I find it funny that engineers ( on HN ? ) put on their I'm-a-rigid-logic-thinking-only-engineer cap when it suits them, and their I'm-an-imaginative-open-eyed-creative-rebel cap when it suits them as well. Traits of the first cap include: can't think outside the exact parameters given them, can't 'fill in the blanks' or inference laterally, take words and numbers to be exact limiting things. Traits of the second cap are basically the opposite of these, we can fill in the blanks, and so on.
I don't notice people wearing both hats at the same time much.
Of course, the OP could be satire. When you can't tell the difference between satire and your platform, then ...
Incidentally, if we look sideways a bit the metaphor fits like: Google isn't just linearly bigger, it has nonlinear increases in advantages because of its size, clout, network effects, and so on. So the order of magnitude discrepancy is perhaps justified by attempting to account for these affects. Conversely, it could be suggesting that smaller disruptive and startups ought to spread their influence virally, parasitically, or through insect-like nimbleness and hatching-of-the-1000-eggs reproduction, instead of relying on slower, more "mammalian" reproduction to propagate their influence. Who knows? Hard to say which interpretation is correct, when words are ambiguous and one leaves it to the imagination. You can't even rely on Occam's razor to decide, since the shortest path between two thoughts differs depending on the mind. But maybe that's not a bad thing. Speech & language is nothing more than successful miscommunication. You can't police what you don't understand.
Maybe he didn't mean the metaphor was the problem, but the sentence following it (about making things look better for ddg)? Depending on interpretation, that could be undue discredit to ddg...
That would make this a bit of an ironic comment, no? :p
I don't notice people wearing both hats at the same time much.
Of course, the OP could be satire. When you can't tell the difference between satire and your platform, then ...
Incidentally, if we look sideways a bit the metaphor fits like: Google isn't just linearly bigger, it has nonlinear increases in advantages because of its size, clout, network effects, and so on. So the order of magnitude discrepancy is perhaps justified by attempting to account for these affects. Conversely, it could be suggesting that smaller disruptive and startups ought to spread their influence virally, parasitically, or through insect-like nimbleness and hatching-of-the-1000-eggs reproduction, instead of relying on slower, more "mammalian" reproduction to propagate their influence. Who knows? Hard to say which interpretation is correct, when words are ambiguous and one leaves it to the imagination. You can't even rely on Occam's razor to decide, since the shortest path between two thoughts differs depending on the mind. But maybe that's not a bad thing. Speech & language is nothing more than successful miscommunication. You can't police what you don't understand.