I think it was probably more considered but I'm guessing that everything he's written since THAT post has been more considered - it would be a completely natural reaction to having accidentally laid yourself bare. After all whom amongst us having accidentally forwarded an e-mail to the wrong person hasn't got a little more careful about what we say for a while afterwards?
But I still think it sounds genuine and honest, just a little more polished.
When you work at a high profile company, anything you say about another high-profile competitor must be very considered. Steve has always been more frank than most commentators in Google and other high profile companies, but even if the previous post hadn't gone public, a story about Bezos did need to be considered. And full respect to him for saying this much.
For a company so successful, one hears very little about how Amazon runs internally. Looking forward to Steve's next instalment.
The first time I noticed this was when I listed to the original and then studio version of 2 Pac's "Hit 'em up". In the first he was really and truly angry and you could feel it. The second version was 'just there'.
When actors and actresses get "into character" it is really clear. They mean what they act and it seems natural.
let us just say he was "in character" in the first post but not in the second.
The problem is that anger often sounds more authentic but anyone who has ever been angry will testify that what you say when you're angry (or even just irritated) doesn't necessarily reflect your actual view, just one facet of it.
Yegge's original piece was making a specific point and he came out with examples that supported that but that doesn't mean that those examples represent Yegge's overall view of Bezos and it's reasonable that he might want to throw out the other side of it.
In terms of whether it's honest - from both pieces I think it's fairly clear that Yegge doesn't believe that Bezos gives a shit what Yegge thinks so I see no reason why Yegge wouldn't be being truthful.
But even if Yegge was toning himself down, I don't have an issue with that.
I think that among some in the tech community there is a feeling that "honesty" and "truth" tend to trump everything. While that's great in theory the baggage (usually personal offence) that comes with it has to be considered.
Ultimately life is about getting stuff done and for most of us who aren't Jobs or Bezos level genius where brutal honesty will be forgiven, a "polished" truth will often get us better responses from others than it's more brutal counterpart.
If that's the case we all have to ask ourselves do you want to be right, or do you want to get things done?
Note: I'm not talking about lying here, I'm just talking about how you present the truth.
So how do you suggest you convey true emotions through words while being diplomatic? As we both agree 'considered' posts can eliminate the true feeling.
I do not think only anger can be conveyed.
I am not being specific about this very situation. And I agree that being diplomatic can be more effective most times.
I don't think considered posts do eliminate the true feeling.
They eliminate the visceral, immediate reaction but that's only one part of the truth. If you're angry (or happy) at someone that's certainly a true feeling but is it any truer than the way you feel 10 minutes later when you've calmed down a bit and considered things?
If a colleague irritates me and I shout at him sure that's a representation of part of what I feel at that moment, but it doesn't represent the fact that ultimately I respect them and they normally do great work. So is shouting at them really my true feeling or just one small element of it that ultimately doesn't represent what I feel very well at all?
Ultimately though I think you have to ask yourself what am I try to achieve, how is what I'm going to say going to achieve that and am I happy that it really does represent "the truth" or is it just a knee jerk reaction (good or bad).
If you're angry (or happy) at someone that's certainly a true feeling but is it any truer than the way you feel 10 minutes later when you've calmed down a bit and considered things?
You have made great sense and raised a thought provoking questuion here.
Ultimately though I think you have to ask yourself what am I try to achieve, how is what I'm going to say going to achieve that and am I happy..."
You have summed it up perfectly.
Combining your two statements above is quite an insight. A great one. Thanks :)
> So how do you suggest you convey true emotions through words while being diplomatic?
If your emotions are destructive, wait to until they've changed to speak.
It's not like there's just one feeling that is "true." Furthermore, there's more than just feeling. The original, for example, was probably embellished to be more humorous and to get people's attention. The rant aspect-- that Google doesn't take service APIs seriously enough-- wasn't redacted or re-presented at all. So far, it's just the amazon-bashing, which, true as it may have been, was never intended to be a fair and comprehensive review of his beliefs or feelings; considered or not.
I think it was probably more considered but I'm guessing that everything he's written since THAT post has been more considered - it would be a completely natural reaction to having accidentally laid yourself bare. After all whom amongst us having accidentally forwarded an e-mail to the wrong person hasn't got a little more careful about what we say for a while afterwards?
But I still think it sounds genuine and honest, just a little more polished.