Re:Extreme Pair Programming - Guy Steele and Richard Stallman
by mquander on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @08:51PM
(#1692896)
The point is that both of those responses, as well as the original remark, are completely inane and boring. If a person reads this anecdote and the only thing he has to say about it is a commentary on bathroom breaks, then I wish that person would resist the urge to post his thoughts.
Re:Extreme Pair Programming - Guy Steele and Richard Stallman
by jrockway on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @08:54PM
(#1692902)
More inane or less inane than meta-talk?
If all a person has to say about an article is about how badly HN sucks, then I wish that person would resist the urge to post his thoughts.
As GlaDOS says: "We both know that isn't going to happen."
I will argue both sides. For:
"It's a good point; at some point biology has to take over and break your concentration. Did they have bathroom breaks and not mention it? Were they so focused that they couldn't hear their body telling them to let it out? Did they just go in a bottle right there?"
Intersting point, jrockway!
Against:
"I think the point of this story was not to literally describe the exact events that took place over the 10 hours they were working together. They took breaks. They got some lunch and made some coffee. But that part isn't very interesting to talk about, and neither of them remember it because it was so meaningless in the context of what they were doing.
But yes, they used the bathroom. Glad that that's all you could think about."
See how I could argue either side and I didn't have to mention HN at all? If I disagreed, other people would see that and upmod me and realize that the OP's comment didn't have much relevance. If I agreed, other people might think, "hey, this OP guy is insightful".
You can control how comments are moderated and how the conversation flows. But you have to put more effort into it than just saying "HN is dying, OH NOES".