I stopped halfway through this paragraph and just googled Peter Putnam.
If I want an article to take hours to get to the point I'll go read a recipe blog.
I stopped halfway through this paragraph and just googled Peter Putnam.
If I want an article to take hours to get to the point I'll go read a recipe blog.
Wouldn't it have been easier to just keep reading a bit longer?
> If I want an article to take hours to get to the point I'll go read a recipe blog.
I don't appreciate all the extra text in recipe blogs either.
Personally unless I'm reading fiction I don't care for backstory and setting.
Y'all know humans are kinda "made of" stories, right? Stories are the unit layer that we add on top of biological structure. It's not "data"
Imho it is essentially self-loathing of the human condition to valorise raw data and detest linear narrative as much as this crowd seems to do
EDIT: Narrative is the wings, without which data cannot travel through enough of the bell curve of minds. Being anti-story is being anti-democratic is toward authoritarianism. </ hot-take>
Narrative is suasion, not substance.
The storytellers know of no other way to tell the audience what is important, so the medium is the message.
EDIT: and…the trope anticlimactic downvotes seal the drama
But in my defence, I'm in a "punching up" mode here, in the minority sense. I'd probably argue for valorising data more in an arts space.
But something about the current tech world-builders not having respect for narrative makes me frustrated and afraid. How can we ever build things that account for parts of minds and life that we don't respect. (I sense a lack of respect for why and how narrative has been the vehicle of so much human progress and growth)
The short story in your comment, OTOH, is very much better. I can see the scene, my mind has filled in some details, and it took only a couple seconds to read.
We've asked you many times to stop breaking the site guidelines. If you keep doing it, we are going to ban you. This is getting absurd:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43875721 (May 2025)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35535148 (April 2023)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30275888 (Feb 2022)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29212633 (Nov 2021)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26418766 (March 2021)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25563542 (Dec 2020)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22050749 (Jan 2020)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20356769 (July 2019)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20350618 (July 2019)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20054704 (May 2019)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18797087 (Dec 2018)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18114166 (Oct 2018)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18034335 (Sept 2018)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17517586 (July 2018)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14577510 (June 2017)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13970380 (March 2017)
Yes. But your next statement is nonsense.
> They’re the outliers in society who make the rest of our lives easier.
Nothing about Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg made our lives easier. All they've done is made the social contract worse, making our lives harder, not easier. They've given lucrative jobs to a few, but all their market offerings gave the world is distraction and misery, in the case of Facebook, and flashy status symbols to chase, in the case of Tesla. They crowded out the market for competitors, so people can't have truly useful solutions to the problems Zuck and Musk claimed to solve.
Ask yourself why Chinese electric cars would be banned from the US market and you're getting there. Musk bought a social network with the explicit aim of making it worse, and more than succeeded.
Putnam himself would feel perfectly comfortable here.
Your post is a sort of sad admission that your attitude will prevent you from seeing the beauty in everyone.
You do you though. I am sure there is a reason you are this way ;)
It's messy. Anyone who claims one way (myself included) is probably Very Wrong On The Internet
* unless I make a conscious effort to, like when I'm asked to review someone's work
Didn’t seem to captivate OP.
It's much, much (did I say much?) too easy to turn a handful of unpleasant datapoints into an entire theory-of-the-community—almost always one that presents it as somehow depraved or wretched. It's understandable, but it makes for tedious conversation. That's why that guideline is in there.