One thing it took me quite a while to understand is how few bits of information it's possible to reliably convey to a large number of people.
When I was at MS, I remember initially being surprised at how unnuanced their communication was, but it really makes sense in hindsight.
Conversation
Meanwhile, the only message VPs communicated was the need for high velocity. When I asked why there was no communication about the thing considered the highest risk to the business, the answer was if they sent out a mixed message that included reliability, nothing would get done.
2
16
268
I see this for every post, e.g., when I talked about how latency hadn't improved, one of the most common responses I got was about how I don't understand the good reasons for complexity.
I literally said there are good reasons for complexity in the post!
2
4
164
As noted previously, most internet commenters can't follow constructions as simple as an AND, and I don't want to be in the business of trying to convey what I'd like to convey to people who won't bother to understand an AND since I'd rather convey nuance
Quote Tweet
Replying to @danluu and @hillelogram
Like, if you read an ask.metafilter question with an AND, you the questioner is probably screwed. 95%-100% of the commenters will drop half of the question and give an answer that's irrelevant. With XOR there's no chance, 100% of answers will be irrelevant virtually all the time.
7
29
315
But that's because, if I write a blog post and 5% of HN readers get it and 95% miss the point, I view that as a good outcome since was useful for 5% of people and, if you want to convey nuanced information to everyone, I think that's impossible and I don't want to lose the nuance
4
12
260
