I can't for the life of me comprehend how PG manages to write in a style that sounds so lucid, so readable and compelling, and so authoritative, but on a substance that's so factually incorrect that it won't stand to any bit of critique.
Like the paragraph quoted above: it's just so blatantly obvious what's wrong with turns like "considered particularly enlightened", or "there are no underlying principles" that I find it hard to believe that the text as a whole sounds so friendly and convincing, unless you stop and think for a second.
I wish I could write like this about whatever mush is in my head.
From a (potentially made up [1]) letter from Freud:
> So yesterday I gave my lecture. Despite a lack of preparation, I spoke quite well and without any hesitation, which I ascribe to the cocaine I had taken beforehand. I told about my discoveries in brain anatomy, all very difficult things that the audience certainly didn’t understand, but all that matters is that they get the impression that I understand it.
Maybe pg has the same strategy. Certainly reads that way.
I find it's super-easy to communicate this way if I pick a position I think is bad and dumb.
It frees me from giving a shit if I'm using e.g. rhetorical tricks in place of good-faith argument. Of course the argument's obviously bad, if you're any good at spotting bad arguments! So are all the others I've seen or heard supporting it. That's why I picked it—it's bad.
I can usually argue positions I disagree with far more persuasively and fluently than ones I agree with, because I'm not concerned with being correct or making it look bad to smart people, nor making myself look dumb for making a bad argument (the entire thing is an exercise in making bad arguments, there's no chance of a good one coming out). Might try that. It's kinda a fun, and/or horrifying, exercise. Drag out those slanted and context-free stats, those you-know-to-be-disproven-or-commonly-misrepesented anecdotes and studies, (mis-)define terms as something obviously bad and proceed to tear them apart in a "surely we can all agree..." way (ahem), overgeneralize the results of that already-shaky maneuver (ahem), misrepresent history in silly ways (ahem), and so on. Just cut loose. No worries about looking foolish because you already think the position's foolish.
Someone could say something similar about the large number of people who apparently reviewed this essay, who were supposed to critique it in order for him to make it stronger. It's possible he just ignored their criticism, but it's also possible they already agree with Graham and didn't think about the flawed premises, so their feedback didn't address what might be "blatantly obvious" to you or I.
Similarly, Graham almost certainly already has strong opinions on the basic premises of this essay. Thus, the process of revising and polishing his essay to make it readable and compelling doesn't help him spot any of these obvious critiques. As you quoted, he believes the people advocating "people of color" over other terms have no principles. Thus he can't apply their principles to his own essay and anticipate their criticisms. Based on how he describes "wokeness," he seems to think are generally unprincipled.
Neither he nor his reviewers are equipped to analyze the substance, which is why it can be stylistically strong but substantially weak.
I think it's called "from first principles", which is the laundered term for "disregarding context and previous work, because I don't feel other people's work is worth anything".
These are my favorite to read since it contains a full, traceable, logical path to get to a conclusion. It's much easier to understand why they think something.
On this flip side, my least favorite are when someone name drops thinkers as a way to reference an ideology. It's very hard to actually know if someone understands the ideas behind that name, so it's usually impossible to understand why they think something.
And, the names they drop often were the types to present their thoughts as the first, rarely, if ever, dropping names themselves, which I always find an amusing "they were allowed be free thinkers, but you can't!"
One thing to add: the author talks about reviving a system as “slow and difficult process”, and it is. However, the concrete example described is not worthy of hand-wringing of this kind: a system that could have been built by a single competent engineer in 6 months (inevitably of alpha quality, at best), could be resurrected by a competent team of several programmers and brought to, say, beta quality, while keeping the lights on their alpha system on in how long? Let’s say, 9-12 months. No biggie, really.
Most companies routinely discard man-years of programmer’s effort, so those 9-12 months are likely just a blip in the lifetime of that firm.
Its not really explained, but in the prequels, the black goo seems to be a biological nano-tech like weaponsystem, that takes a given lifeform, breaks it down and recreates permutations of it that are capable of fast, parasitic replication, longterm stasis and accelerated development towards a better "attack-vector" life-form.
The whole thing is basically the engineer version of a nuke, rendering planets permanently hostile to other life forms and destroying civilizations by transporting the weapon inside its members - and thus following trade-routes.
I like this take, I'm stealing this as my headcannon. It's especially interesting to think of the black goo as able to design a parasite specific to the species it comes in contact with. And the LV-223 base might be part of a former alien MAD deterrence program, similar to an SSBN or a missile silo.
I still have to watch the prequels after "Prometheus", but that prequel was one of my favorites in the series, and your comment makes me want to go watch them.
Even if you know the correct spelling, it's an easy mistake to make when you're writing fast. Sometimes hands seem to just want to do their own thing while typing out what you thought your brain was telling them :P I make so many mistakes this way that I try to be forgiving when I see it probably happened to someone else.
Regarding cannon vs canon, the way I remember it is that "you need a double-n for a cannon to be double-barrelled." I have no idea whether that's useful to anyone else.
Etymologically, they are both related to "cane", so it's pretty much a historical accident that we now spell them differently to each other, or that it's not the other way around.
The that reminds me a bit of the "protomolecule" from The Expanse, which has a similar meta-algorithmic nature. Perhaps moreso, in that it's suggested it relied partly on transcendental magic-math where molecules were just a way to carry it.
It differs a bit in intent though: Its eldritch designers seem to have intended it as a high-reliability remote construction drone.
Ah, so this is not how people doing chemistry refer to different chemical elements in their papers. Given the overall level of imitation, I thought it's that.
I think the sequence of sci-fi-like references goes like this:
"Chemical A0-3959X.91–15, i.e. 42-(acetyloxy)-1-7-0-1-unobtaini-interferon acid, also known as "black goo", sold under brand name EcoCola, marketed as alternative to NukaCola, is an nano-engineered chemical first documented in report A0-3959X, ..."
In the methods sections they might actually do this with what is called a CAS number. This ensures you can order the that exact chemical from Sigma Aldrich when you try that experiment yourself.
If your goal is “ship it” then you might be right. If your goal is “ship it, and don’t break anything else, and don’t cause any security issues in the future and don’t rot the codebase, and be able to explain why you did it that way and why you didn’t use X” then you’re probably wrong.
"About" section has 5 (five) words of waffle in it, their ToS is buried and doesn't give any indication of what this company is, except the name, phone number and governing jurisdiction (CA).
Their "founder" in comments here is a newly registered HN account.
DataNet Connect — People-Centric Networking Solution
A networking solution that prioritizes people connections over traditional
network protocols. It offers a human-centric approach to networking
technology, enabling seamless communication and efficient data transfer
between individuals and organizations. This technology aims to enhance
collaboration and productivity in diverse work environments.
But how do you prioritize people connections over network protocols?
Clearly, not a time to worry about our AI overlords yet
Oh, did they win the “my shares have vested” lottery? I didn’t know that, honestly. It doesn’t seem like they are living any sort of luxurious lifestyle on that boat.
I dunno if they have or not, but they must have had a nice little sum stashed away to buy a boat and then retire on it, spending their days coding whatever they want. To me that alone is a luxury and they are in a very enviable position.
Like the paragraph quoted above: it's just so blatantly obvious what's wrong with turns like "considered particularly enlightened", or "there are no underlying principles" that I find it hard to believe that the text as a whole sounds so friendly and convincing, unless you stop and think for a second.
I wish I could write like this about whatever mush is in my head.
reply