Hacker News Reader

Comment by JumpCrisscross | Hacker News Reader

Minor quibble: i.e. stands for id est, or “that is.” It’s a re-statement or clarification. Exempli gratia (e.g.) means for example. In the diagramme, every i.e. should be an e.g.. Put another way, if you can’t put an et cetera at the end, it’s an i.e..

Wouldn’t ordinarily rise to the level of commenting. But it’s an Andreessen post, and so I’m perhaps primed for the purpose being promotion versus informing.

View on HN

i always remember the difference by thinking, "(eg)sample" and "(i)n (e)other words"

When I am about to write an i.e. I always think: why not explain it like what I am about to write in the first place? Then drop the i.e.

i.e.:

    A i.e. B
    ———————-
    B

(yes yes!)

there is a literary device where you say important things twice, once accurately by description and then again by example, it helps folks orient and synthesize the idea

« By exemple » is the role of e.g. :)

I argue that the examples--preferably more than one--should always precede the idea, principle, or definition. A fitting audience, then, will arrive at/or could smell the actual idea themselves, before it's presented.

(It's also my plea to mathematicians/academics: please, give us more examples before you hit us with your formula-heavy artillery).

it takes more than one instance to infer the set!

Right, it’s much more difficult to generalize than to specialize.

That really depends on the audience. On this topic there are broadly-speaking two types of people: those who want the conclusion first and the details later ("managers", if you will), and those who want the details first and the conclusion later ("investigators", perhaps). Knowing which class your audience falls into is incredibly valuable.

I've seen this described as a pyramid. The first group wants to see the precipice first and work their way down to the foundation. The second group doesn't want to look at any stone before understanding what it's resting on.

"Pyramid principle"

https://www.amazon.com/Pyramid-Principle-Logic-Writing-Think...

https://jeffkavanaugh.net/pyramid-principle-craft-coherent-e...

It’s quite telling that not even one of the world’s top companies, dedicated to communication, has command over the English language anymore…

> one of the world’s top companies, dedicated to communication

Is there another Andreessen Horowitz that I don't know about? Because otherwise a $35B fund that invests in tech startups is very far from that description.

I suspect the OP might be alluding to the fact that a16z is basically a content machine, that happens to also invest. Their content (or more charitably: their highly visible external communication) is a large part of what launched them onto the scene so quickly and had them in consideration as a top tier firm despite having no track record as a fund (GPs reputation as founders notwithstanding)

> content (or more charitably: their highly visible external communication) is a large part of what launched them onto the scene so quickly and had them in consideration as a top tier firm

The VC predates the blog. It used to be a serious name, being an early backer of Twitter and Y Combinator. It started to go dogshit about ten years ago and criminal after 2019. They remain a fundraising powerhouse. Though the market seems to be noticing their flagging performance, with secondary funds trading at strong double-digit discounts to NAV.

> It started to go dogshit about ten years ago

They've only been around 13 years.

I don't think he stuttered.

It's a bit unfair to say they peaked 10 years ago... At least they don't superficially appear to be any less competent.

Isn’t it Latin?

If Andreesen-Horowitz disappeared overnight, would it really make any difference? The capital would flow through other companies. What has it actually contributed that only it could do? Are you sure its prominence is really any different from that of, say, the Kardashians? I.e. a socially driven expression of a power law?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com