[tptacek]

I would be just fine with banning Daring Fireball from HN, if it meant we could avoid the biweekly DDoS on HN's intellectual capacity sparked by tens-deep threads arguing about Gruber's pro-Apple bias.

Only on HN or Reddit is Gruber's pro-Apple stance not the most boring conceivable topic. It's embarrassing to see ostensibly smart people pick it apart, as if it was faceted and nuanced.

I myself love Daring Fireball, because Gruber is an f'ing good writer. But I could give a sh!t about discussing him on HN. Anyone else want to just start flagging these things off the site? Look at these silly comment threads. You'd be doing a lot of people a favor by nipping them in the bud.

[dasil003]

The worst part in this case is that he's shooting fish in a barrel. The article he picks apart isn't deserving of the analysis.

Sometime Gruber posts interesting theories or observations, and in that case I'm all about discussing them, but this article is just filler for his core demographic.

[sudont]

Ironically, he's a huge fan of the comments here:

"I’m continually impressed by the quality of the comment threads on Hacker News, for example."

http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/06/16/powazek-comments

[tptacek]

That's a sad but unsurprising commentary on the state of discussion boards on the Internet in general; when I wrote this comment, the majority of the comments on this story were in some way about Gruber, not the story.

[sudont]

That’s why I think dramatic irony fits the best. The mob here has pitchforks and torches, and he thinks we’re just neat.

I agree with the guy’s opinions, but he’s got to have some flame-retardant skin.

[Semiapies]

Might be nice to advise anyone willing to blanket-flag posts from a site that they do so at their own risk.

Soon after I started flagging posts from sources I didn't like, my flag links vanished.

[tptacek]

I'm sure I flag more than you do, and that never happened to me. Maybe you flagged a bunch of stuff all at once. Don't do that.

[Semiapies]

I'd go into the front page and New and flag any instances (often duplicate ones) I saw. I saw at most 2-3 a page that way. Considering how slow those load during lunchtime for me, I wasn't flagging any unreasonable amount.

Maybe there's only so many flags a day you can make (and I didn't just flag for sources) maybe it's the sources I flagged, maybe it's something I can't even guess that was mentioned at some post at 8am in the morning one day.

"Don't do that"? I can't do that.

[bane]

I flagged it, this constant noise about Gruber's Apple religion drowns out any conceivable signal of interest. Better to just link to a Reuters article or something and have a better discussion here.

[jimmymcn1]

>if it meant we could avoid the biweekly DDoS on HN's intellectual capacity sparked by tens-deep threads arguing about Gruber's pro-Apple bias

It is also about the topic at hand and people defending Gruber's(or Asymco's or Marco's) pro-Apple bias as if it were somehow insightful or interesting.

> It's embarrassing to see ostensibly smart people pick it apart, as if it was faceted and nuanced.

It is more embarassing to see otherwise smart people defend it in the comment threads (eg. people saying that a sales comparison of 20 year old failed consoles with current Android tablets today somehow indicates that those tablet makers will fail and should shut shop instead of trying).

>Anyone else want to just start flagging these things off the site? Look at these silly comment threads. You'd be doing a lot of people a favor by nipping them in the bud.

Who upvotes these stories(beyond the reach of flagging) with shallow analysis favoring Apple anyway? I don't think it's the crowd arguing against Gruber's posts. It is people that think that the analysis worth spreading and discussing about.

[tptacek]

And again, case in point.

[jimmymcn1]

I think I have a better solution for stories from Gruber, Asymco and Marco. Have a checkbox in the user profile indicating if you're a Apple fan and only those people see the stories from the above sites.

Instead of trees of discussions and accusations of downvoting, we could have just a flat discussion and mutual upvoting undisturbed by counter arguments.

Won't that work fabulously and prevent this nonsense of people having to respond to actual discussion with actual posts instead of just handwaving with one liners?

[tptacek]

Filter Marco Arment? Yes, let's definitely hide stories from a sole proprietor of a mobile software company who's making enough money on one app to afford an NYC mortgage because he makes you feel bad about your choice of mobile operating systems. It's not like anyone on HN might want insight into that kind of person. Solo founder? Nah. Apple fanboy.

Criminy. Do I need better evidence for why we should avoid discussing Daring Fireball posts than a comment like this?

[amazingman]

You finally fell into it :/

This Apple whining reminds me of every other tech site. "Let me turn off all Apple news!" Come on now...

[recoiledsnake]

He seems like a good writer only if you're already under the RDF, otherwise he comes across as a shallow spin and mudslinging machine and defacto Apple PR. Example of a predictable and hypocritical post: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/08/15/apple-samsung-im...

This is the reason for the disconnect between the HN commenters and the flame wars. It's just hard for people to understand others almost-bordering-on-religion obsessions and biases.

While you say you'd be fine with banning DF from HN, we all know which segment of HN'ers vote up DF, Asymco and some of Marco's stories here, some of which have very convoluted and shallow arguments/analysis/math which seem cherry picked and tailor-made to prop up one particular company and don't withstand five minutes of reasoned analysis.

The problem is that some of these articles are "something that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity" (from the HN guidelines) to a group of people rooting for a company and totally shallow drivel to others, so no wonder it's all a flamefest that isn't going to go away soon.

[joebadmo]

I'm an admitted Google fanboy, but I think Gruber (along with the other two, generally) is an excellent writer and analyst when he's writing about Apple unrelated to any other company. And since it's pretty undisputable that Apple is one of the most important companies in the world and such an anamoly in so many ways, I find it pretty important to read Gruber on the subject.

In fact, I often wish there was a writer with as aserbic a wit and as insightful an analytical mind on the subject of Google (Dan Lyons doesn't qualify, though fake Steve Jobs was pretty funny). Not for the apologia like this piece, but for when writers like Gruber, Marco, and especially John Siracusa are critical of their subject of obsession. The thing I love about Siracusa's podcast (Hypercritical) in particular is that you can really feel true, unadulterated, and unself-conscious devotion to the subject in the unchecked criticism he gives. And I wish that culture existed around Google.

There are plenty blogs that follow Google news in a sort of flat way (9to5google, GoogleOperatingSystem), and Danny Sullivan at SearchEngineLand provides analysis, but it's all on sort of a surface level. (And, Sullivan is great, but I wouldn't call him a great writer so much as a comprehensively knowledgeable one.)

Maybe what I really want is Steven Levy to write a blog for real.

(Note: I try to be the change I want to see in the world, but I don't have the talent, sources, or time to write as well as I'd like. But I do my best. http://blog.byjoemoon.com/ )

[tptacek]

Case in point.

[achompas]

You're absolutely right. Gruber is an opinion guy at best (albeit a smart one), and his articles lack the type of technical analysis we ostensibly care about on HN. Then again, the front page is full of Techcrunch articles...

You want to analyze Gruber? Look at his writing style, which is clearly influenced by David Foster Wallace. He's a damn good writer! Otherwise, take him for what he is -- an Apple pundit with one part brilliance, two parts vitriol -- and stop worrying about what he said 6 months ago. Pundits reverse themselves constantly.

EDIT: I forgot to mention his taste for design and art. I'm more interested in his take on Kubrick's films than anything he writes about Apple.