> Never argue on the internet. No one will remember whether you won or lost the argument; they'll just remember that you are the sort of person who argues on the internet.
This is burned in my mind and doesn't anchor enough of my judgement of what to engage with on the internet yet, but I've never yet been steered wrong by it.
EDIT - This is equally applicable to realms outside of the internet. You have to be really right to be remembered as the person who was right about something in your friend group or coworkers. Like, you have to prevent someone from dying levels of correct. Otherwise you're just the person who kept talking about something until everyone gave in. And either way, they'll still remember you as that person who argues about things.
This is a purely selfish analysis though. You may be remembered as that person who argues about things -- but it could also be that the group is much better off due to your arguments.
"It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit"
You gain nothing by winning arguments. It's when realize you were wrong and the other side passionately tears apart your argument is when you learn the best.
Most people don't know how to learn from being wrong on the Internet, but for the those who do, they also might have something to gain when I'm right.
I don't know why some people think "the sort of person who argues on the internet" is some kind of low life. There are those who don't dare to argue, there are those who are irrationally afraid of being wrong, there are those who have lost passion for anything worth making a stand, and there are those who overly worry about what others would think of them. These people don't argue on the Internet, and I don't want to be any of those people.
That said, choose your battles. But don't be a coward.
Here's a related piece of advice from Gabe Newell that I've always found rather poignant.
> You have to stop thinking that you're in charge and start thinking that you're having a dance. We used to think we're smart [...] but nobody is smarter than the internet. [...] One of the things we learned pretty early on is 'Don't ever, ever try to lie to the internet - because they will catch you. They will de-construct your spin. They will remember everything you ever say for eternity.'
This is a really tricky one for me, particularly on reddit, I don't know why people post such stupid things online or have to argue with everything, but then sometimes I do wonder, how much they are just me, because I get enraged with what they say and end up arguing back. So am I any better than when I do that? and I don't want to be that person, so I need to learn to let it go, but outrage is a hell of a drug.
> Learn about Chesterton's Fence. Then, actively resist altering a given situation before you understand the reasons why it's remained unchanged for so long.
This is probably the most important advice for developers who start a new job, or have to work with existing code. Trying to refactor code or replacing it with a new micro service requires that you understand the old code. If you are not willing or able to take the time to understand it, you do not know enough to replace it.
I have made this mistake several times in the past, but it has taken time for me to learn this lesson. I have complex data flows and error handling and thought I could simplify it or rewrite it as a new service. I would later find out that the old code handled scalability, edge cases or unknown external dependencies that my new code did not. These issues appeared in small "drips" over time, so it was easy to focus on the individual bugs instead of noticing the larger pattern. This led me to believe that the next rewrite would turn out better. The real lesson is that I did not know enough about the existing code and made assumptions that turned out to be incorrect.
Sometimes you need to make changes because the old system has started to "rot", which makes it hard to add new features. Just make sure that it is accidental complexity and not necessary complexity.
In the past I've lambasted some of these collections of wisdom. There is a certain point in a man's life where he feels he wants to write down a collection of hard-learned thoughts and experiences. These often appear on HN. Most often they are pretentious.
For whatever reason, I liked this one. I can't say it is a better collection than others that I have pretty harshly criticized. I can't say it is better written. I can't say I agree with more or less in this list. I just liked this one.
I'm biased some by having listened to him talk on a lot of these thoughts over the years, but in general, I find his "wisdom" so easy to digest mostly because it feels like it comes from a place of earnest humility. There's little implicit boasting or success in it. It's often practical to a fault.
For me, a big part of why I like this are the pre-ambles to the "wisdom" especially the bullets under "Brief introductory remarks regarding the Project:"
Im not particularly fond of these types of lists, but given the author and the material posted, this is definitely an exception.
One thing I didnt quite get:
> Every project is a triangle made of time, money, and quality; shortening the length of one side necessarily lengthens one or—more often—both of the other sides.
If I'm assuming the longer a side is, the "more" of it that is required, then the way I understand it is that the "quality" side might need to rather be "inverse quality", such that shortening the quality side length increases quality. As per the original statement, a reduction in quality (shortening the quality length) increases time and/or money, whereas IME when building something out, quality results come at a (time/money) cost.
I guess it half makes sense if the perspective is that defering on quality (shortening the line) costs more in the long run (increasing length of the other 2 lines). But then taken from the perspective of the other 2 sides of the triangle: reducing money or time doesnt result in an increase (longer side) of quality... typically the opposite.
So genuine question: did I misunderstand the point?
I think it’s the class pick two conundrum. Want it quickly and high quality? It’s going to take a lot of money. Want cheap and high quality? It’s going to take a lot of time. Want it fast and cheap? Quality will suffer.
If something takes a lot of time (= work?), how can it be done cheaply? Or is that in the sense of waiting for a long time for the right inspiration to hit you for how it can be done cheaply?
I have a couple of minor carpentry projects going on. I could finish them quickly if I bought or rented great power tools. I don't want to spend the money though, so I'm using mostly hand tools and manual labor.
My point is that I wouldn’t say that that labor comes for free. In any case, that triangle would then not apply in a commercial setting, where you have to pay those doing the labor, in addition to it taking time.
It still applies in a lot of circumstances. For example when to buy off the shelf (for $$$$) vs rolling your own solution (which will take longer but could be less money in the long run).
One thing that changed this for me (I agree the saying is a bit trite) was a comment by Joscha Bach in some podcast where he mentions realizing that he had a totally wrong conception of conversation when he was a kid. To paraphrase his idea, he had previously seen discussion as an opportunity to share facts and engage in a mutual exploration of the truth. But in reality, most conversation is negotiating social status.
So the context is the important thing. You probably want to be "right" not "happy" in some circumstances. But in the case of most social activities, attempting to get to "truth" is usually playing the wrong game. You may think you are having a discussion on, say, the causes of the collapse of the Roman Empire. And you may really believe there is a "right" answer and that you have it. But if you are at most parties and socializing with most people, no one is trying to get to the root cause of historical facts.
So it is really an optimization problem. You just have to ask yourself: in this moment, in this context, with these people - are we optimizing for "truth"? Or should I be optimizing for enjoyment/amusement/happiness? This is sometimes referred to as "being on the same wavelength". If you are optimizing for "truth" and everyone else is optimizing for "happiness", you might find yourself optimized out of the equation.
That is totally possible. One thing to watch out for is the fable of the fox and the grapes. The fox is unable to get the grapes from a high branch and so wanders away thinking "they are probably sour". It is just a reminder that sometimes when we can't get something we want we use a defense mechanism to protect our ego.
Kind of the point of "wisdom" though is the judgement to know when it applies and when it doesn't. Being on guard for common cognitive mistakes is a healthy part of self-reflection. It doesn't suggest that at all times and in all moments that you are in breach of some universal moral imperatives.
And so "being on the same wavelength" goes both ways. Although, if you find that you are always requiring others to always be on your wavelength and you are never willing to match theirs, that might be another thing to self-reflect on.
Your point about sour grapes is well taken; indeed I think about 50% of human brainpower is used to rationalize why the choices we have already made (or are likely to make in the future) can't be wrong.
> And so "being on the same wavelength" goes both ways. Although, if you find that you are always requiring others to always be on your wavelength and you are never willing to match theirs, that might be another thing to self-reflect on.
Very true. I'll give an analogy: I really don't like the game Ticket to Ride. If I'm going to a weekly game group I'll sometimes play Ticket to Ride because playing games are a social activity, which requires compromise. However if the group is playing Ticket to Ride a majority of the time, we are all happier if I just find a different gaming group.
I don’t think anything is “wrong” with you but experience and observation suggests it’s hard to prioritize that exclusively without becoming miserable or lonely. My father always said “are you more interested in being right or winning?” and I tell my kids “Are you more interested in being in the right or achieving your goals?” That framing was always more appealing to me since happiness or winning isn’t always a key consideration. It makes you ask what it is you really want. And if what you really want is to be in the right, well, your best course or action is pretty clear.
I like your wording because it reveals that I generally (but not always) lack goals that are more important to me than being right, and it explains the situations in which being right takes the back-seat.
I used to be in that camp, but one thing I realized over time was I didn't want to be right: I wanted everyone to admit I was right. And eventually I (mostly) realized that I can be both "right" (in my own head at least) and happy because I no longer was basing my feelings of happiness on the beliefs and actions of others.
This is exponentially more true on the internet. You have trolls who will never admit you're right because they feed off the argument itself. Eventually, as well you will find yourself fighting against someone just like you in a zero sum game that will drive both of you to anger and frustration.
I think you may be overly hung-up on the wording (not that the wording isn't important; another reply to my comment suggested a wording I like better); I'm trying to engage the statement with the sentiment I believe it is trying to convey, which I think is different from the sentiment in the statement "ignorance is bliss" and is more of a sentiment against pedantry.
I'm not even sure that's always the case. There's plenty of cases where you can be right, but not seen to be right for years, and be miserable for all of that time, and still be miserable even when you're seen to be right at the end of it. If everyone you're working with is pursuing a poor plan that may fail, is it better to fight them about how you may be smarter than them over the next few years, or just be along for the ride, hope for the best, and then be courteous about it if it does go wrong and not rub in your foresight?
Merlin's podcasts, particularly Roderick on the Line and the amazing Reconcilable Differences with John Siracusa, are amongst my favourite things to listen to.
It's perhaps a more... difficult listen, but Do By Friday has a special place in my listening. It's perhaps the least about technology, but the most about people and what this sort of Wisdom is about. It's hard to recommend because it's changed so much over the years and it's mercurial over weeks and events, but it's similar to Roderick in being a very raw and rambly show, but more about Merlin and Alex.
> If you really want a glass of water at a restaurant, always order that first. As you do this, look the server in the eyes and nod.
I don't understand it at all. Is is to make sure you get the water first, and not with the other dishes? Is it to test how the waiter would react, and whether you want to order other things?
Why that weird ritual with the eyes, what is it supposed to mean?
I think it's just to make sure that you get a glass of water. If you order the water last, the waiter is somewhat likely to forget the water. The look-and-nod might be to make sure that they got it, but I understand that part less.
Wait, what Flintstones am I supposed to have watched? The Hana-Barbera cartoon was so good that it deserves to be the go-to example for things that young people "somehow haven't heard of"?
I think any of it. I haven't seen a full episode myself and I'm not that young at this point.
In general, it's now just stuck in my mind as a stand in for any sort of thing. I think there's an XKCD for this sort of thing (and XKCD may be close to being something you have to be over some age to know about). In general, just consider that someone not knowing something is a joyful time to introduce them to something new, instead of scolding or being disappointed they don't understand it.
Love your advice about being joyful about the opportunity to introduce people to new things!
I think maybe I need to learn to be joyful about also re-introducing things to people who probably knew the thing at somepoint, but have since forgotten. (Generally applies to people older than their mid 30s)
As an "old guy" with a literal gray beard, I think it's really important to remember to be joyful when explaining things.
Sometimes my computer experience is more than twice the life experience of someone I'm explaining something to ( in years at least :^D )
Honestly, the harder ones are when I'm explaining something to someone in the 40s (or older) who it seems "should have known" something, but for some reason either forgot it or never bumped in to it in the frist place. I often make the wrong assumption that they should've known it, when really, that's just a personal bias based on my own experiences.
Was wondering if everyone was supposed to know who this was....read some of the comments that mention these kinds of wisdom lists ending up on HN here and there...
It's like a name that seems sorta familiar but dunno if it just sounds like someone else from tech or something.
Interesting a quick HN search shows a bunch of shares posts that got any traction but they're all like 14-15 years ago?
He is “still a thing.” A decade ago blogs were a thing and he was prominent as a blogger. Now blogs are dead, but he’s still podcasting a lot, so it’s easier to have not come across his podcast (because you’re not going to casually spend an hour listening unless you are pretty into it) than to not come across a blog (where people would link to ten random things every day).
I'm not out of the loop here generally... I just now realized I hadn't heard the name in a good while. Of course back in a certain era of blogging and stuff mid-00s now it's coming back but shrug!
Slightly larger than what? From my experience of wearing larger shoes because they initially seemed more comfortable in the shoe store, that seems like bad advice.
This is burned in my mind and doesn't anchor enough of my judgement of what to engage with on the internet yet, but I've never yet been steered wrong by it.
EDIT - This is equally applicable to realms outside of the internet. You have to be really right to be remembered as the person who was right about something in your friend group or coworkers. Like, you have to prevent someone from dying levels of correct. Otherwise you're just the person who kept talking about something until everyone gave in. And either way, they'll still remember you as that person who argues about things.