Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | lr0's commentslogin

They are usually deleted, maybe this one hasn't got popular enough yet.

It's been around for six years; at this point, I imagine any damage it could have done has been done already.


I had a similar experience with Google's support this year when I logged to my older Google account from a new device, and I was automatically logged out from everywhere, when I was trying to login again it asked me to provide an OTP, when I asked the form to send me the OTP, it said that I've done so many attempts.

Later, I learnt that this is actually very common problem, if you see the "Me too" count on the Google Community Help, it's about 20K (https://support.google.com/accounts/thread/52598991/my-gmail...) users, that's a huge amount of false positives that Google refuses to care enough about to make a change in their automated account process, which they keep bringing up when users complain, they say the process is automated and nothing could be done about it (well, you are a tech company, can't you like change the code or something?). Unironically I had to wait uncertainly for a week then try, which did not work (same too many attempts), then after two weeks, then after couple of months, until I just gave up and created a new account. After 4 months I was able to finally login again.


Since "me too" begins with "me", support staff couldn't see it, and assumed it was just one product (human) having the issue.


I'm now at the point where I cannot create a new Google account as my phone number "has been used too many times".


I remain very curios of how gnabgib was able to find this.


The US "obsession" with Israel is not "random" or arbitrary at all, it's quite systematic and there are so much literature on that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Israel_Lobby_and_U.S._Fore...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUQ_0MubbcM [Why the US. supports Israel / Noam Chomsky]



Highly recommend: Killing Hope by William Blum, it dissects the history of the many authoritarian regimes the U.S. supported since WWII, coups the U.S. engineered, the revolutions it strangled in their infancy, governments it systematically destabilized, and the popular movements it crushed (often under the veneer of “stability” or “containment”).

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


this is so hilarious.


> I believe the author's intent was (or should have been) to describe how THEY wanted to receive communication, not how EVERYONE should

I thought that would be too obvious to state.


Most of your post discusses communication in general terms. When you say that it’s unprofessional and rude to begin a Slack message with a greeting before getting to the meat of the issue, there’s no indication at all that you only meant this to apply to Slack messages sent to you personally.

At one point you say, “Nobody reads ‘hope you had a great weekend’ and thinks better of the person who wrote it.” Who is going to read that and think that “nobody” only applies to you?

If you really meant this to describe how you want to receive communication, not how everyone should, well, this is an example of catastrophically bad communication. Maybe you’d benefit from some of the mindset that leads people to write and appreciate useless greetings.


> At one point you say, “Nobody reads ‘hope you had a great weekend’ and thinks better of the person who wrote it.” Who is going to read that and think that “nobody” only applies to you?

I argued why I believe this does not a good way of communication in business or professional-focused environment, because as explained, habitual padding tends to train readers to skim, because they learn that the lines often contain little of substance. For people who value directness (which, in my experience, includes many in serious professional settings) this kind of attitude is not appreciated. That said, it is simply my own rationale for preferring a more direct style of communication.

>Maybe you’d benefit from some of the mindset that leads people to write and appreciate useless greetings.

I come from a culture where elaborate politeness and social niceties are not only common but often expected, and I do practice them in the appropriate contexts. However, when the goal is to build something, solve a problem, or exchange ideas efficiently, I prefer a norm I explained, that is, directness and the substance of the message to take over.


As you said yourself, this is very culture dependent.

In my culture, elaborate politeness is NOT expected, and when I first started working with foreigners I had some funnily awkward (awkwardly funny) social interactions where they greeted me with customary "How are you? How was your day" and I started politely but awkwardly going over my day thinking "this is not your damn business".

My point being, if you work in a culture that expects some behaviour, it is necessary to follow it. Breaking the protocol (even by omission) is a signal in itself, and if the signal is understood as "I don't like you" or "I am rude" or "I am better than you" then it's counterproductive. Especially important if you're not close with the person communicating with, so misunderstandings are likely.


How does this jibe with describing how you want to receive communication, not how everyone should?


Interesting, perhaps the message was too narrowly, directly-focused and was missing necessary social context?

This feels like a koan about the subjectivity of which details are important to include.


I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: