Comment by ceequof | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ceequof | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Writing stories for a technical audience is tricky. I've been doing it for going on 10 years now, and I'm still not very good at it.

A critical rule, however, is to omit detail, (a reader is unlikely to question an explanation they make up themselves) and most importantly, to omit details you know to be wrong. (It is impossible to nitpick a statement that is never said)

  An odd feature of our campus network at the time was that it was 100%
  switched.  An outgoing packet wouldn't incur a router delay until hitting
  the POP and reaching a router on the far side.  So time to connect to a
  lightly-loaded remote host on a nearby network would actually largely be
  governed by the speed of light distance to the destination rather than by
  incidental router delays.

He knew this was largely wrong, and didn't really improve the story, yet he said it anyway. It should have been summarized in a single sentence, leaving out all the problematic assertions that the slashdot trolls leaped on.

Hi, ceequof, the original author here. I agree with you completely in concept; it was a stupid thing to include and I should have cut it.

But as I wrote in the FAQ, I fired off that email in under an hour in reply to a fast-moving thread on an email list where people knew me by reputation and wouldn't question my skills; the totality of my "research" was trying to reproduce the original numbers from memory ("500 miles" stuck in my head, but the distances to the places I remembered pinging did not); and I didn't ask anyone else to edit it for me.

All of that would have been ridiculously unprofessional of me as a writer for something intended for as wide an audience as it went to. But I had no idea it would be forwarded so much and so often (nor so many years later, now decades after the original event!).

And that's why I really prefer it when people link to the canonical version I maintain at http://www.ibiblio.org/harris/500milemail.html with a link to the FAQ.

Reminds me of the old saying, "it's better to stay silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and confirm it."

It's also a reason why short business emails are better than longer ones. You can always go more in depth. It takes skilled restraint to touch on only the most relevant details without losing the larger point.

I don't think he's confirmed he's a fool so much.

Yes, sorry! Apologies if it sounded that way. The author is definitely no fool. If anything he proved the saying wrong. :-)

That is a brilliant way of stating that observation. Thank you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com