get all their same fees and don’t have to maintain the app.
I fully agree with this sentiment. I myself piggy-backed my product (or rather: feature) on a much langer company which was growing like crazy and have been able to grow it to a comfortable $40.000 per month over the last 6 years. It’s just me doing the bulk of the work with 2 friends helping out to handle 1st level support.
Now that it is a mature product and as long as the company I depend upon does not overhaul their API, it’s really just a 10hr/week job, affording me more freedom than is good for me.
I’d say there are loads of opportunities like this out there, especially in places developers do not want to go because they are not deemed cutting-edge or fun.
This is EXACTLY what I did, and I agree there are soooo many opportunities like this. I think most people are risk averse to it as they think the API might get shut off, but I look at it as a really quick way to build something. If it gets cut off, on to the next.
I'm not so sure the issue is risk aversion, so much as it is not seeing those opportunities whether because they're unable to see opportunities in the work that they're doing to take advantage of... or they're just not around environments where opportunities like this might exist; or a combination of both.
> I’d say there are loads of opportunities like this out there, especially in places developers do not want to go because they are not deemed cutting-edge or fun.
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.
> 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.
My latest working hypothesis after 28 years of starting companies is that there is "no startup free lunch" and the size and likelihood of return are inversely correlated.
We see so much startup p0rn. I remember in my early 20's seeing a founder in a business magazine and thinking "I'm smarter and harder working, so I'm gonna be a multi-millionaire by 25". I have a number of friends who have built unicorns. I have a number of equally talented friends working equally hard with (to me) equally plausible ideas who have struck out - often multiple times.
Right now I've got a small business - $500k run rate, built it part time, no staff. My goal is to get it to a $2-$5M run rate and take some cash out each year to fund early retirement in a decade. It's not sexy, but I believe the likelihood of me being able to achieve that is higher than the likelihood of being able to successfully create, exit and profit from a unicorn. And at 49 I have only so many hits at bat left given that most of them seem to take 5-10 years.
I think faking growth until you achieve actual growth is the time-honored tradition of social media websites, and can flip a failure into a success by getting people to feel that, "Am I missing out?" feeling again.
I don't think WT:Social is doing that right now though, so not sure what their plan is to combat what you're talking about.
I can tell you, from experience in this very thread, it feels about as shitty. :/
It's marginalization, fundamentally. A very small group of people (or a single person) decides to use their power to silence you, tell you how wrong you are, and tie your hands behind your proverbial back so you can't defend yourself.
Dang supports it, and others join in. I can't tell you how many times I'll be browsing HN and see my score drop from one page load to the next by exactly as many points as I have comments in my history that can be downvoted. Or how many times a comment of mine gets flagged for reasons that have nothing to do with the HN guidelines.
This forum is broken, and is in dire need of disruption.
I read through a few of your posts on your other account.
In this case am I right to say you feel you are the recipient of unfair abuse?
More so then single individual downvotes can be expected?
When this happens you feel your opinions aren't respected and valued?
I feel shitty when that happens too. I've avoided commenting on controversial threads as a result.
I think the problem is what you're saying is lost in your tone (it also appears to be happening in this post too).
People don't like hearing dissent, or people who disagree with them. My tone is a reaction to the hostility I'm experiencing as a result of that friction.
Most forums have some kind of backstop that prevents the vindictive from causing too much harm. This forum has a vindictive moderator. He needs to go.
It must be frustrating to feel like you're being singled out. More so when you feel hostility from individuals who disagree with you. It can feel very personal, when someone is attacking you and your ideas. Especially when you Know you have a point and it feels like you aren't being heard.
I've spent a lot of time trying to deal with this conflict & trying to be heard and understood. Part of the trick is not taking things too personally, not Making things personal or directing them at an Individual, and instead continuously focusing on the topic at hand. If things devolve to personal attacks of Any sort, I disengage or try to re-focus. My goal is to be heard and understood, and that doesn't happen when the argument devolves to a personal level.
It's hard not to react, but sometimes not reacting & taking the high road is the most productive way forward.
Do you have any insight into why this might be happening? I had a look at your post history and noticed you've posted relatively little this year since a large gap from 2016.
I generally have a lot of respect for HN mods, it's never an easy job.
This happens because one has somehow irked a person who is petty and vindictive and has nothing better to do than click through your profile and downvote every comment they can.
I don't fully understand the mindset that would do this, but it certainly happens.
I usually post from diminoten, but moved to this account to try and figure out why I was getting downvoted instantly nearly every time I commented, and why I was losing the same karma as votable posts that I had in the span of seconds sometimes.
HN is not built to handle dissent. Privileges are based on votes, there are minimal to no vote protection tools in place, the guidelines are used as cudgels to beat people who disagree with the popular view, and the moderator (there's more or less only one, dang) prefers to smokescreen and gaslight anyone he doesn't like with generic comments that don't follow the very guidelines he's trying to enforce. Just look at his comment history; it's full of "This doesn't follow guidelines" without any elaboration, and when he does elaborate, it's an incredibly cynical and not-generous interpretation of the comment he's saying isn't acceptable, which is itself a violation of the HN guidelines, specifically the one about addressing the best form of an argument.
Most of the problem is the fact that dang is the primary active moderator on HN. If others were to take over, and he were to be removed or retire, HN would become substantially better, possibly overnight.
Dang needs to be removed for this site to grow and improve. People think HN is growing; it is not. The quality people who used to post here are more or less gone, and HN isn't attracting new quality posters to fill their shoes, precisely because dang moderates very poorly, which pushes away prospective high value posters.
The reality is, it's high time for a replacement to HN.
This is just an FYI that you can take under advisement if you so choose:
Part of the reason you are getting so very much negative attention in this specific discussion is because your comment complaining about the very site you are posting on was the very first comment posted.
This actively interferes with constructive discussion of the article posted as everyone replies to you and your personal complaints instead of engaging with the content of the article. (The term for it is thread shitting. As the author of the piece, I wasn't real happy to see it.)
You also keep focusing on the negative and on points of disagreement and will not drop it.
I'm sympathetic to your frustration, but there are pieces of this that only you can change. I'm aware you are likely to feel I'm "blaming the victim" rather than trying to empower you. My personal default is to wonder what I can do differently on my end to get better outcomes because I'm typically the piece of the equation I have the most control over, regardless of "who is to blame." I'm generally satisfied with that approach.
Last, I will note that my advice to not automatically assume that this one person is behaving badly doesn't translate to "there is no point at which a mod should ever hold an individual accountable for their piece of the puzzle."
That doesn't work. You don't get a free pass for your behavior for all eternity because you're -- for example -- a woman posting in an overwhelmingly male space.
If I thought being a woman posting on HN meant I can do anything at all that I feel like doing and then blame negative reactions on sexism, I would have been banned ages ago -- and rightly so. Saying that it's not okay for the entire group to behave badly towards one individual and then blame their victim for their own choices absolutely doesn't mean the needs of one individual should trump the needs of the entire community. A moderator's job is to find ways to try to serve both needs at the same time, which is a balancing act.
Please note that I waited to say anything to you until after the piece dropped off the front page in hopes of having fewer eyes on my comment, among other things. I thought about various possible tactics and concluded that replying late was probably the least worst option available to me.
Dang doesn't understand any of what you said, and makes zero attempt at improving, neither himself nor the site at large.
I am certainly not guiltless, but consider the fact that I have none of these problems anywhere else I interact with others. Why is it just on HN that I run into these struggles? I am in lots of communities through my daily interactions, and I successfully navigate those, so what's special about HN, other than dang and the site's mechanics?
This place cannot handle dissent. That's literally the definition of a toxic environment, and dang does nothing to create safety for people who might not agree with the mainstream view. That's on him.
>> Why is it just on HN that I run into these struggles
It's because HN is, actually, a very unique internet message board. It is
unique in that it takes its own guidelines very seriously and enforces them
very actively. Compared to every single other internet message board I've been
on (and I've been around the block a few times, like they say) flamewars are
prevented effectively and personal attacks are simply not tolerated.
For me, that's what keeps me combing back for more. HN is, well, a safe place,
where I can disagree with others, very strongly, without risking that a thread
will degenerate into put-downs and name-calling. This is in stark contrast to
other message boards where there seems to be a genuine belief that "winning" a
thread is some kind of achievement worthy of praise and self-respect.
So to be honest, if you're struggling to adjust to HN but you're feeling fine
on other message boards then I'm inclined to believe that, on the balance of
probabilities, it's because you bring with you behaviours and ways of
communicating that you've learned on other message boards that are
incompatible with HN, and that you are unwilling to change.
P.S. :%s/combing back/coming back/g. But it's a funny one, so I'm leaving it
like that.
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.
I've been banned on most forums I've frequented for attracting the petty ire of moderators (these are usually low-status, unpaid volunteers starved for power and meaning). I'm opinionated and provocative, but I always honor the spirit of the law wherever I choose to be, and dang seems to appreciate that despite probably not liking me as a person. For that I say he's an exceptionally good moderator, but there is certainly a demographic problem on HN that I expect is unfixable and outside management's control.
edit: I just looked briefly at the recent threads in your comment history and had to laugh at "I'm afraid I don't really follow what you've written here." And I see your reply here is flagged-and-killed. I continue to not deny any of your complaints specifically.
A. I'm a fan of both how HN works and the moderating staff. (I don't wear that on my sleeve more for reasons covered in the post under discussion: Public praise frequently goes weird places.) So I'm absolutely not sympathetic to your conclusion here.
B. If you think it's absolutely not you and dang and HN are simply broken because everyone else likes you just fine, the logical solution is to just leave. I've basically done that numerous times over the years -- left a forum that just didn't work for me personally -- and I've generally not been all blamey about it. In most cases, I leave quietly and don't run around trash talking them afterwards. I don't expect every single forum to be a good fit for me personally.
C. If you decide you value something about HN enough to keep coming back in spite of the problems you are experiencing, there are some best practices for trying to make that work. Here are a few:
1. Try to understand why other people do what they do in a sympathetic manner. This includes dang.
2. Try to focus on what you can do differently more than on what you wish others would do differently.
3. Try to put some of your negative feelings down and stop making your baggage about the site a large part of your focus when engaging in discussion here. It just keeps the problem alive unnecessarily.
D. I don't really care to engage you further here. I decided replying late was the least worst answer in part because not replying at all can come across as "giving someone the cold shoulder" and can add to their problems, if only inadvertently.
But the bane of my personal existence is people who latch onto me personally and act like they think I'm personally required to meet their emotional needs, magically fix their problem that I have no power to fix, be endlessly kind to them while they are ugly to me and so forth. Choosing to respond in hopes that it might help you does not make me personally responsible for your feelings and your problems for all eternity.
Edit: in the interest of avoiding temptation to reply to you again, please note that my introduction to you was you thread shitting my post which is an article I personally wrote. Yet you clearly seem to think you never do anything wrong and it's everyone else here and also seem to think I should care greatly about your feelings and your needs and your problems while you care absolutely not at all about mine.
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.
