As a hacker, I enjoy reading a few hundred words on some new optimisation method or an exciting new file system.
But I find it almost impossible to read thousands and thousands and thousands of words on wishy washy social ideas backed up by a few personal anecdotes and some tenuous links to reality.
This is a form of anti-intellectualism which is, for some reason, acceptable in technical circles. Probably because economic success gained by expertise in one field tends to make people think that expertise transfers to other fields. It’s a shame and the technology industry is worse off for it - especially as of late with all the half-baked philosophizing about AI.
Yes, the half in "Half-baked" is making long-winded assertions backed up with anecdotes not facts. [Editted]
It is anti-intellectual to blather on over pages and pages, trying to tell people how to live their lives without giving any information to show if ones statements are correct or not.
"Intellectual" is, for some reason, accepted in some circles as meaning longwinded unscientific musings, to which whole university departments are devoted. That does not mean it is not an utter waste of time and effort, that would be better spent on measuring things and giving advice that is actually shown to improve people's lives.
The tech anti-intellectualism is different though. Like you see these kinds of posts that approach the subject as if no one ever has seriously studied it, and the tell is always that there's barely a scholarly work cited, but there's plenty of metaphors to describe how say, sociological phenomena work by way of "it's just like XY tech or business model."
Like I get the acclaim, if you're raised in this environment, the business tech vocab will feel more familiar. Is it a good / better way to describe the world than the established scientific field? No.
But reading the "Peasant and his body" by Bourdieu instead would not have the same... social coinage in tech as reading the influencer of the realm.
Ignore and dismiss things like status as "wishy washy social ideas" at your own peril.
They might be referring just to the fact that it's difficult. I personally don't want to ignore them and I often don't. They're necessary and helpful in the real world, but that doesn't make it any easier.
I double that and would add that they also commented on the form (length, links…) rather than the substance.
I have ignored and dismissed the pseudosciences of horoscopes and psychology all my happy life.
People who need and look for this sort of advice would be well-served if it was backed up with anything factual, and are badly served when it is not.
I'm no specialist in horoscope pseudoscience but it has helped me with dating a few times tho
I found it obnoxious that they started with 4 "Editor's Note" tangents, and the first sentence of the whole thing is "Look at how funny I am".
It's like all those YouTubers who start their videos with rambling on about what's new in their lives...
That's why after scrolling I took it to Claude with the command: "Distill all of the novel insights and actionables in this."
So in fewer words it was:
> To create a successful social network, focus on providing a valuable single-user utility (utility) and a means for users to accumulate social capital, which drives growth and engagement. By understanding how social capital is created and maintained, you can design a network that fosters a positive flywheel of growth, leading to rapid expansion and user retention.
Distill more.
> Create a successful social network by providing a valuable utility and a way for users to accumulate social capital, which drives growth and engagement.
Distill more.
> Make social networks that give users value and help them gain status, and they will grow and engage.
Sounds like the dream we were sold in early 2010s. Connect people and everything will improve? Is that what the author meant?
> everything will improve
What domain "everything" belongs to? From the first recap it’s the company perspective:
> network […] rapid expansion and user retention
While the third distillation suggest the users will profit it:
> users […] will grow and engage
Social network history show us both are not necessarily aligned.
The "they" refers to the social networks I think. The human reader is the one making the leap.