News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The invisibility of Sheryl Sandberg by dbt00 on Tuesday April 03, 2018 @03:02PM (#16747983)
I don’t think it benefits anybody two have two mixed messages coming from two different FB leaders right now, and if only one of them is going to speak up it might as well be Mark.

Her saying “ditto” a lot is not going to help. Her job right now should be inward focused while Mark takes the heat. If his messaging doesn’t work, she’s plan B when they need to pivot.

(Disclaimer: I’ve never worked at FB and I hope it goes away in its current form.)

Re:The invisibility of Sheryl Sandberg by hn_throwaway_99 on Tuesday April 03, 2018 @11:19PM (#16751607)
Agreed. I find the entire thesis of this article extremely obnoxious, as it basically boils down to "Why isn't she doing more 'stuff'?!". What does the author actually want her to do that would change anything? I feel so much that in the modern world we've substituted face time, even if it's meaningless blather, with actual work. Granted, social networks like Facebook are a big factor in this, so perhaps it's fair after all...
Re:The invisibility of Sheryl Sandberg by tarboreus on Tuesday April 03, 2018 @03:40PM (#16748370)
Maybe it's just me, but did social norms around first names change? I wouldn't call Steven Spielberg "Steven." I'd say "Steven Spielberg" or "Spielberg." But this is HN and it's entirely possible you've worked with Mark Zuckerberg.
Re:The invisibility of Sheryl Sandberg by ggg9990 on Tuesday April 03, 2018 @09:43PM (#16751169)
The first-name thing and the casual workplace attire and the fun offices in Silicon Valley are all part of a trend to offset accelerating inequality with the illusion of egalitarianism.
Re:The invisibility of Sheryl Sandberg by joejerryronnie on Tuesday April 03, 2018 @11:16PM (#16751591)
Or maybe it's just more comfortable to wear jeans and you're reading too much into it.
Re:The invisibility of Sheryl Sandberg by tarboreus on Wednesday April 04, 2018 @11:54AM (#16755907)
When Mark Zuckerberg starts wearing swetpants to the office I'll buy this.
Re:The invisibility of Sheryl Sandberg by seatotree on Tuesday April 03, 2018 @03:43PM (#16748389)
It is just you.
Re:The invisibility of Sheryl Sandberg by abritinthebay on Tuesday April 03, 2018 @04:00PM (#16748523)
Out of context yes, you’d be making a reasonable point, but we have context for the names.

It’s informal yes, but this isn’t a place for formal writing.

So it’s mostly just you.

Re:The invisibility of Sheryl Sandberg by slantyyz on Tuesday April 03, 2018 @04:41PM (#16748913)
>> It’s informal yes, but this isn’t a place for formal writing.

>> So it’s mostly just you.

It's more likely a generational thing, so not just him/her. It's also less about formal writing than it is with familiarity.

My (older) generation typically doesn't refer to someone by their first name only unless we actually know the person.

Re:The invisibility of Sheryl Sandberg by whatyoucantsay on Tuesday April 03, 2018 @05:42PM (#16749604)
That is precisely why those who want to place themselves in the in crowd use first names.
Re:The invisibility of Sheryl Sandberg by abritinthebay on Tuesday April 03, 2018 @06:42PM (#16750096)
Perhaps it once was but it's a really common thing now so it's hardly just for that reason.
Re:The invisibility of Sheryl Sandberg by whatyoucantsay on Tuesday April 03, 2018 @08:04PM (#16750663)
Or perhaps narcissism and attention-seeking behaviours are "a really common thing now" and, as a consequence, referring to wealthy strangers by first name is also becoming more common.
Re:The invisibility of Sheryl Sandberg by abritinthebay on Thursday April 05, 2018 @07:33PM (#16769739)
No offense, but this comes across very "old man yells at cloud" or "darn kids" and I'm 37.
Re:The invisibility of Sheryl Sandberg by slantyyz on Tuesday April 03, 2018 @10:33PM (#16751426)
Common among a particular age group or demographic doesn't necessarily mean it's a universal behavior.
Re:The invisibility of Sheryl Sandberg by whatyoucantsay on Tuesday April 03, 2018 @08:06PM (#16750667)
It's not just you. Your point is entirely valid.
Re:The invisibility of Sheryl Sandberg by ben_jones on Tuesday April 03, 2018 @03:57PM (#16748491)
I really don't like how people on HN and otherwise have taken to calling Mark Zuckerberg "Zuck". At this point I feel like its some kind of playground insult people are using because it rhyme's with the word "fuck". Am I misinterpreting it?
Re:The invisibility of Sheryl Sandberg by jonathankoren on Tuesday April 03, 2018 @04:12PM (#16748630)
You’re misinterpetting it. He’s been known as Zuck since Facebook started. It’s even his email and login.
Re:The invisibility of Sheryl Sandberg by MrL567 on Tuesday April 03, 2018 @04:54PM (#16749057)
The playground insult version of Zuck is Zucc for reference. Also has become the term for when a Facebook page gets shut down, they get "zucced".
Re:The invisibility of Sheryl Sandberg by brandnewlow on Tuesday April 03, 2018 @04:11PM (#16748623)
I don't think its meant as an insult. I think people use it because it implies familiarity, is fun to read/say, and AFAIK is Zuckerberg's old IM/IRC handle which makes it a way to reference his past as an actual coder/hacker. I see it more as a sign of respect when used on HN.