Yesterday's post where the indie hacker was making 45k a month is a good example. So many comments deriding his businesses, his revenue, or suggesting he was lying (???).
Have things changed or do I remember the past with rosy glasses?
Anything that expresses a non-mainstream opinion might hit the initial downvote limit, but recover over time if it turns out to have some merit. (My fascination with capability based security falls into this niche)
Something non-obvious, but informative, tends to get a bit of upvoting.
The rare really good point that builds discussions... those get rewarded richly.
So, the moderation system, as near as I can tell, works as intended. The feedback cycle takes a while to train us for better behavior, but it seems to work.
You do have to weigh all of the above, against the factors that overcome inertia, and lead to someone posting.
Most people reading are likely to see something expressed at least as good as they would, and thus just lurk.
It's only when you've got a nit to pick, or an interesting tangent, or need to self-promote, that people tend to post. These are the forces always pushing against moderation.
Now, it's the most lucrative industry in the world, attracting lots of grifters and Wall St. types whose only concern is making a lot of money, and the dystopian downsides of technology have become ever more apparent.
Some people are jaded from how bright the future looked to how it's looking now.
You come to realize that this is just software in general. The default mode of a software project from its inception is failure. The amount of intense effort and dedication it takes to steer that outcome towards success is so monumental, that you stop caring at all about "ideas" until they have been materialized.
> 1. For a Linux user, you can already build such a system yourself quite trivially by getting an FTP account, mounting it locally with curlftpfs, and then using SVN or CVS on the mounted filesystem. From Windows or Mac, this FTP account could be accessed through built-in software.
That said, right now the industry is going through some turmoil. We're coming off the high of low interest rates, and it's turning into a mighty hangover. Plus, we're trying to automate ourselves away with AI, and (working in) tech just isn't fun with Scrum/Agile/Meetings/Sprints/Bluh.
It's a hobbyhorse but I'm on a mission about this:
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
But the tone ebbs and flows over time, too. Eventually the community moderation gets the point across via downvoting pointless or rude snark and flagging people who are outright toxic, and we get back to the norm.
Give it time.
In the past part of that perception has been a difference in social standards, I think. Here we get people who can be enthusiastically adoring of an idea and doing their best to offer their ideas to improve it: and others (including the person they're trying to communicate with) may take it as unalloyed negative criticism.
Part of is may be the twitter September people too. Its always the n00bs, after all. Everything was so much better before they showed up.
It's much more profitable for your average joe to adopt a cynical 'lie flat' attitude and then not show up until someone pays you.
Broken promises does this to people. The traditional structures don't have this problem, militaries can turn the majority of joes into soldiers.
It's regular society that has fostered the environment where malaise is comfortable and profit is meaningless. The wind has been sucked out of the country into code, and you get energy deficits in the populace. Who made programmers the jailer of their own soul? Who made men subservient to machines?
Call me cynical, but I think the original topic is almost inevitable in a long-running and/or large venue. The feeling that a venue lacks this part of the human experience is itself fleeting and illusory. I think it's something vaguely like the birthday paradox in a population.
Sometimes it is laziness. Sometimes it is just ego. But too often we will spend more effort on attacking a bad idea than in promoting a good one. This is not to say that much of the criticism isn't deserved. There are plenty of horrendous ideas floating around out there. But if we ignore them and spend our efforts on the good ones, then the cream will rise to the top faster.
A lesson I learned from raising kids - try to say two positive things for every corrective action you take. It will not only improve the world around you, but it will be good for your own well being.
Starting a comment with 'No.' is a sure-fire sign of this. As is seeking to never be wrong driving a long comment train where OP seeks to assure others they're both never wrong while also modest. This is especially bad when trying to limit self-perceived reputation damage when using their real name as a handle - isn't HN privacy-centric now? Should we not all the throwaway or anonymous cowards? Let the content matter, not the ego.
As HN's popularity has increased, especially with that have never compiled Slackware while walking up a hill backwards, in a blizzard, carrying a tree, so have the numbers of people starting spewing combative comments. Usenet never had flamewars, and frankly if I were to launch my GUI for rsync anywhere, it'd be there.
In terms of sentiment analysis of a 10 year window, I have yet to see someone try and attempt that. It would be a good exercise and would be concrete proof that comments have devolved to a sort of Reddit-esque commenting style.
If you're communicating to be understood, principle #1 is "consider your audience, their backgrounds, interests and preferences".
You imply that being cynical has become "the norm," but there's always more friction involved in being cynical. Happy bullshitters never get in trouble.
I vehemently disagree with every thought presented in this comment.
These sentiments seem to come from a very jaded space. To think that the only people who are not cynical / angry are those that are avoiding the "real problems" (in what/ whose definition?).
In my experience, the happiest people are those who have acknowledged these problems. If they have the opportunity (and power) to act on resolutions they do so and if not, they came to peace with that reality. It certainly is possible to process the same things as you and engage with these so called real problems without turning into a cynic.
Perhaps these "happy bullshitters" are more adept at acknowledging these problems and their ability to act on it.
That's not my point. I am saying that in a business environment, when there's one person in a group that is pissed, disagreeing, or somehow pissing on the happy-go-lucky parade, that person is usually right. Why? Beause pissing on the parade is always more risky and difficult than taking the path of least resistance (which is just shutting up and accepting the status quo.) So, they wouldn't be doing it unless they really had to.
>So, they wouldn't be doing it unless they really had to.
I can think of a handful of reasons why they may do so.
Being a contrarian is not hard. It certainly does not mean that the person being a contrarian is right (or right to do so, especially if the methods is being an insufferable colleague).
It feels like you are being smart and critical but blindly rejecting and doubting everything is no different from blindly accepting or believing everything. Instead of observing each new idea and evaluating it on its merits, you've already determined what your response will be. It's a biased filter on everything you see.
We should aim to be openminded but also willing to reject things that don't make sense (looking at you, NFT bros)
I don't know enough about your world view or anything, but you don't sound like a cynic.
Read more here: https://www.cjr.org/language_corner/skepticism-cynicism.php
Yet, I know I will continue to do these things.
Cynicism is more of a general attitude toward other people -- being distrustful of everyone's motives and assuming they are motivated solely by greed and self-interest. Granted, sometimes people's motives are truly bad. But again, I think the vast majority of cynicism is toxic and poisons our ability to see the good in people. Most people believe that they are doing the right thing. What we really need is to look at the systems and incentives that cause them to behave the way that they do.
I'd going to put my foot forward and work in removing every concept in my life that causes grief or cynicism.
The truth is seeing grief and cynicism for what they are, and stepping away from them.
The 'other way' is a step backwards.
The people wasting their lives at megacorps, were they to quit and follow their dreams, would overwhelmingly be worse off objectively (one can debate whether they are richer in spirit).
I think that they've all confronted the fact that they are unwilling to risk a great deal at a small chance of success. I applaud those that risk like this and win, as well as those that fail. But let's not pretend that greatness is guaranteed by hard work or intelligence.
If I am a successful entrepreneur, it is likely I have been lucky. But the luck factor is less than a trust funder, born to rich parents. Or someone who won the lottery. And the lottery winner is less lucky than someone who didn’t buy a lotto ticket but won publishers clearinghouse (ie they had to at least buy the ticket)
The worlds rewards depend heavily on luck, but all too often I see things decried as “lucky” when that was only one piece of the equation. If we reduce luck to a binary, we may as well just do nothing and wait for good fortune.