| ▲ | alias_neo a day ago |
| Another article source that uses a headline initialisation, "HBM"[0] in this case, and almost 30 times at that, and yet doesn't spell out what it stands for even once. I will point this out every time I see it, and continue to refuse to read from places that don't follow this simple etiquette. Be better. [0] High Bandwidth Memory |
|
| ▲ | dang a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| "Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html |
| |
| ▲ | alias_neo 18 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | While I understand, I can't find something interesting to respond to in this case because I refused to read it. I'd argue that I also provided value by solving the complaint I made by spelling out what it stood for, for those who might not know. | | |
| ▲ | dang 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | I hear you and agree there's benefit in that; it's just that the cost (what it does to the thread) is a lot larger than the benefit. | | |
| |
| ▲ | Dylan16807 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don't feel like that rule works here? If you cut out part of the second sentence to get "Find something interesting to respond to", that's a good point, but the full context is "instead [of the most provocative thing in the article]" and that doesn't fit a complaint about acronyms. | | |
| ▲ | dang a day ago | parent [-] | | To paraphrase McLuhan, you don't like that guideline? We got others: "Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting." The point, in any case, is to avoid off-topic indignation about tangential things, even annoying ones. | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | sroussey a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| They don't define HPC either, but I think the audience of this site knows these acronyms. |
| |
| ▲ | alias_neo 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | There were two reasons it was drilled into me in engineering-school; it provides context and avoidance of doubt about the topic, particularly when there are so many overlapping initialisms these days, often in the same space. The second is that you should never make assumptions about the audience of your writing, and their understanding of the topic; provide any and all information that might be pertinent for a non-subject-matter-specialist to understand, or at least find the information they need to understand. |
|
|
| ▲ | switchbak a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > Be better They're almost certainly not on this forum, and they're not reading your post. So who is that quip directed at? |
| |
| ▲ | alias_neo 18 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > They're almost certainly not on this forum, and they're not reading your post I don't know much about the site in the OP, but I work on the assumption that almost anyone could be reading comments on links to their site on this forum. It's directed at them, you and even myself. | |
| ▲ | rcthompson a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Presumably it's directed at anyone writing an article for public consumption. |
|
