Hacker News Reader

I think you have to qualify that blanket statement and give your definition of "merit".

I think you wanting them to define merit may prove their point. Who defines what merit is? Merit, depending on time and place, has been as arbitrary as your level of attractiveness, wealth, religious conviction, political conviction, etc. Merit means something different to many different people.

Most things in life require some sort of technique or procedure which can be done poorly or can be done more well (less wastefully?)

These can be objective metrics. They can be measuring pretty much anything you want, and you usually find a way to get better at it.

I think finding the right things to measure is the most challenging part, almost because of the fact that you can usually 'game the system'.

But to deny merit completely or find it in contempt is in my unearned opinion, a fear response in denial of the massive amount of skill a small but influential number of people develop in all sorts of endeavors.

It can be seen as an appeal to fairness and it can be seen as a distinct set of KPI that can measure the value of your efforts. You picked the latter one.

Merit != Meritocracy

Reply on news.ycombinator.com