[Previous] Stream Highlight Videos by deroj | Home

Elliot Temple on January 6, 2021

Messages (14)

Interesting article about how everyone at Gumroad works part time and communicates in writing.

No Meetings, No Deadlines, No Full-Time Employees (2021-01-07):

> Instead of having meetings, people “talk” to each other via GitHub, Notion, and (occasionally) Slack, expecting responses within 24 hours. Because there are no standups or “syncs” and some projects can involve expensive feedback loops to collaborate, working this way requires clear and thoughtful communication.

> Everyone writes well, and writes a lot.


Anonymous at 11:47 AM on January 7, 2021 | #1 | reply | quote

#1 thanks for sharing.

> Notion

I've used Notion a little. I like it, tho haven't used it much. It's got a nice clean UI and seems well focused on pseudo-collaborative writing (like wikis, docs, etc)

> expecting responses within 24 hours.

I'm not sure how they expect responses in 24 hours with part time work tho.

> Everyone writes well, and writes a lot.

I wonder if this is due to the culture, or mb a self-selection process implicit in who they hire. In any case: I think it'd be a useful thing to reproduce.

----

Note: the post mentions Gumroad memberships (launched nov 2020), which sounds like it might be potentially useful: https://gumroad.com/gumroad/p/introducing-gumroad-memberships


Max at 4:42 PM on January 7, 2021 | #2 | reply | quote

https://kill-the-newsletter.com/

Awesome service that lets you read newsletters via RSS/Atom. It gives you a custom email address with which you sign up for the newsletter, and it also gives you a customized Atom URL to put into your feed reader to follow the messages that get sent to that address.


Anonymous at 5:02 PM on January 9, 2021 | #3 | reply | quote

My Mother Told Me

According to *The Viking Rune*, J. R. R. Tolkien's book *Songs for the Philologists* discusses Egil's Saga, a Viking story/poem that dates back to at least 1240 AD:

> The author is Egill Skalla-Grímsson. The first stanza is Egill’s first poem, which is preserved in the Egil’s Saga. In W. C. Green’s translation of 1893 it reads:

> Thus counselled my mother,

> For me should they purchase

> A galley and good oars

> To go forth a-roving.

> So may I high-standing,

> A noble barque steering,

> Hold course for the haven,

> Hew down many foemen.

A different translation of those verses was made into a song that was used in the Vikings show on the History Channel. A clip was uploaded to YouTube in 2016:

> my mother told me

> someday I would buy

> galleys with good oars

> sail to distant shores

> stand up high in the prow

> noble barque I steer

> steady course for the havens

> hew many foe men

My favorite version of that song is by jonnystewartbass and natidreddd on TikTok.


Anonymous at 8:06 PM on January 9, 2021 | #4 | reply | quote

am I wrong to be annoyed by this pronoun thing?

Context: AGDQ 2021 Super Orb Bros. WORLD RECORD by Mitchflowerpower (linked at 18:14)

GlitchCat7 says at 18:15 to 18:27:

> So what Mitch is going to do here is die on purpose instead of leave the level. That's a time save because **they** respawn at the checkpoint, and that allows **them** to go backwards and access the, uhh, little hidden room here.

GlitchCat7 uses the pronouns *they/them* to refer to Mitchflowerpower in the above quote.

In 2019 (I think), GDQ started adding the runner's chosen pronouns after their name. It's only sometimes there, which -- I suspect -- is because there's an optional field the runner can fill out on some form when providing details to GDQ. Some runners opt out (so nothing is shown), and some runners choose pronouns.

In this case Mitch has chosen *he/him* which is shown next to his name.

Other common pronouns I've seen (on GDQ vods) are *she/her* and *they/them*.

I think some people have tried to train themselves to say *they/them* all the time, instead of using traditional pronouns. I'm not sure why; maybe it's an attempt to not misgender ppl by using (supposedly) gender neutral pronouns. But *they/them* isn't gender neutral in the singular. 'They' indicates either 2+ ppl and is gender neutral, *or* 1 person and an *unspecified* gender (or nonbinary/nontraditional). 'Them' is similar. Neither word is gender neutral in the singular. (I checked the definitions via Google's dictionary.)

I think GlitchCat7 is wrong to use *they/them* in this context. Mitch deliberately specified his chosen pronouns and GlitchCat7 is not using them. How is this not misgendering? IMO: *if*, after learning of someone's chosen pronouns, it is wrong to use other pronouns *then* it *must* be just as wrong for GlitchCat7 to use *they/them* in this context. Moreover, this should *not* depend on whether (and how) it affects the feelings of the person referenced. It should be wrong (or okay) regardless of how the person feels. (Granted, there may be practical considerations from person-to-person, but in principle the person-to-person aspects don't matter.)

There's lots of things I don't understand about why ppl do certain things regarding pronouns, but my main concern with this post is:

am I wrong to be annoyed by GlitchCat7's inconsistency here? if so, why? are there other explanations for GlitchCat7's use of *they/them* (besides self-training) that I should consider and do such explanations change the picture?


Max at 6:00 AM on January 10, 2021 | #5 | reply | quote

#5 there's a problem here but the world has much larger problems. this is a symptom not a root cause. it's not a limiting factor or breakpoint. it's OK to consider/analyze for practice, if you think that's best, and also to connect to it causes. but emotions are better directed elsewhere. (the word "annoyed" varies but often refers to emotion).


curi at 11:44 AM on January 10, 2021 | #6 | reply | quote

Currently:

399 posts in Politics Discussion

389 posts in Deplatforming and Fraud Discussion

Both topics are highly active lately. Read or join in!


curi at 6:30 PM on January 10, 2021 | #7 | reply | quote

Gab’s Dissenter browser is insecure

https://twitter.com/bravesampson/status/1350685642846572546 :

> Warning! Dissenter for Windows and Linux hasn't been updated since March, 2020. For macOS, it hasn't been touched since November, 2019. The GitHub repo is stagnant since mid 2020. Chromium receives more than a hundred security patches yearly. Dissenter remains unpatched & unsafe.

> I cannot stress enough how reckless this is of @getongab; they know Dissenter is woefully out of date, and incredibly dangerous for their users.

> You're better off using Internet Explorer. Seriously.

https://twitter.com/porkergolden/status/1350688717674074113 :

> I have been trying to tell people this. Huge security risk. They dont follow upstream code and theres been like 4 zero days.

Also, Dissenter is based on Brave, but Dissenter uses poor coding practices.

Brendan Erich, the founder of Brave, tweeted:

> Are they still using our classids in Windows registry so as to make an uninstall hell for anyone who installs Brave then them?

@bravesampson, who shared the warning above, replied:

> It was going to be fixed in "the next build" according to the still-open issue https://github.com/gab-ai-inc/defiant-browser/issues/36

The GitHub issue was last updated in July 2020.


Anonymous at 11:12 PM on January 16, 2021 | #8 | reply | quote

hero LFG (HLFG) posted a criticism on my YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QD3T_xMxUqE

>>> I see that you (curi) said "Ppl like that it being a meme distracts from it being dumb. Gives excuse Like the "I was joking" standard excuse." Your sentence used "Ppl" instead of "People" and isn't great sentence structure. You then criticize Felix The Cat on his low effort sentence structure without apostrophes and not capitalizing "always". There is something natural in me that reflects what I perceive in the other person. This may apply here. You didn't use great sentence structure. Then he didn't use great sentence structure. But you seem too quick to see his faults and not your own. I have this bias where I am quick to point fingers at others instead of myself. I also practice not letting my perception of other people be reflected in my actions.

curi:

>> timestamps? it's hard for me to comment without looking at what was said and its context. this is from over a year ago so i don't remember.

HLFG:

> @curi 24:21 - low effort and social status

Thanks for the critical feedback. I reviewed it.

First, here's some context:

Justin posted an LT meme tweet and called it a horror show.

Felix said "You don't like memes ?"

Justin and I answered.

Felix asked me "What's misleading?"

Felix has written six words total. Then:

Note: Felix turned out to be Andy B.

After considering what happened, I have several responses.

HLFG misquoted me. I think it's a reasonably understandable accident, but it makes a difference. I wrote two separate messages. "Gives excuse" and "Like..." are different sentences, not one sentence with an incorrectly-capitalized word in the middle. I omitted trailing periods at the end of the messages, as is typical with IM type formats.

I don't think there's a sentence structure problem with what I said (shortcuts aren't a structural problem). I think that criticism is due to misreading two messages as one.

I don't think the "Ppl" abbreviation has a functional downside (maybe with ESL people? which Felix wasn't).

One of HLFG's main criticisms was potential hypocrisy.

I brought up the lower-cased "always" and apostrophe issues for two reasons, neither of which was hypocritial. First, because it was inconsistent with his own prior writing (including earlier in the same message), which is a sign of tilt. Second, because I was (when making the video) doing lengthy, detailed analysis for the purpose of explaining some things about Felix's messages which I'd been asked to explain.

I omitted some minor glue words. Instead of "It gives them an excuse" or "That gives ppl an excuse" I wrote "Gives excuse". All the missing words are simple words that are pretty easy to infer. I don't think it's very ambiguous. In retrospect, shortcuts are a bad idea for communicating with Felix, and perhaps I should have guessed that already at the time I wrote it.

Felix's message is *substantively, philosophically confusing*. He's majorly under-explaining some complex philosophical claims (re BoI, which he hadn't read before he tried to disagree with me about its meaning). The poor writing is an amplifier for that. It brings up multiple topics at once instead of staying focused (I think with no genuine intention of following up on or adequately explaining all the topics raised) and turns the conversation into a mess. It was a big jump in complexity without using effort to try to make the complexity work. I was trying to say one thing that I think is reasonably simple and understandable, even for a new person. He responded with five different things at once, all of which are low quality, and there was a drop in the quality of his writing, in a weirdly inconsistent way, just when some clarity was most needed.

My two messages weren't high effort, but were focusing on one reasonably simple point, which I was prepared to explain further if needed. I expected iterative discussion. Felix's response was lower effort and brought up five points simultaneously to derail the discussion and cause chaos. That's not parallel to my communication.

I think HLFG's other point is about mirroring (reflecting). I think he's saying that maybe Felix was copying my conversational style, and it'd be bad to criticize him for copying me. But that wouldn't explain the style inconsistencies within Felix's message, nor the five things at once. He may have been trying to mirror some (which would be another social thing he did), but I think my criticisms were about things he was doing that I wasn't.


curi at 12:43 AM on January 19, 2021 | #9 | reply | quote

#9

> HLFG misquoted me. I think it's a reasonably understandable accident, but it makes a difference. I wrote two separate messages. "Gives excuse" and "Like..." are different sentences, not one sentence with an incorrectly-capitalized word in the middle. I omitted trailing periods at the end of the messages, as is typical with IM type formats.

I did misquote you and it makes a difference. I am not aware of a standard IM type format, and I try to use good sentence structure and standard formats.

> I don't think there's a sentence structure problem with what I said (shortcuts aren't a structural problem). I think that criticism is due to misreading two messages as one.

I agree that my response was based in an assumption that the two messages were in fact one message.

> I don't think the "Ppl" abbreviation has a functional downside (maybe with ESL people? which Felix wasn't).

I think this choice can indicate an attempt to be efficient. Trying to be efficient can be perceived as being lazy or sloppy. I thought you were criticizing Felix for being lazy (or sloppy).

> One of HLFG's main criticisms was potential hypocrisy.

Yes.

> I brought up the lower-cased "always" and apostrophe issues for two reasons, neither of which was hypocritial. First, because it was inconsistent with his own prior writing (including earlier in the same message), which is a sign of tilt. Second, because I was (when making the video) doing lengthy, detailed analysis for the purpose of explaining some things about Felix's messages which I'd been asked to explain.

I understand the second reason. But I have never heard this word "tilt" used in this way.

> I omitted some minor glue words. Instead of "It gives them an excuse" or "That gives ppl an excuse" I wrote "Gives excuse". All the missing words are simple words that are pretty easy to infer. I don't think it's very ambiguous. In retrospect, shortcuts are a bad idea for communicating with Felix, and perhaps I should have guessed that already at the time I wrote it.

I had to read your words that were without the glue words at least three times. I admit that my reading comprehensions skills are not the best.

> Felix's message is *substantively, philosophically confusing*. He's majorly under-explaining some complex philosophical claims (re BoI, which he hadn't read before he tried to disagree with me about its meaning). The poor writing is an amplifier for that. It brings up multiple topics at once instead of staying focused (I think with no genuine intention of following up on or adequately explaining all the topics raised) and turns the conversation into a mess. It was a big jump in complexity without using effort to try to make the complexity work. I was trying to say one thing that I think is reasonably simple and understandable, even for a new person. He responded with five different things at once, all of which are low quality, and there was a drop in the quality of his writing, in a weirdly inconsistent way, just when some clarity was most needed.

I agree.

> My two messages weren't high effort, but were focusing on one reasonably simple point, which I was prepared to explain further if needed. I expected iterative discussion. Felix's response was lower effort and brought up five points simultaneously to derail the discussion and cause chaos. That's not parallel to my communication.

I understand and agree.

> I think HLFG's other point is about mirroring (reflecting). I think he's saying that maybe Felix was copying my conversational style, and it'd be bad to criticize him for copying me. But that wouldn't explain the style inconsistencies within Felix's message, nor the five things at once. He may have been trying to mirror some (which would be another social thing he did), but I think my criticisms were about things he was doing that I wasn't.

Your criticism of Felix's sloppiness/laziness was the one that stuck out to me as seemingly hypocritical. The criticism is probably relevant to "tilt" if I understood what you meant by "tilt". I think a criticism can be relevant and appear hypocritical. I am guessing that "tilt" has something to do with the person's change in writing style. Your writing style did not change from "formal" to "IM type format" within a single message like Felix's did. After further thought, it seems like your criticism is more focused on the change in style within the message. Your criticism is not focused on laziness/sloppiness in general.


Anonymous at 5:13 AM on January 20, 2021 | #10 | reply | quote

#10 I want to attach my identity to the message above.


Gavin Palmer (HLFG) at 5:14 AM on January 20, 2021 | #11 | reply | quote

#10

http://www.pokerology.com/lessons/understanding-tilt/ :

> Tilt is a poker slang term that is often used to describe the angry or frustrated emotional state of a player. [...]

> Tilt is when you play poker poorly, making even a single play that you know is bad strategy, because your emotions are interfering with your ability to think clearly.


Anonymous at 5:53 AM on January 20, 2021 | #12 | reply | quote

> I had to read your words that were without the glue words at least three times. I admit that my reading comprehensions skills are not the best.

Yeah it was overly-abbreviated writing. I think an important distinction to consider is how realistic is it for the conversation to proceed productively from that point. My two messages might be understood or might require one clarifying question at which point I'd write my point better. There's some risk of the conversation breaking at that point, but it's reasonably realistic for reasonable people to get past that without it causing an ongoing problem.

By contrast, I think it's unlikely and unrealistic for a productive conversation to continue after Felix's response message (the one including "always wrong thats okay, always at the beginning of infinite knowledge?"); it's really hard to deal with. The most common way a conversation might appear productive from there forward is by ignoring most of what Felix said, but I think trying to ignore that sort of problem usually leads to problems later (Felix said it for a reason(s), so just pretending he never said it won't address the causes of him saying it).


curi at 12:04 PM on January 20, 2021 | #13 | reply | quote

> I did misquote you and it makes a difference. I am not aware of a standard IM type format, and I try to use good sentence structure and standard formats.

IM clients today sometimes display consecutive messages from the same person without clear visual distinctions to show where the person hit enter. It's only an issue when the end of a message happens to be near the end of a line, otherwise the whitespace makes it easy to see that the writer hit "enter" there. I dislike it.

For example, Apple's Messages can make multiple IMs look like one IM when a link preview or image is involved.

On Discord, this issue only comes up with the "Cozy" appearance setting, and you can see message separation by hovering your mouse on messages (each has its own separate UI controls and timestamp). The "Compact" appearance setting puts the timestamp and username in front of every message by a user, even if they are consecutive. I just switched to Compact.

Also, when texting, people commonly don't type the last period of a message, especially when on mobile. This can occasionally aggravate the first problem where two IMs look like one long IM. (Though it can also be a clue that you reached the end of an IM. If you see no period, end of line, then a capital letter, that generally means two separate messages. Mobile users generally have autocorrect which will capitalize thes start of a message but would not capitalize that word if it was part of the previous message and had no period before it.)


curi at 12:27 PM on January 20, 2021 | #14 | reply | quote

(This is an unmoderated discussion forum. Discussion info.)