Hey, all. I really don't know what to do with a post like this.
I'm being sincere when I say (as I've said on two threads here) that this genre of posts --- "I'm leaving this company I've been very publicly associated with, and here's the new thing I'm doing" --- is deeply cursed. There's no way to say anything interesting without it just stinking like an ad for the new thing.
Obviously, anything at all you say about a commercial project you're working on is easily read as promotional. And you're right, this kind of writing almost always is promotional. But there's a way to do it where at least you're trying to be in conversation with your peers, rather than hitting people over the head with how awesome you think the project is.
But I don't know how to do that in a post like this. I think the only way to read it is as, like, an investor memo. Not my goal, but I don't make the rules.
So my strategy here is just to stay kind of vague, and talk about where I think the world is going, rather than the specific thing we're doing. I can talk your ears off about capability systems, datalog, models driving hardware, virtualization, whatever. Those are fun conversations and I'm very psyched to have them; it's what lights me up about the work we're doing now.
But I don't think it can work here. I didn't submit this post and I didn't upvote it. I wrote it because I didn't want the whole thing I'm leaving Fly.io for to be wrapped up in some dumb Twitter thread.
If you're unsatisfied with the post, I don't blame you, but it's less a bid for the front page of HN than it is an update to my "about me" page. I'd literally rather talk about HN meta, and how to write for HN, than I would about operating systems at this moment. I truly appreciate the interest though.
1. When you write a comment in a discussion of an article, be upfront with being the author. It took me a while to understand that from your comment. "Author here" is a thing.
2. Your article itself doesn't have clear authorship stated. At the very bottom there is a copyright notice, but that's pretty generic and not a single person either. Just place your name at the top together with a date. Not everybody knows you or follows your blog.
3. When I read this ...
> When I was a little kid, a family friend sold us our first “computer” — scare quotes because I’m pretty sure it was a VTech Laser 200 clone, a chiclet keyboard Z80 that ran off cassette tapes and plugged into our TV.
.. I prepared to stop reading since .. how is that not a computer? After another paragraph or two which just felt like rambling, I gave up.
The feedback here is pretty clearly that it's not clear that it's your site. Are people supposed to just assume that 'sockpuppet.org' and 'tptacek' are related somehow? Do we have to click on the profile of every commenter we read to establish outside context? And whether or not you submitted it has nothing to do with whether or not you commented on it at length without establishing that relationship.
You're getting perfectly reasonable feedback here, and your response is weird.
No, I almost didn't get that, and that's the point. It's bad style to leave folks here in the dark about discussing your own work. Presumambly you would react similarly if somebody else did it like that.
And it's odd that you are getting so defensive about this feedback.
It pisses me off (not just for my own site) when people talk as if stories that show up on HN are somehow community property of HN. It's a page I put on my own website. I will make it look any way I fucking choose. People here do this all the time and I can only imagine how alienating it must be to website authors who aren't familiar with our giant clique.
Sure, do that. I don't mind. But when coming here discussing your own article, please be open about that it's your article and not an independent opinion you are giving. Everybody else manages to do that, I'm sure you could too.
But that's the 3rd time we are circling around this and you are still actively fighting anybody pointing it out, so I'll just conclude that you are this kind of person.
I will not be, because, again, I didn't submit this article here --- what I did instead was write this and then dread what would happen when it hit the front page.
That's not true for all (or even most) of what I write, but it's true this time, and I'm not letting it slide.
tptacek · · focus · HN ↗
I'm being sincere when I say (as I've said on two threads here) that this genre of posts --- "I'm leaving this company I've been very publicly associated with, and here's the new thing I'm doing" --- is deeply cursed. There's no way to say anything interesting without it just stinking like an ad for the new thing.
Obviously, anything at all you say about a commercial project you're working on is easily read as promotional. And you're right, this kind of writing almost always is promotional. But there's a way to do it where at least you're trying to be in conversation with your peers, rather than hitting people over the head with how awesome you think the project is.
But I don't know how to do that in a post like this. I think the only way to read it is as, like, an investor memo. Not my goal, but I don't make the rules.
So my strategy here is just to stay kind of vague, and talk about where I think the world is going, rather than the specific thing we're doing. I can talk your ears off about capability systems, datalog, models driving hardware, virtualization, whatever. Those are fun conversations and I'm very psyched to have them; it's what lights me up about the work we're doing now.
But I don't think it can work here. I didn't submit this post and I didn't upvote it. I wrote it because I didn't want the whole thing I'm leaving Fly.io for to be wrapped up in some dumb Twitter thread.
If you're unsatisfied with the post, I don't blame you, but it's less a bid for the front page of HN than it is an update to my "about me" page. I'd literally rather talk about HN meta, and how to write for HN, than I would about operating systems at this moment. I truly appreciate the interest though.
teiferer · · focus · HN ↗
1. When you write a comment in a discussion of an article, be upfront with being the author. It took me a while to understand that from your comment. "Author here" is a thing.
2. Your article itself doesn't have clear authorship stated. At the very bottom there is a copyright notice, but that's pretty generic and not a single person either. Just place your name at the top together with a date. Not everybody knows you or follows your blog.
3. When I read this ...
> When I was a little kid, a family friend sold us our first “computer” — scare quotes because I’m pretty sure it was a VTech Laser 200 clone, a chiclet keyboard Z80 that ran off cassette tapes and plugged into our TV.
.. I prepared to stop reading since .. how is that not a computer? After another paragraph or two which just felt like rambling, I gave up.
tptacek · · focus · HN ↗
stonogo · · focus · HN ↗
You're getting perfectly reasonable feedback here, and your response is weird.
tptacek · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
stonogo · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
teiferer · · focus · HN ↗
And it's odd that you are getting so defensive about this feedback.
tptacek · · focus · HN ↗
teiferer · · focus · HN ↗
But that's the 3rd time we are circling around this and you are still actively fighting anybody pointing it out, so I'll just conclude that you are this kind of person.
tptacek · · focus · HN ↗
That's not true for all (or even most) of what I write, but it's true this time, and I'm not letting it slide.