Hacker News Reader

Comment by ptero | Hacker News Reader

> But I wouldn't generalize my case nor should you generalize yours.

The way I read statements that you replied to is with a silent prefix "based on the experience of folks I work/talk with". If one disagrees (i.e., sees different views prevalent), chime in and say so. There must be a way to express opinions that are between "that's my personal view" and "statistically significant, peer reviewed validation at this link".

As a personal data point, I see the same thing (around me) as the parent: opinions of Google tanked. 10 years ago an employee leaving for Google would be discussed with "wow" and "best of luck" feeling, while today it is mostly "well, at least he will be well paid" and " I am not yet ready to sell my soul". Just my 2c.

View on HN

I want to jump in to underline your point in a couple of ways. One has to be able to make by-and-large generalizations from experiences and guesstimations. We should already know when we read that kind of thing that by-and-large means there are going to be one-off exceptions. So we don't need to hear about those exceptions unless they're intended to dispute the bigger point.

Every time I hear the contrarian anecdote in the form of: "well, I personally don't include myself in that generalization" my first question is whether that's intended merely as a report of a one-off experience, or if it's intended to be treated as evidence in favor of a different generalization. Virtually every time I see this type of Contrarian Comment, it's mute on this most important question and just confuses everybody.

But secondly I think the assessment of Google's reputation going negative is, by and large, a valid one. Though I might say the seeds of that started with the closure of Google Reader and the turn away from supporting RSS, which signaled turning away from open protocols more generally.

That's exactly how you have to read things to take posts in good faith, which is one of the few rules 'round these parts.

Similarly, I'm trying to eliminate the "I think" prefix from writing. It shouldn't be necessary to write "I think Google is evil". Of course the writer thinks that. They wouldn't have written it if they didn't. They can very safely just write "Google is evil".

I was more concerned about his usage of 'the tech people' terms.

Like you, I think when someone saying 'Google is evil' he implies 'I think Google is evil'.

But someone saying 'back then Google was still admired by the tech people" or "Losing our support" is more ambiguous. Like if all 'tech people' or a majority of them think like him which or he represents the majority.

tl;dr: I'm fine with him saying 'Google is evil' but not with him saying 'the tech people think Google is evil'.

Yes, the implicit "I think" still applies. "I think the tech people think Google is evil".

I don't know how to say this lightly, but taking personal affront to statements of opinion is not a sign of the insult of the opinion of the speaker, but a sign of the insecurity the listener has in their own opinions.

In other words, relax.

If I write "I think Google is evil", I mean: "I think Google is evil, but I acknowledge that it's possible for other fairly reasonable people to have a different opinion."

If I write "Google is evil", I mean: "I think Google is evil, and I consider this an established fact that reasonable people shouldn't be disputing."

These are different propositions, and I might want to say either of them.

A policy of not using qualifiers like "I think" because of-course-it's-my-opinion makes it harder to make that distinction. I don't think the advantage of punchier prose is worth that loss.

(Note the "I don't think" at the end; other people might reasonably see the tradeoffs differently. Note the absence of "I think" elsewhere; I don't see much doubt that there is such a tradeoff being made.)

A reasonable lesson should already think it's possible for other reasonable people to hold different opinions, and not feel threatened by them. It's only in this bullshit really of the internet that we decided to start interpreting the things other people say as "potential facts in need of disputing" rather than just "the utterances of peers". The former mode implies a level of deference that we don't take on in public, face-to-face conversations.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com