My Love, Hate, Love Again, Affair with Paul Graham(gicleelife.com)
gicleelife.com
My Love, Hate, Love Again, Affair with Paul Graham
http://www.gicleelife.com/love_hate_pg.php
63 comments
Reminds me of: http://daniellefong.com/2008/04/11/one-response-to-rejection...
People take this way too seriously.
People take this way too seriously.
i think people are going a little overboard about this. it was a humorous essay, reflecting real events probably but told in an exaggerated style. (i do admit that the part about the dad and girlfriend pushed the humor into something a bit awkward.)
i thought his observations about paul's essays were pretty spot-on, and i'm surprised few people have mentioned this.
i thought his observations about paul's essays were pretty spot-on, and i'm surprised few people have mentioned this.
Um, early April Fools joke? Oh and did you go to the homepage: http://www.gicleelife.com ? I'm laughing, anyway.
Looks like you could add Tim Ferris to this guy's list of "heroes"?
Seriously, he broke up with his GF in an email?
He also posted her picture, which is (1) somewhat inapprpropriate, and (2) makes him look even dumber, because she's absolutely gorgeous, and it sounds like there was nothing wrong with the relationship.
If you have to dump a good relationship with a beautiful girl, you're doing it wrong.
If you have to dump a good relationship with a beautiful girl, you're doing it wrong.
Because her beauty is really all that matters in a relationship.
It's not, but it's all the information I have in this case. I don't know anything about her aside from her picture, included with the essay, and what's contained in the breakup letter.
Let's recap: he was with her for a year and thought he was going to marry her. She's very attractive, and they look happy together. I'd argue strongly that he'd need a very strong reason to break up with her, and the email doesn't provide one (although it does provide her with good reason to break with him).
Let's recap: he was with her for a year and thought he was going to marry her. She's very attractive, and they look happy together. I'd argue strongly that he'd need a very strong reason to break up with her, and the email doesn't provide one (although it does provide her with good reason to break with him).
[deleted]
>> PG says all you need is a copy of K&R and a Linux box
Did PG really say this ?
Did PG really say this ?
"[3] Learning to hack is a lot cheaper than business school, because you can do it mostly on your own. For the price of a Linux box, a copy of K&R, and a few hours of advice from your neighbor's fifteen year old son, you'll be well on your way."
-- http://www.paulgraham.com/start.html
-- http://www.paulgraham.com/start.html
Ah. Thank you.
[deleted]
this is how good people are made into cult-figures; please do not idolize hackers, they don't care if you do.
I'll play devil's advocate and say that it's not making the guy into a cult figure, it's writing about one person's relationship with his writings. That ought to happen with any good writer and thinker: they should build relationships with people on the basis of their work alone.
I have a similar relationship with PG's essays, though mine's not a particularly strong one. My cofounder, on the other hand, quotes PG essays a lot, looks into a lot of the things he recommends, and definitely has had his mindset changed a few times over the course of reading his archives. That's what's so cool about writing! When you make an essay you're putting a part of yourself - your opinions along with your personality - out there for anybody to see. It builds a connection with people, lots of people, on the fact of its sheer existence.
That's not a cult. That's good writing.
I have a similar relationship with PG's essays, though mine's not a particularly strong one. My cofounder, on the other hand, quotes PG essays a lot, looks into a lot of the things he recommends, and definitely has had his mindset changed a few times over the course of reading his archives. That's what's so cool about writing! When you make an essay you're putting a part of yourself - your opinions along with your personality - out there for anybody to see. It builds a connection with people, lots of people, on the fact of its sheer existence.
That's not a cult. That's good writing.
Maybe we work differently, but I certainly associate with ideas rather than their originators. The fame of a successful work should eclipse the fame of its author in hacking, unlike other fluffy fields of work like management and self-help industries (hint: the "Linux Torvalds" effect.)
I don't know if it's the intention of PG to become a "Get Rich Quick" guru, but to me he is the author of ANSI CL and On Lisp, a decent human being in the same league as Norvig, Kent Pitman and Dick Gabriel. Actually, I like Paul Graham more than "PG", thanks to all this idol-worshiping.
Whatever that guy wrote in his blog should have been a private email. Better yet, a personal diary entry in _paper_.
I don't know if it's the intention of PG to become a "Get Rich Quick" guru, but to me he is the author of ANSI CL and On Lisp, a decent human being in the same league as Norvig, Kent Pitman and Dick Gabriel. Actually, I like Paul Graham more than "PG", thanks to all this idol-worshiping.
Whatever that guy wrote in his blog should have been a private email. Better yet, a personal diary entry in _paper_.
Why? Making that stuff public should be totally fine. (I get some flack because on my blog I write literally everything I think of, whether it's personal relationships, religious philosophy, web design, or what ever; I get emails regularly asking me to at least tag my various posts for easier consumption and I refuse, because for me that's not what my blog is.)
I find a fascination with people: why they build what they do. So while I love books, I tend to love the authors of said books just as much.
I find a fascination with people: why they build what they do. So while I love books, I tend to love the authors of said books just as much.
First of all, go to the root of the website and see the promotional weight-loss program therein (no comment.)
Secondly, go through the essay again and you will find someone who is attributing his life choices, good or bad, to someone else who he has never consulted, met in person or even corresponded with:
> "Alone in my room I rolled on the carpet and screamed “I love you, Paul Graham.” "
This is after reading "A Taste for Makers"
>"Over the next three years I must have read A Taste For Makers at least twenty times."
Biblical exegesis?
>" I felt bad because your writings had more influence on me than my own father."
Completely unwilling to accept/admit that his life choices, influenced by an external input (in this case PG's writings), are still his own.
> "Admittedly I am a nobody compared to you but a part of me was a tad jealous of your success. "
No comment.
>At this point I figured you had completely lost it. Your stature as a guru was toast!
See, he wants a guru.
Secondly, go through the essay again and you will find someone who is attributing his life choices, good or bad, to someone else who he has never consulted, met in person or even corresponded with:
> "Alone in my room I rolled on the carpet and screamed “I love you, Paul Graham.” "
This is after reading "A Taste for Makers"
>"Over the next three years I must have read A Taste For Makers at least twenty times."
Biblical exegesis?
>" I felt bad because your writings had more influence on me than my own father."
Completely unwilling to accept/admit that his life choices, influenced by an external input (in this case PG's writings), are still his own.
> "Admittedly I am a nobody compared to you but a part of me was a tad jealous of your success. "
No comment.
>At this point I figured you had completely lost it. Your stature as a guru was toast!
See, he wants a guru.
Oh. I kind of thought he was being ridiculously over-the-top for the sake of it. Taking this at face value makes it really creepy.
I hope you aren't conflating "decent human being" with technical skill.
A decent human being is _modest_ whatever of his or her technical skills. Successful decent human beings encourage you to think for yourself and reach your own conclusions, even if they're emotional and subjective in their own analysis of themselves or their work.
This blind fanfare and celebrity-worship just makes PG look like any other self-promoting guru that you find filing the paperback shelves. Tim Berners Lee is a decent human being. Self-promoting commercial bloggers, faddists, and get-rich-quick types are not, even if they're competent enough to roll out a sophisticated web platform for their self-promotion campaigns.
This blind fanfare and celebrity-worship just makes PG look like any other self-promoting guru that you find filing the paperback shelves. Tim Berners Lee is a decent human being. Self-promoting commercial bloggers, faddists, and get-rich-quick types are not, even if they're competent enough to roll out a sophisticated web platform for their self-promotion campaigns.
You make a mistake to judge those other people so harshly. What makes a human being decent is much more complicated than we all like to think it, and many of those sorts of people really are good people. In fact, it might be safe to say the least decent sort of person is the one who judges decency so quickly.
I understand your point and your compassion towards others. Thank you. But this is "Hacker News", not "Self-promoters and gurus anonymous"; I'm sure allot of people enjoy and benefit from reading Dr Phil, Napoleon Hill, or the Rich Dad Poor Dad guy. Just not me.
PG will have to speak for himself, imo; does he want this place want to be a fan club, or does he want it to be a peer moderated discussion forum for entrepreneurial hackers?
PG will have to speak for himself, imo; does he want this place want to be a fan club, or does he want it to be a peer moderated discussion forum for entrepreneurial hackers?
Recent related thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=527064
I actually don't know why people knock on "You weren't meant to have a boss", even the original, stronger version.
Wonderful satire!
Jesus christ. I guess this is the downside of being famous - random crazy people start fixating upon you as their leader/friend/saviour/nemesis/soulmate and reading all sorts of crap into every aspect of their life, when all you were trying to do was write a decent essay. What do you even say to people like this.
Dude .. I don't know what you are looking for, but it is almost certain you will not find it in PG.
This kind of thing scares me, it really does. Intelligent person .. good writing, obviously can express himself well .. but this search, this willingness to devote himself to something, someone, anything .. this is a serious bug in man's programming. I don't know the answer.
Dude .. I don't know what you are looking for, but it is almost certain you will not find it in PG.
This kind of thing scares me, it really does. Intelligent person .. good writing, obviously can express himself well .. but this search, this willingness to devote himself to something, someone, anything .. this is a serious bug in man's programming. I don't know the answer.
You are reading way too much into this blog post. I think much of the post's content can be treated somewhat humorously, e.g. he is using the Love, Hate, Love Again title as more of a metaphor than a description of his real feelings for PG. Some stuff might be a little extreme (like screaming "I Love you, PG!") but do you want to crucify (allusion to your use of JC) him for showing a little emotion? Plus it lightens the reading of the post. Imagine a bland person's post on his love, hate, love again relationship with PG: "His stuff excited me, then it didn't, then it did again." Lame.
I get the feeling from your very own comment that you are attempting to unfold a much grander thought of yours by taking this guy's blog post out of context. I won't question the premise that there are overly-obsesses fanatics out there, but not this guy. In the end, this guy is just another critic with a unique writing style. Kudos to him.
I get the feeling from your very own comment that you are attempting to unfold a much grander thought of yours by taking this guy's blog post out of context. I won't question the premise that there are overly-obsesses fanatics out there, but not this guy. In the end, this guy is just another critic with a unique writing style. Kudos to him.
Well, aren't we all trying to pull our thoughts together into some Grand Unified Theory? I wasn't "attempting to unfold" mine, I was just following a thread.
I actually regret writing what I did now, especially using the word "crazy". I sound judgemental and snarky. However, I don't think I misread the post as badly as you imply. I just read it again and still think the guy sounds dangerously fixated upon PG, the person, rather than maintaining an abstracted appreciation of his works. He even says it straight at the end:
"You’ve deeply influenced me in many ways and love you, hate you or love you again, you are on my list of Heroes!"
I never want to "crucify" anyone for opening their heart or showing a little emotion but if this is heartfelt, and it reads like it to me, he's going too far. Not in his writing but internally. It reads like he's looking for a Guru.
Maybe he is writing humourously (the old "it was satire!" defense?) but in the end words have meaning. He could be pretending to be a person with a dangerous tendency to fixate on 3rd parties or he could actually be that person, how can I, or anyone else, tell? Whatever - the person in whose voice that post is written, fictional or not, is not on the path to happiness with this type of thinking.
I actually regret writing what I did now, especially using the word "crazy". I sound judgemental and snarky. However, I don't think I misread the post as badly as you imply. I just read it again and still think the guy sounds dangerously fixated upon PG, the person, rather than maintaining an abstracted appreciation of his works. He even says it straight at the end:
"You’ve deeply influenced me in many ways and love you, hate you or love you again, you are on my list of Heroes!"
I never want to "crucify" anyone for opening their heart or showing a little emotion but if this is heartfelt, and it reads like it to me, he's going too far. Not in his writing but internally. It reads like he's looking for a Guru.
Maybe he is writing humourously (the old "it was satire!" defense?) but in the end words have meaning. He could be pretending to be a person with a dangerous tendency to fixate on 3rd parties or he could actually be that person, how can I, or anyone else, tell? Whatever - the person in whose voice that post is written, fictional or not, is not on the path to happiness with this type of thinking.
"Jesus Christ" ... "random crazy people start fixating upon you as their leader/friend/saviour/nemesis/soulmate and reading all sorts of crap into every aspect of their life"
You may be on to something bigger than what you meant.
You may be on to something bigger than what you meant.
Call me crazy.
I regret using the perjorative term "crazy". I'd change it if I could, and I apologise for any offense caused. Unfortunately, on a rapid-fire discussion site like this, speed is king, and we (well, I) often say things which, after time to reflect, come across as needlessly judgemental, insulting, or inflammatory. By then it's too late to take back one's words.
I've known many religious people, including my own sister, and while I find serious, fundamental flaws in their capacity for logical reasoning, ability to distinguish between reality and unreality, decision making processes, moral worldview and attitude towards others, I wouldn't call them crazy, so I apologise again.
I've known many religious people, including my own sister, and while I find serious, fundamental flaws in their capacity for logical reasoning, ability to distinguish between reality and unreality, decision making processes, moral worldview and attitude towards others, I wouldn't call them crazy, so I apologise again.
Indeed, but I didn't want to get too off topic. Needless to say I agree with what you insinuate.
People compulsively and dangerously obsess over many things, I think in our ancient history it was probably beneficial. I mean when you can catch polio from squatting in the woods, I think it probably kept many people alive by them obsessing over staying clean and doing routines and such.
Today, well I think it only hurts people. When no one really has to try to live past 30 obsession is very dangerous. I turned 21 yesterday, I've never had any form of disease or condition (besides psoriasis, which since I moved country the UV light of been more southern has completely removed it) and the only times I've ever been in hospital was once when I visited my dad because he had kidney stones and the other was visiting my mum at work.
My wife caught something, probably the influenza B outbreak that happened, and was sick for almost a week. Me? Not a thing, I've never had the flu I'm completely immune. My brother was bed ridden with the flu one time, my entire family had it except me... worst week ever! If I ever became a doctor I'd probably smother people.
Today, well I think it only hurts people. When no one really has to try to live past 30 obsession is very dangerous. I turned 21 yesterday, I've never had any form of disease or condition (besides psoriasis, which since I moved country the UV light of been more southern has completely removed it) and the only times I've ever been in hospital was once when I visited my dad because he had kidney stones and the other was visiting my mum at work.
My wife caught something, probably the influenza B outbreak that happened, and was sick for almost a week. Me? Not a thing, I've never had the flu I'm completely immune. My brother was bed ridden with the flu one time, my entire family had it except me... worst week ever! If I ever became a doctor I'd probably smother people.
I said this in my below comment, but... Don't people do the same thing with any kind of artist? I know that I feel I have a personal relationship with David Lynch that's evolved as I watch his movies. I definitely have that relationship with author Daniel Handler: I'll find an old interview of his and feel slightly wounded, like he didn't tell me about it before.
That's natural. We devote ourselves all the times to good things. Do you ever get into web browser fights? Or Mac vs. PC arguments? Hacker News versus Digg? Because that's all devotion.
That's natural. We devote ourselves all the times to good things. Do you ever get into web browser fights? Or Mac vs. PC arguments? Hacker News versus Digg? Because that's all devotion.
Some of his work may resonate with you emotionally, and you might look at his name as a signal that the next work will, as well, but to think that means you have a "personal relationship" with him is creepy as hell.
Are there people I admire? Of course. That admiration isn't personal, though - it stems from the things they've done and results they've achieved by doing them. The Steve Jobs that I admire, for instance, is not a person to me, he's an idea. Steve Jobs the person? I have zero desire or right to know anything about him. I have no personal relationship with him. I don't want one.
It's almost offensive to think that devotion to some famous person you've never met could be considered the same as spending some time on the interwebs arguing PC vs. Mac. You need some help.
Are there people I admire? Of course. That admiration isn't personal, though - it stems from the things they've done and results they've achieved by doing them. The Steve Jobs that I admire, for instance, is not a person to me, he's an idea. Steve Jobs the person? I have zero desire or right to know anything about him. I have no personal relationship with him. I don't want one.
It's almost offensive to think that devotion to some famous person you've never met could be considered the same as spending some time on the interwebs arguing PC vs. Mac. You need some help.
I need help? Them's fightin' words.
This attitude is not a new one. People naturally find fascination in other people. In the case of public people, sometimes you find that you know a lot about somebody you've never met. I don't have that with anybody, but I recall reading a story about David Foster Wallace that said he felt awkward speaking with people because he was so honest in the stuff that he wrote, he felt that people knew more about him by reading him than they did with talking about him.
But then, I've got a different attitude towards this, because I'm a fiction writer, and a part of writing fiction stems from an obsession with people. I'm a gossip hound about people I don't even know. I don't follow celebrities, mind you, but if I read a book I want to find out as much as possible about that writer. I want to know where that book came from. For me, that's a story just as fascinating as the writing of the original book.
(And obviously, I don't feel an actual connection to somebody like Daniel Handler. I'd love to meet the guy, because he's a brilliant writer, but the "personal relationship" to which I referred was more the relationship between me and his work than it is between me and him. But it's not between me and one book of his, it's between me and the things that he creates as a whole.
Perhaps I'm going a bit overboard because I get offended when people say they get offended by things that I write about. But look: if you're arguing PC versus Mac, you're participating in a pretty fucked-up argument. I used to argue Mac versus Linux with a friend, I still defend my Mac here, and I'm aware more than the people I argue with that when I argue this, I'm doing it because my Mac and I have a relationship. Why the hell do I care if somebody online uses Ubuntu, or Android, or if they think Opera is better than my precious, precious Safari 4 beta? I'm not saying I don't care, because I do, and the people I argue with more often than not care also. It's because human beings become emotionally invested in the things that we use. When somebody insults my computer, they're insulting me and the standards that led me to be using the exact set-up that I do now. That's irrational, and I'm aware that it's irrational, but it's still how the human mind works.
That's the exact same as feeling a devotion to a person you don't know. The object doesn't matter: the irrational part is the devotion. (It's what bonds people together as human beings, so it's really not irrational, it's a part of our biological makeup.) So when this guy writes about how he feels this connection with Paul Graham, I understand it, even though I don't have the same connection with the guy. I have connections with other people that I don't know. I'm madly in love with Steve Jobs and Dieter Rams in a way that makes me want to get to know them as people sheerly to know what sort of mind could create the things that I use and love. That's completely normal, in a messed-up sort of way.
But as I said before: I read this article as a kind-of-farce. I doubt this guy was being completely honest in his writings. Similarly, do I stalk Daniel Handler? Of course not. I just read his interviews when I find them. But that doesn't stop this from being a relationship between me and a guy that makes things.
I've had that relationship in reverse with people who've liked the things that I do. I'll meet people that feel they know me through a crappy Flash video I did a while ago. And while I don't feel that that gives them a good idea of me, that's because it was a bad video. I fully expect that the people who use sites I design or who read stories I write do know me, and when I meet them there's a feeling that I don't have with other people, that in a way this person and I are friends. Because in the process of writing, of creating things, I've shown a part of myself and made it public in a personal way. When I write, a part of the process involves my getting to know myself better. And when those people read my writing, they've taken that in, and they've gotten to know me. Not my story, but me, because everything I write is me, everything I know is a part of me, and the relationship between a person and a piece of art is absolutely, in some non-trivial way, a relationship between that person and the artist. That's natural.
This attitude is not a new one. People naturally find fascination in other people. In the case of public people, sometimes you find that you know a lot about somebody you've never met. I don't have that with anybody, but I recall reading a story about David Foster Wallace that said he felt awkward speaking with people because he was so honest in the stuff that he wrote, he felt that people knew more about him by reading him than they did with talking about him.
But then, I've got a different attitude towards this, because I'm a fiction writer, and a part of writing fiction stems from an obsession with people. I'm a gossip hound about people I don't even know. I don't follow celebrities, mind you, but if I read a book I want to find out as much as possible about that writer. I want to know where that book came from. For me, that's a story just as fascinating as the writing of the original book.
(And obviously, I don't feel an actual connection to somebody like Daniel Handler. I'd love to meet the guy, because he's a brilliant writer, but the "personal relationship" to which I referred was more the relationship between me and his work than it is between me and him. But it's not between me and one book of his, it's between me and the things that he creates as a whole.
Perhaps I'm going a bit overboard because I get offended when people say they get offended by things that I write about. But look: if you're arguing PC versus Mac, you're participating in a pretty fucked-up argument. I used to argue Mac versus Linux with a friend, I still defend my Mac here, and I'm aware more than the people I argue with that when I argue this, I'm doing it because my Mac and I have a relationship. Why the hell do I care if somebody online uses Ubuntu, or Android, or if they think Opera is better than my precious, precious Safari 4 beta? I'm not saying I don't care, because I do, and the people I argue with more often than not care also. It's because human beings become emotionally invested in the things that we use. When somebody insults my computer, they're insulting me and the standards that led me to be using the exact set-up that I do now. That's irrational, and I'm aware that it's irrational, but it's still how the human mind works.
That's the exact same as feeling a devotion to a person you don't know. The object doesn't matter: the irrational part is the devotion. (It's what bonds people together as human beings, so it's really not irrational, it's a part of our biological makeup.) So when this guy writes about how he feels this connection with Paul Graham, I understand it, even though I don't have the same connection with the guy. I have connections with other people that I don't know. I'm madly in love with Steve Jobs and Dieter Rams in a way that makes me want to get to know them as people sheerly to know what sort of mind could create the things that I use and love. That's completely normal, in a messed-up sort of way.
But as I said before: I read this article as a kind-of-farce. I doubt this guy was being completely honest in his writings. Similarly, do I stalk Daniel Handler? Of course not. I just read his interviews when I find them. But that doesn't stop this from being a relationship between me and a guy that makes things.
I've had that relationship in reverse with people who've liked the things that I do. I'll meet people that feel they know me through a crappy Flash video I did a while ago. And while I don't feel that that gives them a good idea of me, that's because it was a bad video. I fully expect that the people who use sites I design or who read stories I write do know me, and when I meet them there's a feeling that I don't have with other people, that in a way this person and I are friends. Because in the process of writing, of creating things, I've shown a part of myself and made it public in a personal way. When I write, a part of the process involves my getting to know myself better. And when those people read my writing, they've taken that in, and they've gotten to know me. Not my story, but me, because everything I write is me, everything I know is a part of me, and the relationship between a person and a piece of art is absolutely, in some non-trivial way, a relationship between that person and the artist. That's natural.
Also creepy: spending 815 words explaining why you aren't creepy.
I write at something like the pace of a hundred words a minute. For me, 815 words is the time it takes for me to wait for a kid on my floor to finish his homework so we can go eat.
I regret that my writing speed comes across as creepy.
I regret that my writing speed comes across as creepy.
Fear not - at least one person (me) has the same "problem." :)
What is the matter with you?
I don't get into any of those arguments. Except Mac vs. PC, which is on very specific technical and aesthetic grounds!
Regarding "personal relationships" with cultural authors, all I can offer is Neal Stephenson's Why I Am A Bad Correspondent, which explains better than I ever could:
http://web.mac.com/nealstephenson/Neal_Stephensons_Site/Bad_...
By the way, I also like Lynch. And I bet you also like Stephenson. I wonder if there's some ultra-narrow cultural niche we all fit into ; )
Regarding "personal relationships" with cultural authors, all I can offer is Neal Stephenson's Why I Am A Bad Correspondent, which explains better than I ever could:
http://web.mac.com/nealstephenson/Neal_Stephensons_Site/Bad_...
By the way, I also like Lynch. And I bet you also like Stephenson. I wonder if there's some ultra-narrow cultural niche we all fit into ; )
I made the mistake of buying Anathem, which is way more involved than I have time for at the moment. I need to find a lighter novel of Stephenson so that I can get used to his style first.
Zodiac is very light. Sex, drugs, violence, and environmentalism.
Ha! I knew it! I'd love to see a Venn diagram of PG fans vs Stephenson fans. My guess is that the union is very large indeed...
Funny how your original post points out how the author is creepily following PG's life, and now you implicate that members of the forum are "PG Fans".
I don't understand. I am unabashedly a fan of PG's writings. That makes me a PG fan, I suppose. There is a pretty wide gap, though, between being a PG fan and writing a blog post entitled "My Love, Hate, Love Again, Affair with Paul Graham". You disagree?
I don't disagree that there is a difference in the behavior between you and the author.
This behavior is not different in quality, though, just in quantity. I think that when you call yourself a "fan" and spend your time "wondering about the intersection between PG's fans and Stephenson's fans", you are expressing the same kind of devotion shown by the author.
So yes, there is a gap between you and the author. But it is a relative one. And I happen to think it is funny to see people judging someone else's behavior even when they show the same behavior. It's no different than pill-happy moms worried about their kids using drugs, claiming there is a huge difference between prescription drugs and whatever-kids-take-these-days.
This behavior is not different in quality, though, just in quantity. I think that when you call yourself a "fan" and spend your time "wondering about the intersection between PG's fans and Stephenson's fans", you are expressing the same kind of devotion shown by the author.
So yes, there is a gap between you and the author. But it is a relative one. And I happen to think it is funny to see people judging someone else's behavior even when they show the same behavior. It's no different than pill-happy moms worried about their kids using drugs, claiming there is a huge difference between prescription drugs and whatever-kids-take-these-days.
Oh come on. I used the word "fan" once, to make a silly point about crossovers between cultural totem 1 (startup culture/ this place / PG etc) and totem 2 (neal stephenson). I've never said it before, I don't "spend my time" brooding on it, it was just a throwaway line.
I think it's a qualitative difference, but I guess I can't prove it. However, I didn't want to come across as judgemental so I apologise for that.
I think it's a qualitative difference, but I guess I can't prove it. However, I didn't want to come across as judgemental so I apologise for that.
You mean intersection?
Oops. Yes, I did mean that. Sorry.
Sigh, I never know what to do now. Do I go and correct my original comment, and thus rewrite history, and make you look silly, correcting something that isn't wrong? Or maybe correct it and leave an "update:" notice, which looks presumptive - as if anyone could give a shit about my edits. Or I could just leave it alone, wrong as it is, and take my lumps - I should have been right the first time.
I choose the last option. I wonder how others think about such things.
Sigh, I never know what to do now. Do I go and correct my original comment, and thus rewrite history, and make you look silly, correcting something that isn't wrong? Or maybe correct it and leave an "update:" notice, which looks presumptive - as if anyone could give a shit about my edits. Or I could just leave it alone, wrong as it is, and take my lumps - I should have been right the first time.
I choose the last option. I wonder how others think about such things.
For a reader, I think the last option makes sense. This is essentially a dialog. When somebody corrects you when you speak you can say "Yes, I take it back" but you can't go back and actually edit the original.
Yeah, I agree 100%.
Correcting typos, refining your point - that's what "edit" is for. But going back and changing things so you were right smacks of rewriting history and, to me, is against the unwritten rules.
Correcting typos, refining your point - that's what "edit" is for. But going back and changing things so you were right smacks of rewriting history and, to me, is against the unwritten rules.
Check out the books he co-authored:
Interface
The Cobweb
I actually like these better than all his single-authorships. They do feel lighter.
Interface
The Cobweb
I actually like these better than all his single-authorships. They do feel lighter.
but this search, this willingness to devote himself to something, someone, anything .. this is a serious bug in man's programming.
Is it really a bug? Idolation is more common than it's not and I'd be surprised if everyone hadn't felt it to an extent (if only to a non human entity, such as a programming language, a band, or a religion).
Is it really a bug? Idolation is more common than it's not and I'd be surprised if everyone hadn't felt it to an extent (if only to a non human entity, such as a programming language, a band, or a religion).
Ideas and thoughts, and the people who express them, are separate, and ever will be so. Fixating on the originator of an idea is folly and childishness.
We are both fans of Ruby, I know that much. But do you love Matz, specifically? Follow everything he writes? Look to him for guidance in your personal life? Of course not, and me either. I can love his ideas seperate from him.
Same with PG. I wouldn't be here if I didn't greatly admire his thinking. But personally idolising the guy? Of course not.
Yes I have felt that before, when I was younger, when I was a child, and yes about a band. Now I consider it childishness, a wish to abandon one's duty to think for oneself. I may be wrong, of course.
We are both fans of Ruby, I know that much. But do you love Matz, specifically? Follow everything he writes? Look to him for guidance in your personal life? Of course not, and me either. I can love his ideas seperate from him.
Same with PG. I wouldn't be here if I didn't greatly admire his thinking. But personally idolising the guy? Of course not.
Yes I have felt that before, when I was younger, when I was a child, and yes about a band. Now I consider it childishness, a wish to abandon one's duty to think for oneself. I may be wrong, of course.
I agree with all of your points here, as I don't really idolize anyone either, but I raised the question for the perspective of people who do idolize others or need these sorts of faith based crutches to get through the day. Religion and idolatry are prevalent in our species - more so than logic, sadly.
Agree. It seems to me that if you dont want to give things a thougth, just adhere to someone elses and call yourself a (insert religion/belief system/school of thougth here) and get on with it.
What does that pattern says about our program? is it a bug? a feature?
His About Me page on his blog gives some insight into what he's looking for, or at least become, I think:
"My dream is to some day settle in a remote commune in Kenya and raise kids who will be pure in thought, word and deed, devoid of all the ills of modernity and westernization."
"My dream is to some day settle in a remote commune in Kenya and raise kids who will be pure in thought, word and deed, devoid of all the ills of modernity and westernization."
He seems to forget to mention that YC is PG next startup after Viaweb.
Without referring to this point, the arguments in the second half of the article suddenly become less persuasive.
Without referring to this point, the arguments in the second half of the article suddenly become less persuasive.
Because we are apes, our behavior follows the dictations of the endocrine system. Love, worship, depression, happiness, it's all an evolutionary con job.
I think the downside is easily outweighed by being able to inspire people.
My summary: You're kind of a pain in my ass and I can't waste time on your Emotions if I want to be a Success. Let's be friends, cya! ;D
I hate to judge people on their personal matters, but this was published and prominently linked, so it's fair game: that's some real cold stuff. I'm all for ambition and wanting to succeed, and it's true that I know nothing about the relationship (there may be plenty of other factors that change things), but to me it's still important to maintain some level of compassion and decency in your human interactions, especially outside of business - at least without context, the lack of tact and general bluntness seem to indicate a real sensitivity problem.
To me that's an entirely inappropriate way to end what you once considered a serious relationship, not to mention the inherent cruelty of an e-mail breakup, and the further salt-in-wound damage you inflict by posting the letter online...
Am I alone here?