Hacker News Reader

Comment by stcredzero | Hacker News Reader

> There are three salient Boyerisms I’ve picked up in my month as an NP-Rapper that sum up these differences...On our team, these Boyerisms aren’t just preached — they’re practiced and implemented in code.

Summary: Go ahead and toss off an unusual term or slang, but don't expect it to actually inform readers if they can't Google it. If you aren't trying to inform readers, exactly what are you trying to do?

I found the unexplained use of the word "Boyerism" in this article to be confusing and unprofessional. I have nothing against the use of slang, or the expectation that readers will need to Google terms: this is the reality of our culture in the age of the Internet and excellent search. However, the casual and unexplained use of a private group's inside joke reveals a lack of awareness of how search interacts with culture. Is it a deliberate attempt to confuse and snub the larger audience, or is in unintentional?

View on HN

Your "..." deleted three paragraphs explaining the "Boyerisms" in detail. As someone who doesn't know the term, I substituted "principles" without (I assume) any loss of understanding. But, since you're upset on my behalf, what did I miss?

I can attest that it's unintentional. We roll pretty informally. And, frankly, we're pleased that anyone outside of the small (and insular) news apps community is reading about our setup.

> We roll pretty informally. And, frankly, we're pleased that anyone outside of the small (and insular) news apps community is reading about our setup.

If only there was this network kind of thing that people all over the world could use to find and read such text...

> We roll pretty informally.

Between the swearing, and the grossly informal dialog when explaining what should be rational and defensible technical choices:

1) I can tell.

2) It doesn't reflect [well on] NPR.

How does it not reflect well on NPR? I'm reading an employee's frank and open (both appreciated) blog post, am I supposed to feel put off because it says "shitty" in it?

> How does it not reflect well on NPR?

NPR advertises itself as "news & analysis", and in my experience, excels at both. A key component of "analysis" is the rational study, explanation, and discussion around (often complex and nuanced) topics.

There are few topics as complex as that of software engineering, and it also warrants due consideration and analysis.

To see engineers describing their emotive appeals as "how they roll" does not lead me to believe that NPR's hiring in their engineering department is on par with their hiring in the editorial department.

As such, it reflects badly on their engineering department, and there is a strong implication that this is not somewhere that a studious engineer would choose to work.

Contrast with the posts from Netflix on their architecture. Those posts are not unduly formal, but they provide logical, reasoned arguments, sufficient background as to judge their claims and conjecture, and demonstrate not only their own technical and engineering capacity, but their respect for the technical capacity of their reader.

Oh good grief.

It's incredibly appropriate that this appeal to manners and social mores would be posted by someone calling themselves, "pifflesnort."

It's an appeal to rational (rather than emotive) discourse, not arbitrary manners or social mores.

The prioritization of rationality over emotion (such as you use it) is a function of one's social framework, and the history of imposing the trappings of such onto others is pretty much the history of aristocracy.

That's an interesting rhetorical tack, but rationality over emotion is also pretty much the history of science, which is also closely tied with the history of aristocracy.

Fortunately for all involved, we don't need to rope aristocracy or philosophy into the argument to provide some level of understanding of the qualitative nature of engineering, be it physical or digital. Instead, we have algorithms, maths/logic, and real measurements to serve as the bedrock of our field.

Unfortunately, articles such as this one abandon that bedrock in favor of appeals to emotion, which leaves the article (and whatever conclusions it may ostensibly provide) unsupported by fact or logic.

This loosely grounded approach to discussion is perfectly suited when discussing one's television preferences, but provides a net negative value to the world of technical discourse by propagating a culture of unsubstantiated and emotionally driven opinion and pop culture ideals.

In other words, form over content.

If you're referring to the article, then I'd agree. If you're referring to what I wrote, then I'd necessarily question your reading comprehension.

Your entire argument has been hung up on how what was said was not said the way you would prefer them to say it. Here's where you call them stupid:

As such, it reflects badly on their engineering department, and there is a strong implication that this is not somewhere that a studious engineer would choose to work.

No, my argument was 'hung up' on the use of emotive language instead of well constructed, well reasoned, and well supported arguments.

Does "shitty" really still fall under the "swearing" umbrella?

Who determines what the decorum for such a dialog should be? Does the informality effect in any way the rationality or defensibility of their choices? Why do people care? I'd much rather read an article in this tone rather than some stuffy technical blog like many other engineering teams sometimes put out.

> Does the informality effect in any way the rationality or defensibility of their choices?

Clarity in writing is not a stuffy affectation, but rather is the entire mechanism by which one both expresses an opinion, and provides an understandable, rational justification for that opinion. Without this, the reader is left with nothing but unsupported conjecture, opinion, and emotive appeals.

> Does the informality effect in any way the rationality or defensibility of their choices?

This implicitly calls me a liar. As I stated above, the word choice and informality don't bother me. That they spent so little time thinking if the article would make sense to a random reader does. That goes against my expectations for NPR.

You haven't spent much time in newsrooms, have you.

Her boss is Brian Boyer. I assume she wrote out the article and simply forgot to actually include that piece of info.

> I assume she wrote out the article and simply forgot to actually include that piece of info.

That was my guess as well. From this, I take it that too little thought was given potential readers. (And if it was meant only for insiders, why is it on the public Internet?)

This is a really interesting perspective, you should write a blog post about what it's like to have never made a tiny, insignificant mistake in your life and share it with all of us.

This is completely irrelevant. How about you post something on your blog about how things like clear, considered prose are no longer required of media organizations like NPR? Is pointing out something like that wrong? It would seem that pointing out a mistake in public is some kind of ultimate wrong, even if it is a highly regarded, internationally known media outlet.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com