jariel (u/jariel) - Readit News

jariel commented on Saying the Difficult Things ethan.katzenberg.co.uk/po... · Posted by u/ethangk

krono · 4 years ago

Dutch directness. We'll tell you that new suit you just purchased and are extremely excited about makes you look like a clown. We'll tell a higher-up why his new plan is stupid and that we're not very excited to waste our time on it, a complete stranger might walk up to you and tell you out in the open that your fly is down, you zip it up and no one will think anything of it.

It's accepted, it's respected, and it's even expected. Unfortunately, more often than not, it's also not at all appreciated by people from foreign cultures and we have to be really careful with our words.

jariel · 4 years ago

"We'll tell a higher-up why his new plan is stupid and that we're not very excited to waste our time on it"

There's a difference between 'what my instinct is' and 'thoughtful communication'.

It's possible in these kinds of situations that 'the plan is objectively dumb' and surely therefore someone might not be interested ... but I've seen more often than not people not really understand why something is initiated, what the objectives are etc. and just make narrow assumptions with belligerance, which they believe is 'being direct'. It's 'direct' in a way, in that it's a 'direct articulation of a narrow set of assumptions' - but that doesn't make it good or professional.

"This is dumb, I don't want to work on it" is surely direct, but it's also essentially an immature and unprofessional way of communicating.

More appropriately it would be: "I don't think this plan will achieve the understanding I have of the objectives for this, this and this reason, but here are some alterations that might work" - or "Technically, I don't think this will work because of this reason, but I don't understand what the non-technical objectives are so my feedback is limited to that scope" - or "I think these areas are more risky than implied, but these areas will work" or better "This won't work for these reasons, but fill us in on the strategic objectives and we can fill in the blanks with something that will, if we can".

I personally appreciate 'directness' a lot, but a lot of people misunderstand that to be 'what I think off the top of my head without trying to actually address the issue'.

And yest, there's way too much sensitivity around criticism going on. Legit criticism needs to be allowed. It's also really hard for some people to separate themselves form their critique or their work and so communications sometimes gets mangled on both sides.

jariel commented on Tauri: Rust-based Electron alternative releases beta tauri.studio/?hn... · Posted by u/adamnemecek

nim2020 · 4 years ago

Like I wrote in another response, we are due for a landing page revamp, and we'll be sure to make a "nothing but the facts" hero for people like yourself who are concerned that their time is being wasted.

jariel · 4 years ago

I don't think it's so much 'nothing but the facts' but rather a little more effort to explain 'what it is'.

It's not that the site is 'marketing speak', it's just that it's a 3/10 on communications.

Even two sentences at the top would help.

I've spent a minute on it and I'm not sure what it is.

It's a way to make apps, but it doesn't have a front end? I don't even know what that means.

jariel commented on The handshake emoji is more complicated than you might think jenniferdaniel.substack.c... · Posted by u/donohoe

GlitchMr · 4 years ago

Emoji was supported for a long time on Japanese phones. Apple wanted to sell iPhones in Japan, so they implemented emojis using Unicode's Private Use Area which initially was a feature only available in Japan, but people quickly figured out how to use them outside of Japan.

Emojis became a rather popular feature of iPhones, and Android wanted to have emojis as well, however using Private Use Area just like iPhones did wasn't ideal, so they made a proposal to Unicode Consortium to encode emojis in Unicode.

Later, there was a lot of demand to add new emojis, so more and more emojis got encoded into the standard.

jariel · 4 years ago

Oh, I understand all of that of course. I meant some kind of Unicode-specific debate over how it should all work and what the alternatives were.

jariel commented on The handshake emoji is more complicated than you might think jenniferdaniel.substack.c... · Posted by u/donohoe

jariel · 4 years ago

Can someone comment with relevant experience about the fact that maybe emojis should not be part of unicode? And that we should literally just send tiny images as part of text?

This way, you know the host system is 100% going to represent what you want to say correctly, that the emoji will look right, and you don't need to worry the system will replace it, that it supports it etc..

And you can literally use 'any emoji' you want.

There is an infinite number of things we can put in emojis, why are we trying to standardize such things?

I wonder if someone has some insight as to the history around this?

jariel commented on Signal Tries to Run the Most Honest Facebook Ad Campaign Ever, Gets Banned gizmodo.com/signal-tried-... · Posted by u/1cvmask

jariel · 4 years ago

This is lesson in media, PR, liars, spin, misrepresentation, attempts to explain, yada yada. There are hardly any good actors here: Signal for misrepresenting, the press for turning a blind eye, Facebook for collecting too information etc..

This is a really bad look for tech.

jariel commented on How Basecamp Blew Up platformer.news/p/-how-ba... · Posted by u/peterthehacker

dools · 4 years ago

It's not a matter of disagreement about 2 equally valid viewpoints, it's about one side being wrong about everything following a deliberate and calculated campaign of misinformation, and the other side pointing out how wrong they are and how dangerous their ideology is.

No-one likes being told they're wrong, which is why the capitol riots happened on 6 January and Trump still got so many votes despite being an abjectly horrible president, and the head of a party that does nothing for the vast majority of its constituents.

jariel · 4 years ago

This kind of rhetoric I think might be at the root of the problem.

If you believe the company founders, in the face of being told they occupy their position 'due to privilege' is 'right about everything' then you're the problem.

Telling executives that they are 'denying racism exists' when they are actually only denying that it exists at the company is obviously straw manning.

If you're of the position that 'anyone who questions claims of racism is a white supremacist', then you're entitled to that position, but it's 'war language' that is driving a lot of irresponsible toxicity in the workplace.

jariel commented on How Basecamp Blew Up platformer.news/p/-how-ba... · Posted by u/peterthehacker

Ygg2 · 4 years ago

> Perhaps it didn't "start" with "off-color ribbing" but the usage of 'jokes'

Hutus and Tutsi violence didn't start at jokes. It started with German and Belgian colonists literally preferring one group over the other. Raising animosity between two groups of essentially genetically same people.

Hutus used the identity cards colonists left to target their purges.

I'd say those influenced genocide way, way more, than some radio jokes.

Edit: I think it's easier to believe that if we didn't make a jokes here and there we could have prevented an atrocity. It's an easy and quick solution to a complex question.

I think the situation was way more messy and way more muddy. Jokes didn't help but stopping them wouldn't have stopped the genocide.

jariel · 4 years ago

Although colonialism played a role, 'it started' before that.

It's fair to at least 'talk about' the 'pyramid of hate' and maybe 'believe in it' so as to 'make a point'.

But I don't think it's ok to accuse regular, well-meaning employers of 'holding up systems of White Supremacy'.

It's also basically tone-deaf for an executive, facing a 'sensitive moment' to challenge claims of racism with 'reverse racism' - even if the executive might have a rhetorical point - it's just going to inflame the situation.

I think the execs should have basically 'not acted out of contempt', said some conciliatory things and moved on. Even if they had a legit point to make, they're supposed to be 'bigger than that'.

So I'm not sure if it's worthwhile to dig into the rhetoric, but rather, they should have just found a way past the issue.

Finally, it's a good example of how toxic this stuff can be.

jariel commented on How Basecamp Blew Up platformer.news/p/-how-ba... · Posted by u/peterthehacker

fallenfromgrace · 4 years ago

It has hints of "reverse racism" and tends to dismiss that racism is an issue...and if it is an issue, racism against white people is the actual and bigger issue. That's closer to the camp of "white supremacist" or at the very least, a common defense used by white supremacist. Generally, this would be someone who is, in his position, at the very best, wilfully ignorant.

I was not the one dismissed him, nor do I work at basecamp, nor am I Ryan Singer, so I can't be sure that's why he was suspended...can only guess with the same information available to you.

jariel · 4 years ago

"It has hints of "reverse racism" "

"That's closer to the camp of "white supremacist" or at the very least, a common defense used by white supremacist."

This kind of gaslighthing though.

"My opponent disagrees with me and is therefore a White Supremacist, or at least close to one!"

If one person says 'this org is racist because of white privilege' - it's possibly contentious, but not unreasonable to suggest that this statement is racist in and of itself.

Just because you might deny 'reverse racism' exists, doesn't mean that it's true, it's a denial, not a disagreement.

Also, indicating that 'this office is not a place of white supremacy' is not 'denying' someone else experience, or their position that 'racism exists'. It's an observation of the nature of the ostensible problem.

It's not 'wilfully ignorant' it's more like 'wilfully insensitive / disagreeable / inflammatory'

jariel commented on How Basecamp Blew Up platformer.news/p/-how-ba... · Posted by u/peterthehacker

markhahn · 4 years ago

Definitions are everything.

Consider someone for whom "white supremacy" means "it is right and appropriate to act deliberately to create and preserve white dominance of other races". Versus someone for whom it means "privilege exists in many, though often subtle ways, and advantages white, male, older, cis, het people".

It's a lot like how "defund police" means radically different things.

jariel · 4 years ago

That's not quite the right example though.

CRT definitions of 'White Supremacy' are not about 'people acting deliberately' to support it.

CRT laments that 'regular people' doing 'regular things' act unconsciously to support oppressive systems, hence 'White Supremacy'.

Making a film about 'something' and hiring those people you know to make it, who by virtue of your social network might be 'mostly white' - would be an example of 'White Supremacy'.

Ergo - in their view, unless you are actively fighting to dismantle the concept of whiteness - you're supporting 'White Supremacy'.

I believe there is a kernel of truth in systematic, even unconsciously biased systems, however, I don't remotely agree with many of the assertions. Unfortunately, to disagree with their assertions makes you a 'bad person' in their view.

Have a read [1]. A thesis of 'self examination' i.e. a fairly progressive individual addressing their own 'white supremacy' due to their lack of active assertion of issues of equity etc..

http://www.anthropology-news.org/index.php/2019/06/25/disman...

jariel commented on How Basecamp Blew Up platformer.news/p/-how-ba... · Posted by u/peterthehacker

DiNovi · 4 years ago

like saying white supremacy doesnt exist in the united states

jariel · 4 years ago

The exec. did not say that.

'White Supremacy' classically means men in Pointy White Hats.

The CRT people now use it to mean 'regular white people' because they, in their regular, day to day actions, uphold oppressive systems i.e. 'White Supremacy'.

The denial is usually of the later, not the former.

Many progressives are now using the denial of the later, to imply denial of the former, as a kind of bad faith rhetorical weapon, which I think is unfair.