Reposted because it did not take off last time it was posted. Since the author recently passed and I thought it would be nice to give it a second chance. While it's still available.
To the decorative text behind the kitty, I would add that it's almost always helpful to include some form of praise and redirect, for example, "The current approach of doing X has worked well, but aspect Y could be improved by doing Z."
I feel I might not have the same conception of "front page" as you.
The way I see it, there should be room for small neat articles, even if they are not announcements of billion dollar projects. I know HN has changed over the years, and it probably used to have more of this stuff. But I don't think there is anything explicitly forbidding it. If users like it, it gets to the front page, maybe just for a couple of hours on a slow Sunday.
So in summary, I don't think anybody should stop posting things because they are "not front page stuff". Does this line or argumentation make sense to you or do you think I am missing something?
You are correct. I wasn't advocating that it not be posted, and I can see how my post made that seem what I meant.
I just didn't think that it was something that I would be that interested in, but I really enjoy many of the oddball, eclectic articles posted here, so my statement really isn't one that I feel should carry weight.
I did think it was a pretty "light on detail" post, though. I read stuff like that, all the time, and most of what I read, is a lot more "meaty," so it's really just a personal thing, for Yours Truly.
Funnily enough, the author does not take their own advice. They say you should motivate with background first, but in that article, they put the motivating background at the very end, after their suggestion is provided without any motivation.
However, given that the whole article pretty much fits on a single screen, that can be mostly excused.
So, the blog post says to avoid using labels because they get in the way of making your point. People have preconceived notions about those labels, so anything you say about them is stepping into a minefield.
I agree, but there's so much more involved in convincing people than just avoiding offense. In fact the author sounds like they're saying to patronize your audience. That's possibly even more offensive than attacking their labels!
he (she?) didn't mention anything about offense, he mentioned the possibility of bumping across preconceptions which accidentally harm your ability to communicate an argument.
nor does he say you should patronise; he says understand the problem well yourself so that you can descrive it well and use it to frame the problem, rather than rely on potentially loaded terms. if anything this is respectful rather than patronising
Anyone else tired of others policing how to speak? I think society as a whole is pretty burnt out on this and it leads to some pretty bad second order effects.
Perhaps some would prefer to “fail” than everyone talk like a politician or corporate PR robot. Perhaps talking authentically and genuinely curates an audience worth having.
reply