@dang I appreciate the tireless and thankless work you do in HN, sincerely, but I don't always agree.
> Don't be curmudgeonly.
I feel flattered to get identified as a curmudgeon in company with Socrates, Samuel Johnson, Mark Twain, and George Carlin. I might take offense at the implicit ageism but at my age I roll with it. HN teems with unchallenged insults directed at the elderly, grating on us old people, but in line with the HN demographic.
> Thoughtful criticism is fine, but please don't be rigidly or generically negative.
No one can "be" those things since that implies an identity. One can write in a negative tone. Accusations of rigidity and genericity would require a large sample. No one who knows me would describe me as "rigid or generically negative" so I will let that go as an ignorant judgment.
> please don't cross into personal attack.
Refuting the OP's claims can't count as personal attack, unless we hollow out all argument and rhetoric. I apologize for the Adderall comment, should have left that out.
> That is in no way allowed here.
Ironic given the personal nature of the moderator scolding, attacking my age and identity by telling me what not to "be."
You’re fair to call out the wording. I agree some of it reads more buzzword-y than intended.
My point wasn’t that thinking fast is inherently good or that coding is “drag.” Quite the opposite: the friction of implementation used to be a form of thinking time for me. Typing forced pacing and reflection.
What I’m noticing now is that when iteration becomes extremely cheap, the bottleneck shifts from “can I build this?” to “should I build this?” That’s not about hyperactivity. It’s about decision quality.
The “dopamine” part wasn’t meant as a brag but as a caution. Fast feedback loops can encourage shallow iteration instead of deeper design if you’re not careful.
So if anything, I’m arguing for more deliberate thinking, not less.
dang|26 days ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Also, please don't cross into personal attack. That is in no way allowed here.
gregjor|26 days ago
> Don't be curmudgeonly.
I feel flattered to get identified as a curmudgeon in company with Socrates, Samuel Johnson, Mark Twain, and George Carlin. I might take offense at the implicit ageism but at my age I roll with it. HN teems with unchallenged insults directed at the elderly, grating on us old people, but in line with the HN demographic.
> Thoughtful criticism is fine, but please don't be rigidly or generically negative.
No one can "be" those things since that implies an identity. One can write in a negative tone. Accusations of rigidity and genericity would require a large sample. No one who knows me would describe me as "rigid or generically negative" so I will let that go as an ignorant judgment.
> please don't cross into personal attack.
Refuting the OP's claims can't count as personal attack, unless we hollow out all argument and rhetoric. I apologize for the Adderall comment, should have left that out.
> That is in no way allowed here.
Ironic given the personal nature of the moderator scolding, attacking my age and identity by telling me what not to "be."
derverstand|27 days ago
My point wasn’t that thinking fast is inherently good or that coding is “drag.” Quite the opposite: the friction of implementation used to be a form of thinking time for me. Typing forced pacing and reflection.
What I’m noticing now is that when iteration becomes extremely cheap, the bottleneck shifts from “can I build this?” to “should I build this?” That’s not about hyperactivity. It’s about decision quality.
The “dopamine” part wasn’t meant as a brag but as a caution. Fast feedback loops can encourage shallow iteration instead of deeper design if you’re not careful.
So if anything, I’m arguing for more deliberate thinking, not less.