Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

  • Hacker News
  • I write mostly for myself. That's a trite I guess observation considering that I happen to write a lot of private notes. But I think writing for broadcasting is overrated.

    Journaling or diarying is writing for myself, and often in a form that will never leave the disk inside the the computer. But I also want to write more complicated things than just what I thought about today, how I solved some problem, or a reminder for three months from now. Why? Because writing as a solitary pursuit is similarily rewarding like reading for pleasure. We can read without growing an audience. We can read without have any extrinsic motivation. We can just do it and leave it at that. But writing is a bit too much associated with communicating (small) and broadcasting (large).

    I could probably write a book on the most idiosyncratic topics, something that not even my mother would like to skim the foreword of. Because imagine if that process would help me know myself? How valuable would that be? The writing artifact might be useless, even. But the process could be enriching.

    I would never hope to read a book by someone I don't know and be able to absorb their wisdom, not even 10%. Some things cannot be transmitted like that. The printing press probably has not helped us know ourselves more than just, you know modestly more. Some things have to be worked on by you and you alone.

    This also translates to more practical subjects than knowing yourself. But that's what I felt like spending the word count here on.

    But in terms of public writing. I am currently working on an article-length piece for a niche "publishing". And I find that process to be rewarding.

  • There used to be a thing for addressing user interfaces to fake users with a profile. One talk on this for airline seat back entertainment systems had target users "Cletus", some old guy who just wants to watch movies, "Tim", a kid who wants to play games, etc. The speaker goes on and on about simplifying the UI for Cletus. I asked "Why not just give him a channel selector knob." There was a bit of stuttering, and then the speaker admits that this thing has a payment gateway and you have to pay to watch movies. So there's a complicated credit card entry UI.

    Oh.

  • Julia is a fantastic writer herself. I've long followed her work, and always been impressed with how great she is at distilling information.
  • This reminds me of some comments by C.S. Lewis (paraphrasing from memory) on three ways of writing for children, two good and one bad:

    - Writing for a specific child (think telling a story to someone specific)

    - Writing because you have something to say and a story is how you want to say it

    - Writing generally what you think a group of people want (e.g. "children like food so I'm writing a story about food")

    I think the essay is available online, he is much more eloquent than I

  • Write to please just one person. If you open a window and make love to the world, so to speak, your story will get pneumonia

      - Kurt Vonnegut
  • I never try to speak to everyone as a tech writer. Tutorials are for people who'd never used our software before, but even then I could assume a certain level of computer literacy, for example they can launch out software or browse to a URL.

    I can make How-to's that can assume they had gone through at least one of the tutorials, but even then I put links to the appropriate tutorials so they could refresh or learn if they needed it.

    But lately it seems like people are getting more computer illiterate. So how low do you go? I am getting tempted to add a link to some basic computer literacy.

    It's kinda like people complaining about Space Launch System, why aren't we using Saturn V or an improved version of it. We have the blueprints and schematics and everything but it appears there's a gap between what's written down there and what's in the textbooks. A lot of in-between experience has evaporated because shop classes and manufacturing were shut down.

    I am realizing that a lot of experience was never written down and turned into institutional knowledge that could be used later. The AI companies would love this but it's gone because it was more cost-effective not to.

  • > Often this person is me

    I wrote an article that never fails to put a smile on my face every time I read it. I felt like I had finally found my own voice. Ran it through Claude and it told me to tone it down a bit, but I ignored the advice and published it anyway.

    The article caused people on HN to say I had issues. They weren't exactly wrong, but still. Be careful with what you publish out there. Warm reception is never guaranteed. My one consolation is the fact Bob Nystrom apparently liked it.

  • I've spoken before a thousand several times saying with a straight face "Every audience is an audience of one."

    My first example, I was asked to give one more talk on how one needs to shuffle seven times. There were four people, and a blackboard smaller than my kitchen window. I went for it like I was in office hours, which I've always enjoyed more than teaching. A few weeks later a phone call "I liked your talk." "Thank you." "Could you come to Switzerland to give it again? We can only offer a week's full expenses..."

    Then I was asked to write a review of the off-broadway play "Proof" for the American Mathematical Society Notices. I didn't read it much, but I was told people do. I worked a very hard week on my review; my Swarthmore College classmate Ben Brantley's Broadway reviews were life or death for productions at the time, and I didn't want to embarrass myself. Ron Howard read my review, went to see "Proof" twice and loved it, and hired me to be the math consultant for "A Beautiful Mind". That was a transformative experience.

    Every audience is indeed an audience of one.

    https://www.ams.org/notices/200009/rev-bayer.pdf

Explore Birbla archives