zlacker

I think he's just upset about the TSA articles. That point keeps coming up over and over again in his post. It weakens what he has to say.

It's clear he supports the TSA to "stop planes from getting blown up." Since the majority of HN doesn't agree with that sentiment (at least that's how he paints it), he's sort of being a baby about it and quitting because he can't handle disagreement. He masks this fact very thinly in a what is definitely a stereotypical flameout post.

Communities disagree, and they're not all perfect. Nothing new there. If there was no disagreement on HN, it'd be boring.

>>jbail+(OP)
I'm guessing he's a Myers Briggs "Guardian" type who can't truly respect people he disagrees with :) Lots of people are this way, and it's not really a big deal, but it does explain a lot of the world's problems.

Guardians are also inclined to respect authority, which may also be part of his aversion to anti-TSA stories.

>>jbail+(OP)
Some of us are not fond of the TSA situation, but are vehemently opposed to this site being yet another place on the internet to chat about politics. You can get that elsewhere, but you can't get tech/startups/basically friendly attitude anywhere else I've found so far.

>>jbail+(OP)
It's clear he supports the TSA to "stop planes from getting blown up." Since the majority of HN doesn't agree with that sentiment (at least that's how he paints it), he's sort of being a baby about it and quitting because he can't handle disagreement.

This is an absolutely ridiculous, trollish statement. It bears no obvious relationship to the blog post linked. Do you actually believe this? If so, why?

>>davidw+n
I'm with you on that. I flag articles that are political. That said, the posts about the science behind backscatter radiation, and subsequent discussion on HN, I've enjoyed.

>>jbail+(OP)
I think he's just upset about the TSA articles

The TSA articles are annoying noise that undermine HN. Unless it's discussing the technology of the devices or heuristics of algorithms used to analyze it, it's pop political garbage that belongs on Reddit.

Though I'll disagree with him on one thing: HN should be more elitist, not less. HN's distinction was once that it really was where the smart technology people were. Of course once it gets that rep the hanger ons follow, and soon they're the ones stamping their feet and yapping about the TSA or even North and South Korea -- those are nice, calming, accessible topics, and it's how every community driven site, without oversight, eventually drifts to the mean.

>>jbail+(OP)
He's been here almost 10 times as long as you have. I wouldn't be so quick to blow him off.

At the moment, nine people have voted up a comment on Matt's story that asserts that Matt's real issue is that he supports the TSA. I think that supports his point somewhat.

>>jbail+(OP)
I agree with all the TSA articles on HN. I have also flagged all of them, because they're obviously preaching to the choir, and per the site guidelines, they're not specifically interesting for hackers.

>>mquand+I
Because he mentions the TSA by name multiple times and ends his post with a sentence dedicated to it.

>>granda+g
Instead of using Myers-Briggs as a tool for understanding, you've just it to pigeonhole someone based on one negative characteristic (which lets you disregard his opinions) and then blamed his personality type for "a lot of the world's problems."

Tools like Myers-Briggs are great for looking at yourself, understanding your strengths and weaknesses and learning to be a better person. However, when you start using them as weapons, the focus becomes other people's problems. I guess the benefit is you don't have to worry about self-improvement anymore when a personality typing system makes it so convenient to place the blame somewhere else.

>>jbail+X1
On the one hand, he spends an entire multiple-page blog article mentioning reasons why he thinks the general quality of the site is poor, none of which have any direct connection to the TSA. On the other hand, he mentions the TSA by name twice. Which is more likely to be his primary concern?

I'm sure that if you try hard enough, you can read hidden, shameful motives into everything people write, but it's damn rude to use that as an excuse for ignoring what they actually wrote.

>>mattmi+B2
Not at all. I simply attempted to explain how the lens of personality is often a useful way to understand someone's motivations which may at first seem highly counter-productive (as Matt's did upon my first reading of his post).

I must admit that I do judge people harshly for several Guardian characteristics, but I realize that those characteristics are also (in many cases) strengths.