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.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
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.
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.
>> 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.
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.
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.
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.