Hacker News Reader

Comment by hawkharris | Hacker News Reader

The one thing I remember from economics class is the concept of marginal utility. It basically says — if I remember correctly — that the perceived value of a good declines as a consumer accumulates more of it. One cookie? Delicious. Ten cookies? Each one doesn't taste quite as good.

I mention this because I think that fucks are like cookies....The first one: well, that's something special. It's funny. It makes a statement. The 70th one? Well, I'm not sure what to do with all these fucks.

In other words, I can tell that there's a potentially poignant idea about web design in this post, but it was a little drowned out because of the way it was presented.

View on HN

Have you ever seen that scene in "Team America: World Police" where the protagonist puppet barfs in the street? The first few times are funny. The next few times are tedious. Then, right when you're thinking to yourself, "I get it, you can make a marionette hurl in the street, please stop", they double down and have that damn puppet puke its guts out like it's going to barf up a lung. And that's when you break down, doubled over with laughter, splitting your sides over a puking puppet.

One fuck is startling. Four fucks is tedious. Thirty-three fucks is art.

Well, I'm not sure what to do with all these fucks.

You could be generous and give them to people; just think of all the fucks you could be giving!

The man has a point.

I'm just gonna leave this here: http://www.gadgetsandgear.com/flying-fuck.html

> In other words, I can tell that there's a potentially poignant idea about web design in this post, but it was a little drowned out because of the way it was presented.

I think it would be difficult to find an idea in this post that hasn't already been more poignantly formulated on [0] or more funny and even less respectfully on [1]. I really don't see the point.

[0]http://www.useit.com [1]http://maddox.xmission.com

I read this entire post in Samuel L. Jackson's voice from Pulp Fiction. I think that's what the writer was going for.

I read it in Zed Shaw's voice, doing a Samuel L. Jackson impression.

Well, I read it letting my eyes sweep back and forth.

I think profanity does has a place in the English language, but I found this article childish from the start.

I also agree that web sites should be simple, but this reads like it was written by a 6th-grader.

It clearly wasn't meant to come off formal at all.

I agree. I never mentioned formality. I just happen to think that it was poorly written, even by the standards of informal writing.

What's wrong with childish? If someone is responding to an inherently childish concept ("I know, let's write all our websites with 150Mb of JavaScript rather than using HTML simply and straight-forwardly like it was designed to be used"), sometimes a childishly obscene response is the only appropriate response.

Its not an effective way to frame an argument. Claiming that it is an appropriate response is basically saying that people who write overly complicated websites are so stupid that they cannot understand a reasonable, adult conversation. This is just plain ridiculous. The majority of people who write bloated websites are probably very smart individuals who just need to learn more about design.

I think the point of this style of presentation is to reach that saturation point. It conveys the sense of crossing out of raging to weary frustration.

Are you saying that with each fuck, you have less fucks to give?

Fewer fucks to give. Fucks are numerable.

Some have argued that their fucks are innumerable. :)

no fucks are given at the moment

Don't be a fucking pedant.

It reads to me like extreme advertising. It was popular on 4chan for a while.

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/extreme-advertising

Reply on news.ycombinator.com