REALLY interesting idea - tell me you'll be blogging this?
It might be of use for people considering taking you up on this offer (and I'm one of them) to know roughly what your skills are - I know you say you're versatile, but no-one can do everything.
Or is the point that you want to do things outside your current comfort zone?
Ok, thanks for confirming. So the ban really is limited to posting articles. Interesting. That's a first probably, to be able to comment but not to be able to post.
Number 3 on the leader board[3] and yet banned from posting
I'd say that this is actually a good thing. It proves that the moderators don't favor oldtimers and/or high-karma users: If you break the rules you get banned. No matter who you are.
The rule is, if you have a question about moderation, then email info@ycombinator.com. Don't make an HN post about it. Therefore, it's not really surprising that someone was banned for disobeying the rules. There doesn't seem to be anything especially worrisome here.
Jacques, you could try sending an apology to info@ycombinator.com and ask if it'd be possible to restore your account.
EDIT: It's beside the point whether he originally emailed them. Also, it's important to email info@ycombinator.com, not pg; you'll get a response that way, among other reasons.
Wait, wait. You're an awesome person. Why are you doing this? Is it just excessive pride, or what? There's nothing wrong with accidentally breaking rules. And there's nothing wrong with thinking the rules are stupid. But why not spend the 3 minutes to make it right? I'm just trying to understand your reasoning.
I'll miss your submissions.
You should consider getting a Pinboard account for bookmarking. It's really a great, top-notch and no-nonsense service. Been using it for like two years now.
You're assuming I broke the rules by accident. I broke that rule on purpose and I'm more than happy to accept my 'punishment'. That said I think the arbitrary moderation borders on the ridiculous and reduces the participants of this board to the level of toddlers that are only allowed to discuss that which is permitted by the elders that know best.
I've had similar feelings before. But what if they've implemented the only moderation policy that anyone in the history of the internet has discovered to actually work well for fostering discussion among capable people about interesting topics, consistently? The ruleset has evolved slowly over time; they weren't imposed arbitrarily. Each rule was to counteract a specific class of problems plaguing the site. For example, remember the painful discussion about the Airbnb fiasco a few years ago? It stayed on the site for like two days because an angry mob upvoted it so much. (I was a part of it, before later realizing that the story was designed specifically to incite an angry mob.) Etc. There are reasons to penalize certain kinds of content, and sorting it out is a very difficult process. But at least they're trying.
I'm sillysaurus2 because I broke a rule on purpose on my old sillysaurus account. I asked if they'd unban my sillysaurus account, and they were nice enough to unban it. I stuck with sillysaurus2 rather than switching back -- no real reason, just felt like it -- but the point is that they're lenient and they understand that mistakes happen, on both sides of the fence. Contrast that with the policy of, say, /r/AskHistorians: I'm permabanned there for a stupid mistake, and their policy is to give no second chances under any circumstances. So at least these guys are reasonable, yeah?
Yes, it's worrisome that they hold the power of deciding which discussions are penalized. But wouldn't you rather they hold the power rather than some other group? They genuinely believe in merit and good intentions, rather than just using those things as a smoke screen for greed, as some other groups do.
It's not an ideal situation, but it's like democracy: it's the best anyone's thought of so far. But these are just my thoughts, and I'm really interested in hearing yours.
Actually, because of network effects HN could quite well have better discussions than other sites despite having a moderation policy that's worse than them, so the quality of discussion here isn't evidence they're doing it right. Since most of the users who foster good discussions are on HN, the discussions here will inevitably be better than competing sites, meaning new users will join this site and not other sites. There's a kind of self-reinforcing cycle where everyone often ends up on sites that are, frankly, awful in one or more ways.
(For example, remember Groklaw? That was one of them - the site owner shadowbanned anyone who made good arguments and presented strong new evidence, both when they contradicted her and when they agreed with her, in order to make herself stand out more when she did the same. She also shadowbanned anyone who remarked on these disappearances, so most regulars had no way of realising this was happening. As far as ordinary end users could tell she was just so much better than anyone else that she was indispensable to the fight against SCO. Since all detailed discussion of the SCO lawsuit was on her site, nearly everyone who wanted to discuss the details did so there too and there was no way anyone could establish an alternative.)
Having watched jacquesm over the years, I would expect he would have email PG before posting the "Ask HN". I have no proof of this, and it's possibly he didn't, but personally, I would've emailed, and if I got no reply, then I would've posted here as a backup in case PG was away.
We can't know, and I'm not in a position of privilege, but it's consistent.
Yeah, I have showdead on. My point is more that "That's a first probably" is at least not true anymore (perhaps jacquesm really was the first user to be banned from submitting, but I sort of doubt it).
Interesting -- I had a submission autodeaded a few days ago too, but I assumed it was the site (infoworld.com) rather than my account which had been banned.
I used to think that, and I certainly want to believe it. Then I went to teach "Calculus for Business and Economics" at a US university.
There was one lad had had an "I can it it!" attitude. He was convinced that with hard work he would be able to get through the course. With that attitude I was happy to put in extra hours to help him get the grades he needed.
Many extra hours.
Many, many extra hours.
But it didn't seem to matter what I did, he just couldn't get the hang of what fractions were all about. He could memorize and follow the rules, he mastered the processes, and he worked diligently on all the exercises I could create or find. But underneath, there was no real spark of understanding.
I recently read some unpublished research that suggests that some aspects of mathematical/arithmetical/numerical ability shares something with language. It's been well documented that if you haven't acquired a natural language by the age of 4 or 5 then your long-term abilities will be severely hampered. It's now being suggested in some circles that the same thing might be true with base-line abilities with number.
So I no longer take it as a matter of faith that anyone can do anything, so long as they set their mind to it, but that certainly doesn't stop me from encouraging people to try, and helping when ever I can.
This attitude is a disease in our culture. I challenge you to name a single task an able-bodied human with a sound mind cannot be taught to do and explain why.
Math. Some people try for years and year, and I mean really really try and still can't grasp basic math skills. They have to be hand held through high school to get a D and have to repeat courses many times. I have seen it.
I have helped many people with math, these people were putting in the effort, real effort. They were practicing extra, getting help from the teacher, from me (I was just helping friends), reading the book, staying after school, etc, etc. I have never seen someone try so hard at someone and just not get it. Something never clicked in their head. I would explain the concepts 2,3,4,5,6 times. Nothing seemed to help. These people really wanted to do well in school and were honor students in most subjects beyond math.
One of my friends who had this problem was absolutely brilliant in other ways that I wasn't. One day she picked up a guitar and randomly tough herself how to play it without any formal instruction. I tried for years to learn how to play an instrument as a child, and I just couldn't. It seemed it just didn't click in my head, same as math ability didn't click in hers.
Besides define "able-bodied" and "sound mind," you cannot. Does the person with a learning disability get a pass from those requirements? I say they do not, those are stupid requirements, and it just goes to show you that you already admit we are all different with different abilities from the get go.
Do you think this kid can get a PhD in math, then say, come up with an advanced cryptography algorithm?
Given a 2 week limit, there is no way someone who has not used Haskell before would be able to contribute to a Haskell code base. Same for someone who has not used Java Spring or any other complex system.
A task that would not be possible in even a 2 year time limit would be to get a random able-bodied human to contribute to a cryptographic standard. Some stuff is difficult and takes years and years to learn and understand. Taking those years and years is actually physically impossible for a large number of people who would simply break down if forced into it.
Some people really have a problem with mathematics; other people have the creative skills of a lemming. Not everyone can be a grandmaster in chess or win the Olympic marathon, not even if they tried every waking hour.
People are NOT created equal, and your prerequisites ('able-bodied' and 'sound mind') reveal that you know and recognize that.
> Not everyone can be a grandmaster in chess or win the Olympic marathon
Why do the taught need to be the best of the best for the parent's statement to be valid? Can you not successfully learn how to play chess without being the sole grandmaster?
The requirements for becoming a Grandmaster are somewhat complex. A player must have attained an Elo rating of at least 2500 (although they need not maintain this level to obtain or keep the title). In addition, at least two favorable results (called norms) from a total of at least 27 games in tournaments involving other Grandmasters, including some from countries other than the applicant's, are usually required before FIDE will confer the title on a player. There are other milestones a player can achieve to get the title, such as winning the Women's World Championship, the World Junior Championship, or the World Senior Championship. Current regulations can be found in the FIDE Handbook.
What's the point of just learning how to play Chess? That's not much of an accomplishment for most people. On the other hand, not everyone has the skills/ability to be a Grandmaster. Plenty of very serious people compete and spend a LOT of time trying to obtain Grandmaster status. Some people devote their entire lives to chess, but only a little over a thousand get it. Do you think the others just weren't trying hard enough? Or is it just possible that some people can do things that other people can't!?
Not to mention the parent mentioned "sound mind" as a prereq, I find this as a mostly insulting term, since it can mean anything you want and it "others" many people in society. It also can become a tautology, you can't do that, you must have not met my prereqs.
I'll attack the concept anyways. "(non) sound mind" is a (mostly) legal term (Non compos mentis) which means (not) competent [to stand trial, to make medial decisions, etc...]
> Or is it just possible that some people can do things that other people can't!?
You are talking about degrees of mastery, the parent was talking about doing it in any capacity. It is quite possibly true that only some can become the best chess players in the world, but is there anything stopping the vast majority of the population from playing chess? The latter is the attitude many hold, which he found disconcerting.
> I find this as a mostly insulting term
That may be a fair, but it was clearly added to defend against nit-picking comments like "my aunt is in a coma" or "my friend has no legs".
>is there anything stopping the vast majority of the population from playing chess?
I don't play Chess, so I'm going to make an assumption here that the rules are somewhat complex? I am also going to say something pretty not PC.
Yes, I'm sure there are lots of people I have met in my life that can't be taught to play Chess.
I used to work in a restaurant and I trained new hires, you wouldn't believe the incompetence of the people who we hired. That place was a revolving door, we only kept maybe 20% of the people I trained, maybe less. We were asking them to serve customers and memorize many things, simple tasks for me, but very hard tasks for most of the people I trained. After maybe a month or so the incompetent ones got fired for not being able to do the job. They probably only could work somewhere where they did very simple tasks. I hated it because I always had to train, and I didn't like training, but I had to train anyways, because I was the best one there at training, said my boss.
99% of them seemed like they were really trying. Most if not all of them needed the job (why else would you work at a restaurant for low pay?)
He hired knowing most of the people he hired weren't going to work out.
One thing I have learned about myself is that not every learning method works equally well. In other words: Everyone learns differently. Is it possible that your training style, which I am sure worked great for many employees, left others out in the cold rather than a case of them being unable to learn at all?
>you wouldn't believe the incompetence of the people who we hired
It seems the incompetence wasn't with the employees but with the trainer. You hold that attitude toward your student and he or she is bound to fail.
A teacher who hates teaching combined with people lacking basic skills being expected to succeed in a high pressure environment for low pay? It's not surprising there were a lot of failures. I made no claims about the default ability to teach, it's another learned skill and mastery is uncommon.
There are also realities of the restaurant business (and lots of other businesses) which make training quite difficult, but I generally see these as deficiencies of the business management not truths of an industry.
>You hold that attitude toward your student and he or she is bound to fail.
I most certainly did not. I just was surprised at how many people had trouble with the job and lacked some basic skills. I never ever, ever, expected anyone to fail, ever. You made that up. If anyone did, it was my boss, or rather he usually said "well we will give them a shot." Seemed he hired on a trial basis wereas I always expected everyone to stay. I was never evaluating anyone.
I didn't want to train because only because I would rather just do the job, only because the time went by far faster that way. I specifically was always the trainer because I was the best trainer. If I was so incompetent than my boss would just pick someone else, and he did have a few people do it before deciding on me.
>deficiencies of the business management
In all honesty, this was by far the best run business I ever worked at.
I don't see a reason why playing violin would be impossible given a couple hundred or thousand hours of deliberate practice.
Jumping higher than the WR is a straw man, since that goes for anything - there can only be one #1. However, people can increase their vertical leap substantially if they train things like olympic lifting and plyometric. See The Vertical Jump Development Bible for example programs on how 12-50 year olds can increase their vertical leap on the order of 20 inches.
I really tried the violin (I think it is one of the most beautiful instruments), and for more than 'a couple of hundred hours' and it did not work for me.
I'm not sure how to articulate the mismatch but I'm pretty good with other musical instruments but between the violin and me it never was love to play it, just endless frustration.
At least I can appreciate others that play it a bit better :)
This is not surprising, violin technique is deeply rooted in the body (especially bow technique) and is difficult to learn past adolescence because your body/brain cannot adapt as well in adulthood.
Source: I learned violin around age 13 after already reaching an "expert non-professional" level in piano, found it very challenging and eventually gave it up after seven years of study.
> Did others also think you didn't become better with practice?
Yes
As to your last two questions, I think there is some kind of reward/work element here that did not click for me. Normally if I put in a certain amount of time I expect to see a measurable progress. With the violin initially that progress was there and then at some point (relatively quickly) it reached a plateau and after that the amount of work for a given amount of progress seemed to me to be disproportional. It's the hardest instrument that I've ever really worked on trying to learn how to play it and maybe one day I'll overcome my resistance and I'll try again but I really feel like I've met some kind of personal Waterloo there and the chances of this happening are very slim.
(I actually tried twice already with much the same result, I'm not one to give up easily).
I guarantee that anyone who puts in their proverbial 10,000 hours will be able to play the violin. For certain values of "play", of course. As with beating the world record holder of any sports discipline, the real top performers have a combination of the right genes, and the dedication to perform at the highest level. And while you probably won't be able to beat the world record, given enough practice/exercise, any able bodied person can become a decent jumper.
I agree with your first sentence, but not your overall premise. We are all capable of a hell of lot, usually much, much more than we realize, but not everything. I think most of us, myself included, need to take more chances to try and learn new things and error on the side of trying. However, the wisdom to realize something is truly futile is not a bad thing, after all, we've all got finite time and resources.
Adults are usually impatient. They don't see results right away and give up, not realizing it takes time! Children however can go forever without giving up, and I believe that's one of the (many) reasons why it is easier to learn a skill as a child. Sometimes it is good to remind yourself of this when you want to learn something new or feel like giving up.
It might be of use for people considering taking you up on this offer (and I'm one of them) to know roughly what your skills are - I know you say you're versatile, but no-one can do everything.
Or is the point that you want to do things outside your current comfort zone?