Comment by brenden2
6 years ago
It’s always interesting to see what kinds of things make it to the front page because of who wrote them, rather than the content itself (which in this case is just a few cherry picked examples with no context). I’m not exactly sure what anyone is supposed to learn from this aside from the facts themselves.
When we pick a set of facts to highlight, we are editorializing by what we choose to include or not include in such a list. This is the core of every good documentary I have ever seen: ultimately, they are compelling editorials because they construct a narrative by telling or showing you things that actually happened.
Whether or not those things are a representative sample, or plausibly support the narrative in the wider context of human society, is left as an exercise to the reader.
I recall reading once that Thiel said that most or all of the critically important events in history were accomplished by small, highly motivated teams. (Pardon me if I am misremembering the quote exactly.)
Perhaps pc is simply reminding us that “move fast and break things” isn’t always a bad thing? Just speculating, though.
> I’m not exactly sure what anyone is supposed to learn from this aside from the facts themselves.
What's wrong with learning facts?
Nothing wrong in itself. But it is appropriate to wonder about the takeaways. Without proper context and history, the lessons you draw might not be helpful ones.
Good point; it makes me think most people open articles because they want to be sold into a narrative, rather than learn facts.
This is why folks listen to the “news” media yammer about a topic even after they know the facts.
totally agree with you on this one. it's becoming a hn's favorites hub here. that's not a good thing.