The "average HN user" doesn't bother me because the adjective "average" isn't describing rigorous mathematics. It's just a rhetorical phrase.
What people are trying to roughly communicate is something much more wordy and convoluted such as... "a large percentage of HN users compared to normal percentage of random sampling of general population ..."
Constant defensive writing with endless disclaimers like the above would just exhaust readers. The tone also comes across as academic and pompous. Casual writing just substitutes all that with the more accessible (but non-mathematical) word "average".
E.g. the current HN front page has headline "PHP in 2022" and the average HN user interprets it to be about the programming language and not Primary Health Properties, a UK real estate investment trust.
We could try to substitute "typical" so we get "typical HN user" but that has the same criticism that there is no such thing as a typical HN user. True... but we can also just accept that people are just trying to communicate in a friendly way that's also concise without lawyers nitpicking the precision of every word.
> but we can also just accept that people are just trying to communicate in a friendly way that's also concise without lawyers nitpicking the precision of every word.
As a lawyer I feel compelled to point out that whenever I see nit-picking like this (outside the context of my job, obviously), it's usually from someone with a STEM background. In my experience lawyers tend to leave the pedantry and nit-picking in the office where at least they are paid to do it.
(Okay, I guess you could call this post a nit-pick, if you wanted...)
Unironically, one aspect I appreciate about this community is how there isn’t really an average HN user. The diversity of experiences and knowledge produces a comments section unlike anywhere else that I’ve seen on the web.
I am honored to be here with you all, fellow ‘average’ HN users.
With this list you miss all the context. Apart the fact that it obviously summarizes entire comments, it feels like it doesn't represent what was said. From the 4 quotes I checked:
> is more likely to use Firefox and have 2+ google accounts
..."than the average person". Doesn't really change the quote, but it's good to know to who the average HN user is compared.
> is trained in the diplomacy of Sid Meyer's Civilization
The complete quote is: "Your average HN user is trained in the diplomacy of Sid Meyer's Civilization. Realpolitik is a joke. /s". The "/s" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here
> has ultra-secure OPSEC
This is the entire sentence (not the entire comment).
"I'm not trying to say that what happened with Bumble isn't bad, and it makes the company look somewhat foolish, but in 2021, finding the location of somebody in most developed countries, aside from your ultra secure OPSEC average HN user, is quite a simple task."
I don't think that was really a meant as a sincere description of the average HN user.
I guess this is about the "average" paradox?
There is a presentation will probably appeal to the average hn user (hopefully).
Across one dimension, nobody would feel the need to question the utility of considering an average, e.g. the average salary of a user.
Of course the average may or may not be very informative, given the underlying distribution.
And everybody knows there are statistical tools specifically made to address these questions.
Things get funky when we consider an average across multiple dimensions, and that is when people will question the use/benefit of these tools.
This is also a well-known paradox that there is no "average soldier" in the army.
Regarding hn, it is safe to say there are different cohorts frequenting the site, interacting mostly with threads that are relevant to them.
So averaging other these cohorts might not be very meaningful.
However, this is also a known problems for which solutions exist.
Just ask any marketing department...
So, isn't complaining about this very much about complaining about bad usage of a given tool?
If you use a hammer only to hit on your fingers, you might think hammers are useless and even dangerous.
I doubt that “average HN user” is a useful concept. Average with respect to what? Submitting articles? Reading them? Commenting on them? Just like the topics of posted articles, comment threads can have huge variations, ranging from (what I'd call) “absolute shit show” to “elucidating discussion”.
But I guess one could say that the average HN user knows what Docker is and has at least some affinity with computers and technology in general. I guess "we" care less about the Kardashians etc. (I have to ddg if I wrote that correctly, a very average-HN-user thing to say, I always write it wrong and picture Gul Dukat as many average HN users probably do.)
Perhaps I'm projecting, but that too is a typical average HN user thing to do. What HN users never do, is generalize.
No way! Apart from being pronounced differently (Cardassian vs Kardashian), the creepiness of Gul Dukat is a professional achievement by Marc Alaimo, whereas the creepiness of the Kardashians is purely accidental and unintended.
I should probably start talking about the average HN user so I can get included a bunch of times in this list. Then I'll be known as that guy that makes a bunch of bad generalizations about the average HN user.
Like did you know the average HN user loves to shred and eat a pillow case every night before bedtime to aid the next day's digestion? And the average HN user likes to burrow tunnels in public parks to host boxing clubs in them also. And by boxing clubs I mean unboxing and reboxing Amazon packages as quick as they can.
If someone wants the link without seeing the comments on this post. You can use this link, since the last time "Average HN User" was mentioned was 5 days ago.
Since there are many dimensions and units involved in characterizing HN users (we hate just using 4 colors I learned recently), I guess we should say that there is only a "most average HN user", pretty small chance she lies on the exact average values along all those axes.
You need to have a really hi IQ to get hacker news... That or understand that a procedurally generated listing that feeds into the egos (it's about me... I mean us!) will get up votes for the same reason that housewives read their horoscope. We're shallow animals. I mean I clicked on this to see what it was about while skipping other stories, so I'm no better.
What people are trying to roughly communicate is something much more wordy and convoluted such as... "a large percentage of HN users compared to normal percentage of random sampling of general population ..."
Constant defensive writing with endless disclaimers like the above would just exhaust readers. The tone also comes across as academic and pompous. Casual writing just substitutes all that with the more accessible (but non-mathematical) word "average".
E.g. the current HN front page has headline "PHP in 2022" and the average HN user interprets it to be about the programming language and not Primary Health Properties, a UK real estate investment trust.
We could try to substitute "typical" so we get "typical HN user" but that has the same criticism that there is no such thing as a typical HN user. True... but we can also just accept that people are just trying to communicate in a friendly way that's also concise without lawyers nitpicking the precision of every word.