Merlin's Wisdom Project
github.com
github.com
This is burned in my mind and doesn't anchor enough of my judgement of what to engage with on the internet yet, but I've never yet been steered wrong by it.
EDIT - This is equally applicable to realms outside of the internet. You have to be really right to be remembered as the person who was right about something in your friend group or coworkers. Like, you have to prevent someone from dying levels of correct. Otherwise you're just the person who kept talking about something until everyone gave in. And either way, they'll still remember you as that person who argues about things.
> You have to stop thinking that you're in charge and start thinking that you're having a dance. We used to think we're smart [...] but nobody is smarter than the internet. [...] One of the things we learned pretty early on is 'Don't ever, ever try to lie to the internet - because they will catch you. They will de-construct your spin. They will remember everything you ever say for eternity.'
"It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit"
The “amazing what you can accomplish” quote is about doing things indirectly and without ego — the opposite of pounding on with upfront arguments.
I think this is a bit of an overgeneralization. People also argue because:
- They’re passionate about a given topic
- They’re actually right about a consequential topic and find it worth standing their ground
- Some people just really like to argue about things - not for the payoff, but for the joy of argument itself (see: debate)
I’ve encountered the ego-centric “I just want to get credit for something” types, but I wouldn’t say this is always or even most often the case.
You gain nothing by winning arguments. It's when realize you were wrong and the other side passionately tears apart your argument is when you learn the best.
Most people don't know how to learn from being wrong on the Internet, but for the those who do, they also might have something to gain when I'm right.
I don't know why some people think "the sort of person who argues on the internet" is some kind of low life. There are those who don't dare to argue, there are those who are irrationally afraid of being wrong, there are those who have lost passion for anything worth making a stand, and there are those who overly worry about what others would think of them. These people don't argue on the Internet, and I don't want to be any of those people.
That said, choose your battles. But don't be a coward.
This is probably the most important advice for developers who start a new job, or have to work with existing code. Trying to refactor code or replacing it with a new micro service requires that you understand the old code. If you are not willing or able to take the time to understand it, you do not know enough to replace it.
I have made this mistake several times in the past, but it has taken time for me to learn this lesson. I have complex data flows and error handling and thought I could simplify it or rewrite it as a new service. I would later find out that the old code handled scalability, edge cases or unknown external dependencies that my new code did not. These issues appeared in small "drips" over time, so it was easy to focus on the individual bugs instead of noticing the larger pattern. This led me to believe that the next rewrite would turn out better. The real lesson is that I did not know enough about the existing code and made assumptions that turned out to be incorrect.
Sometimes you need to make changes because the old system has started to "rot", which makes it hard to add new features. Just make sure that it is accidental complexity and not necessary complexity.
For whatever reason, I liked this one. I can't say it is a better collection than others that I have pretty harshly criticized. I can't say it is better written. I can't say I agree with more or less in this list. I just liked this one.
One thing I didnt quite get:
> Every project is a triangle made of time, money, and quality; shortening the length of one side necessarily lengthens one or—more often—both of the other sides.
If I'm assuming the longer a side is, the "more" of it that is required, then the way I understand it is that the "quality" side might need to rather be "inverse quality", such that shortening the quality side length increases quality. As per the original statement, a reduction in quality (shortening the quality length) increases time and/or money, whereas IME when building something out, quality results come at a (time/money) cost. I guess it half makes sense if the perspective is that defering on quality (shortening the line) costs more in the long run (increasing length of the other 2 lines). But then taken from the perspective of the other 2 sides of the triangle: reducing money or time doesnt result in an increase (longer side) of quality... typically the opposite.
So genuine question: did I misunderstand the point?
Things can get done quickly, correctly, or cheaply. Pick two.
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2023/06/th...
I always felt that people giving this advice assume the latter is preferable. Is there something defective about me if I prefer the former?
So the context is the important thing. You probably want to be "right" not "happy" in some circumstances. But in the case of most social activities, attempting to get to "truth" is usually playing the wrong game. You may think you are having a discussion on, say, the causes of the collapse of the Roman Empire. And you may really believe there is a "right" answer and that you have it. But if you are at most parties and socializing with most people, no one is trying to get to the root cause of historical facts.
So it is really an optimization problem. You just have to ask yourself: in this moment, in this context, with these people - are we optimizing for "truth"? Or should I be optimizing for enjoyment/amusement/happiness? This is sometimes referred to as "being on the same wavelength". If you are optimizing for "truth" and everyone else is optimizing for "happiness", you might find yourself optimized out of the equation.
When this happens to me, the "optimizing out" is usually mutual, and when it is unilateral it is as often from my side as theirs.
Kind of the point of "wisdom" though is the judgement to know when it applies and when it doesn't. Being on guard for common cognitive mistakes is a healthy part of self-reflection. It doesn't suggest that at all times and in all moments that you are in breach of some universal moral imperatives.
And so "being on the same wavelength" goes both ways. Although, if you find that you are always requiring others to always be on your wavelength and you are never willing to match theirs, that might be another thing to self-reflect on.
> And so "being on the same wavelength" goes both ways. Although, if you find that you are always requiring others to always be on your wavelength and you are never willing to match theirs, that might be another thing to self-reflect on.
Very true. I'll give an analogy: I really don't like the game Ticket to Ride. If I'm going to a weekly game group I'll sometimes play Ticket to Ride because playing games are a social activity, which requires compromise. However if the group is playing Ticket to Ride a majority of the time, we are all happier if I just find a different gaming group.
This is exponentially more true on the internet. You have trolls who will never admit you're right because they feed off the argument itself. Eventually, as well you will find yourself fighting against someone just like you in a zero sum game that will drive both of you to anger and frustration.
But I could be wrong. :)
The problem is that the issue is phrased too crudely.
I don't want to be ignorantly happy and wrong. My definition of being right implies me being happy or at least at peace with myself.
It may mean disengaging with a pointless discussion, letting somebody wrong have the final say, etc. Because that means I'd made a "right" decision.
The false dichotomy is really unnecessary.
> If you really want a glass of water at a restaurant, always order that first. As you do this, look the server in the eyes and nod.
I don't understand it at all. Is is to make sure you get the water first, and not with the other dishes? Is it to test how the waiter would react, and whether you want to order other things?
Why that weird ritual with the eyes, what is it supposed to mean?
Their feelings are a liar (or at least can be). That's an important difference.
In general, it's now just stuck in my mind as a stand in for any sort of thing. I think there's an XKCD for this sort of thing (and XKCD may be close to being something you have to be over some age to know about). In general, just consider that someone not knowing something is a joyful time to introduce them to something new, instead of scolding or being disappointed they don't understand it.
I think maybe I need to learn to be joyful about also re-introducing things to people who probably knew the thing at somepoint, but have since forgotten. (Generally applies to people older than their mid 30s)
As an "old guy" with a literal gray beard, I think it's really important to remember to be joyful when explaining things.
Sometimes my computer experience is more than twice the life experience of someone I'm explaining something to ( in years at least :^D )
Honestly, the harder ones are when I'm explaining something to someone in the 40s (or older) who it seems "should have known" something, but for some reason either forgot it or never bumped in to it in the frist place. I often make the wrong assumption that they should've known it, when really, that's just a personal bias based on my own experiences.
Thank you for this reminder to be joyful!
It's like a name that seems sorta familiar but dunno if it just sounds like someone else from tech or something.
Interesting a quick HN search shows a bunch of shares posts that got any traction but they're all like 14-15 years ago?
Was Merlin Mann more of a thing a decade+ ago?
I'm not out of the loop here generally... I just now realized I hadn't heard the name in a good while. Of course back in a certain era of blogging and stuff mid-00s now it's coming back but shrug!
Slightly larger than what? From my experience of wearing larger shoes because they initially seemed more comfortable in the shoe store, that seems like bad advice.
Thanks !