Interesting. Two years earlier, when I worked at Spotify in 2013, I wrote a similar article: https://engineering.atspotify.com/2013/02/25/in-praise-of-bo...

Maybe this is tech's crab.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinisation

That is like expecting that carpenters are going to keep making jigs and saying "measure twice, cut once" in various forms.

If you could read the advice of a from carpenter 2000 years ago, I think he'd also be talking a lot about how humans make errors and need to account for that.

I think this gets at why people keep going back to old, time-tested tools. All new languages, frameworks, and tools seem to converge on the same things with enough time. Carpentry, computers, and programming languages all end up with a router.

They also end up with some kind of cruft, or annoyance. A time-tested tool has time-tested failure modes. Everyone eventually figures out they need to start a nail with taps and remove their hand before swinging. Some people prefer to figure it out on their own, others like to know the path ahead.

Some info about the memes mentioned at the bottom

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/carcinization

I remembered the article and came here to comment about it. What a nice surprise to see the author beating me to it :D. Loved it!

I don’t think there is a limit on how much you can discuss a subject. Everybody has an opinion and PoV.

We always can discuss it a little bit longer

Sure. I'm not trying to shut down the discussion, or flag this as a dupe, or anything like that. It's more of a PSA that if anyone finds this subject interesting and wants more, there's a thousand HN comments already written on it.

It seems that this particular link was posted by the same poster 4 times over the past few weeks [0]. Given the pattern of repeat reposts I assumed it's an experiment to see which times are best to post to get more traction.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=panelbear.com

Hey I'm the OP, the HN rules indicate that if a post didn't get enough attention that's alright.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html

  "If a story has not had significant attention in the last year or so, a small number of reposts is ok. Otherwise we bury reposts as duplicates."

I reposted it several times over the past month. I'm sorry if that was too much, now I know that.

> HN rules indicate that if a post didn't get enough attention that's alright

Which is why I explicitly stated I assumed it's just an experiment of sorts and I didn't imply anything nefarious.

The optics of posting the same links from the same websites suggest going beyond "I found this interesting" towards something more about getting the clicks.

Sometimes HN is used just to garner audience, and while the letter of the rules may be observed, the spirit certainly isn't [0] (you may need to enable seeing dead threads).

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=dev.to

I just apologized if I reposted too often, I initially thought it was fine based on the guidelines.

(To clarify, I’m not the one who downvoted your comment above)

Hey thanks for the feedback! I'm the author of the blog post. The topic has been influential for me, and I just wanted to share my perspective on it, specially in the context of a recent project.

I don't think any other article talks about Choosing Boring Tech in the context of Kubernetes, and building a one-man SaaS.

Could you please clarify what you found odd? I'm just curious.

You didn't want to just share your perspective, you know this subject is popular on HN and you are brute force publishing your article until it reaches the front page (its the 4th time you are posting the link) in order to create an audience for the product your are selling.

This is not forbidden as far I know, but not really the kind of behavior HN users like

Couldn’t have phrased it better myself. I’m guessing the original poster is a member of Indie Hackers, getting on the front page of HN is one of their main mission objectives when it comes to marketing.

I actively participate in both communities for some time already. Not sure what is wrong with sharing my posts?

I do mention what I’m doing to build a product, if you find it interesting, great. If not, feel free to ignore it.

But that is not at all the point of the article.

Pull the other one. You know exactly what you are doing.

Yes, I posted the article in the past. This time people saw it, and started discussing. That's about it.

I'm just trying to share the lessons learned while building a product, and if someone finds my product interesting, that's great, if not, fine too.

Personally I'm not here to tell you what to do, you are old enough to know what you have to do.

I like to read original content on HN (and I accept that this is not the case of everyone) so I don't really like when a topic keeps coming and doesn't bring anything new to the discussion.

Anyway it seems like you are deep into copying the stuff of others as Panelbear look a lot like a copy of SimpleAnalytics

> I don't really like when a topic keeps coming and doesn't bring anything new to the discussion.

It is fine to value novelty.

And also sometimes it is important and useful to return to tried-and-true ideas that others are already familiar with.

Example: If you want people's opinions on something you've realised about Kubernetes, it can be really helpful to put that discussion within a tried-and-true conceptual framework like "Choose Boring Technology"

I do not think anyone has covered this topic in the context of choosing Kubernetes for building a one-man SaaS.

> Anyway it seems like you are deep into copying the stuff of others as Panelbear look a lot like a copy of SimpleAnalytics

I was unhappy with existing solutions, so I built my own.

I mean, it's basically what I wrote above. You used the exact same title as the McKinley's article, the same Maslow's pyramid visualization as their presentation, and went through their basic points in the same order.

This meant there was a major feeling of deja vu, it didn't feel like a particularly original take on the subject. Maybe the feeling would not have been there if it had been more obvious. I.e. titled something like "My take on 'Choose Boring Technology'", the link moved to the opening paragraph, and explicitly stating that you were reframing that original article in terms of your own experience.

(But to to repeat, I'm not claiming that anything untoward happened here).

Thanks, just updated the article to clarify the context a bit better.

It may be a classic article to you, but for the 'N' people who have joined HN and not seen it and not learnt from it yet - this is their opportunity.

Do not deny it to them or belittle those that provide said opportunity. Your past is not their past.