News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
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.