Comment by staticassertion
4 years ago
I mentioned Rust because I write Rust professionally. If I wrote Java professionally, as I used to, I would have said "java". So you're probably correct that I could preempt stupid people's posts, but I don't care about the dregs of HN reading into my very clear, simple statement, just because they're upset about rust or whatever. It's just not worth it to me.
I'm glad the post was of value to you. The talk is really good and I think more people should read it.
I hear you, and it’s your prerogative to choose how much to invest in reducing the attack surface for your communication.
On the other hand, you could choose to think about communications in an analogous way to your code, both being subject to attack by bad actors trying to subvert your good intentions.
So, the argument could be made, that removing attack surface from communication is analogous to hardening your code.
I also come from a coding background (albeit a long time ago) and with the help of some well meaning bosses over time eventually came to realize, that my messages could gain more influence, by reducing unnecessary attack surface. - Doesn’t mean I always get it right, even now - but I am aware and generally try hard to do just that.
Yep, I definitely get what you're saying and strategic communication is totally worthwhile (I'm a CEO, the value is absolutely not lost on me). It's just not something I prioritize on HN, that's just the personal call I make.
fair enough! :-)
> So, the argument could be made, that removing attack surface from communication is analogous to hardening your code.
That's true, but this is one of the cases where obtaining the last 5-10% of clarify might require 90% of the total effort.
Now whether one actually already has plucked all the low-hanging fruit in their own communication and if it's already good -- that's a separate discussion.