←back to thread

The New Internet

(tailscale.com)
517 points ingve | 3 comments | 26 Jul 24 18:29 UTC | HN request time: 0.637s | source
Show context
jclulow ◴[26 Jul 24 23:28 UTC] No.41083229[source]▶
An incredibly long ramp up to complaining about centralised control by rent seekers (a very reasonable complaint!) which gets bogged down in some ostensibly unrelated shade about whether client-server computing makes sense (it does) or is itself somehow responsible for the rent seeking (it isn't; you can seek rent on proprietary peer to peer systems as well!) to then arrive at:

> There’s going to be a new world of haves and have-nots. Where in 1970 you had or didn’t have a mainframe, and in 1995 you had or didn’t have the Internet, and today you have or don’t have a TLS cert, tomorrow you’ll have or not have Tailscale. And if you don’t, you won’t be able to run apps that only work in a post-Tailscale world.

The king is dead, long live the king!

replies(5): >>41083270 #>>41083633 #>>41084357 #>>41088656 #>>41091099 #
rsync ◴[27 Jul 24 19:17 UTC] No.41088656[source]▶
"An incredibly long ramp up ..."

Agreed. We would all do well to learn about, and begin implementing, "Iceberg Articles":

https://john.kozubik.com/pub/IcebergArticle/tip.html

replies(1): >>41093471 #
1. Esras ◴[28 Jul 24 14:40 UTC] No.41093471[source]▶
This feels like an overly-complex treatment of the Inverted Pyramid in journalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid_(journalism), or Bottom Line; Up Front: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLUF_(communication).

Start with the important statements, then expand. Doesn't have to be the "Tell you what I'm telling you, tell you, tell you what I told you" format that many (American) students were taught, but starting with your thesis statement does help ground it.

On the other hand, the topic blog is somewhat of a story, and I can hear the presentation being given behind it. It's just translated 1:1 to a blog, which is a different medium.

replies(1): >>41096966 #
2. ragall ◴[29 Jul 24 00:05 UTC] No.41096966[source]▶
BLUF is bad, it's precisely a technique borne in the the world of newspaper publishing for writing catchy articles (what is now called clickbait). Classical philosophical writing is the exact opposite: start with some problems, elaborate in high detail and finish with a conclusion (the name says it all).
replies(1): >>41104445 #
3. catalypso ◴[29 Jul 24 22:42 UTC] No.41104445[source]▶
Clickbait is BLUF with a deceptive bottom line (BL). Clickbait is bad. You can choose to write in BLUF style without that.

In my experience, I only prefer "Classical philosophical writing" when I'm already convinced of reading the content (e.g. know the author, interested by the subject).

In almost all other cases, I prefer BLUF format: i.e. "get to the point, I'll read more if I'm intrigued".