[dang]

Hey everyone: What we can call Wolfram Derangement Syndrome—the vast indignation provoked in internet commenters by his vast self-reference—is off topic. Nothing so predictable can be interesting, and predictable rage reflexes are toxic.

The first few times this came up, years ago, it was worth noting. I laughed at the same parodies everyone else did. But by now, Wolfram's odd tic has long been commoditized, and it's our problem if we choose to dwell on it.

Wolfram has other things to say as well, and many of them—recently about Ada Lovelace, George Boole, and now Minsky—are interesting. Those are the things HN should be discussing.

It's a test for this community: can we stay focused on what's interesting? Or must we lose our shit every time the catnip is wiggled?

There are gems in this article that would stimulate a good HN discussion under normal circumstances. Let us put on our anti-troll suits and give that a try.

[gjm11]

Maybe every HN post linking to something Wolfram has written needs an Official Wolfram Ego Bitching subthread, where everyone can say "Wow, guys, I just noticed that Wolfram has a really big ego and does a lot of inappropriate self-promotion!!!!". Then everyone can enjoy complaining about Wolfram's ego there, without it taking over the rest of the discussion. (This would work better if HN offered a way to "collapse" subthreads.)

In principle, you're right, and just not doing it at all would be a cleaner solution, but what are the actual chances of that?

[dang]

Well, that's the test. I'd love to see the community learn how to do that. Perhaps it means fellow users gently nudging one another in the right direction.

We toy sometimes with the idea of creating an 'overflow' section of offtopicness, but it would be more interesting if HN could steer into the hardest problem, which is (to use your apt phrase) enjoying complaining.

[nabla9]

The readership of online publications is open ended. You should not expect community or memory of past exchanges. Wolfram is irritating prick and that fact will come up frequently when people discover it again and again. Don't except evolution in discussion when the site is just stream of links.

[rayuela]

This is actually a really interesting commentary on the nature of this type of platform. Is not the evolution of discussion the most desirable outcome here?

[dang]

You put that well (edit: mostly), but HN is more than a stream of links. There's a community here, and it has emergent behaviors.

[delish]

Thank you. Every time I read, "I never expected so-and-so to stoop so low," I think, "Well I wasn't inventing expectations of others, so I don't have this problem you have." This how-dare-so-and-so instinct grates on me.

[krat0sprakhar]

I know an upvote is the usual protocol in these cases but just this time I'd say - what an awesome comment! Thanks dang :D

[hendekagon]

he could have left himself out of it, just once, out of respect