Hacker News Reader

Comment by jklinger410 | Hacker News Reader

There's so much passive-aggressive quipping in this article it makes me feel like it must be terrible to work for WIRED. I mean, the last office I worked in was kind of the same way...

Is every office like that?

//edit

Okay, now I'm just creeped out?

>A coworker in San Francisco is logging into her, which normally would upset me, but I’m so nervous I don’t care that another being enters her.

Half of this article is this woman seriously personifying her "robot" (robot or ipad on wheels?). Creepy.

View on HN

Anthropomorphizing inanimate things is a very human thing to do -- I can imagine that goes double when the thing is tied to your presence in a space -- like someone rearranging the paintings in your house.

I don't see either the author or the coworkers in this story as passive-aggressive, but rather familial -- people who were comfortable with a level of joking and camaraderie that allowed this sorts of comments to be understood as non-serious.

Don't anthropomorphize inanimate objects - they hate that.

    > Half of this article is this woman seriously
    > personifying her "robot" (robot or ipad on wheels?)

That's ... sort of the point of the article. The attachment the woman finds herself feeling to it and her identification with it. The last line of the article pretty much hits that home.

Next up: "What's up with Blade Runner? Half the film is about androids?!"

Half of this article is this woman seriously personifying her "robot"

Correct, because it is her eyes and ears in her workplace, and she sees and talks through it every weekday. I find an exploration of what that means to a person to be absolutely fascinating, I'm really not sure what's creepy about it.

Personifying inanimate objects is usually either a metaphor or signifies something unsettling. This article borders on the latter of those two.

Sorry, that was just the way I took it.

Between the passive aggressiveness

>Sam cuts me off. “Em,” she says, “can you control the volume? You’re very loud.”

>“I am?” I ask.

>“YES,” the entire bullpen yells.

And then the obsessive literalness of the personification of the ipad this was a weird read for me.

Why is that passive aggressive? Because she asks "I am?" instead of just adjusting the volume?

The entire bullpen yelling YES as if an loud ipad is disturbing their sanity.

You know what though? I'm just expressing how the article made me feel. As a reader that's my right. You obviously don't agree with me so let's leave it at that.

Shit man, I just genuinely didn't understand. I haven't even read the article. I would probably call the yelling straightforward aggressiveness, but I'll agree that it's childish, overblown, and reactionary.

It's an advert. I wouldn't look too deep into it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com