Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cleartext: A text editor that only allows the 1,000 most common words in English

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 230 posts

Re: Cleartext: A text editor that only allows the 1,000 most common words in English

#211

Post by macintux »

Nutmog wrote: post #191
macintux wrote: post #72

Attempting to type the Gettysburg Address, which is how I usually experiment with word processors and keyboards, is an exercise in futility. > Eight times ten and seven years ago our fathers brought into the world a new country, born of free thoughts and doings, and completely sold on the idea that all men are created the same.

Futility? It looks like an improvement on the original: "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." "free thoughts and doings" sounds clearer that "liberty", which could mean almost anything - did it have no prisons? I guess they really meant freedom from England's control, which isn't…

Them's fightin' words. If the Gettysburg Address is poor writing, life has no meaning.

Re: Cleartext: A text editor that only allows the 1,000 most common words in English

#212

Post by AndrewUnmuted »

okyup wrote: post #166
AndrewUnmuted wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The technique is working quite well for Donald Trump: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/09/15/ho... > Some of his answers last only a few seconds, some are slightly longer, but almost all consist of simple sentences, grammatically and conceptually, and most of them withhold their most important word or phrase until the very end. Trump’s sentences end with a pop, and he seems to know instinctively wh…

Trump bashing is lame. Trump has used words in his speeches that you probably couldn't define. I heard him casually use PROGNOSTICATION a couple weeks ago. He's not dumb. It's actually a sign of intelligence to use the simplest language necessary when expressing yourself to a broad audience (many with low education). People who use unnecessarily large words are usually doing it to try to sound smarter than they are a…

My intent is not to bash Trump. I actually think that he's one of the more talented people running for POTUS. This is not to say that I support him or his views (I am voting for Gary Johnson [1]), but I respect his ability to maneuver the media to suit his aims. It is my contention that his strong aptitude with using appropriate/effective language is one of the main reasons he can wield the media around so effortlessly.

[1] https://garyjohnson2016.com/

Re: Cleartext: A text editor that only allows the 1,000 most common words in English

#214

Post by wernercd »

AndrewUnmuted wrote: post #212
okyup wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump bashing is lame. Trump has used words in his speeches that you probably couldn't define. I heard him casually use PROGNOSTICATION a couple weeks ago. He's not dumb. It's actually a sign of intelligence to use the simplest language necessary when expressing yourself to a broad audience (many with low education). People who use unnecessarily large words are usually doing it to try to sound smarter than they are a…

My intent is not to bash Trump. I actually think that he's one of the more talented people running for POTUS. This is not to say that I support him or his views (I am voting for Gary Johnson [1]), but I respect his ability to maneuver the media to suit his aims. It is my contention that his strong aptitude with using appropriate/effective language is one of the main reasons he can wield the media around so effortless…

So... your throwing your vote away? The two party system is deeply flawed, but when has a third party candidate done anything but taken votes away from reasonable candidates?

Re: Cleartext: A text editor that only allows the 1,000 most common words in English

#215

Post by gnaritas »

jshevek wrote: post #183
gnaritas wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He speaks like a child, it works because his base is stupid and they relate. It's not a skill, he just isn't that bright.

If Trump honestly believed everything that he says, I would agree that his thinking would necessarily be shockingly _shallow_ on many issues. But to compare him to a four year old then make a sweeping statement like "isn't that bright" ? How could anyone think this? Isn't it obvious that there are domains in which he is, for better or worse, exceptionally intelligent within that domain?

I didn't compare him to a 4 year old, that's a strawman. A 15 year old is a child.

> Isn't it obvious that there are domains in which he is, for better or worse, exceptionally intelligent within that domain?

No, it isn't. He's rich because daddy was rich, without that leg up he'd be living in a trailer park slobbering on himself.

Re: Cleartext: A text editor that only allows the 1,000 most common words in English

#216

Post by gnaritas »

escherize wrote: post #158
gnaritas wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He speaks like a child, it works because his base is stupid and they relate. It's not a skill, he just isn't that bright.

Dude, that's not an argument - that's a whole bunch of ad hominems. Could you bring an argument against Trump at least instead of literally smearing him and his supporters? The guy is acknowledged to have won (basically) every republican debate.. would you suggest a child can do that?

> Dude, that's not an argument - that's a whole bunch of ad hominems.

You don't know what an ad hominem is. Those were called insults, insults are not ad hominems.

> The guy is acknowledged to have won (basically) every republican debate.. would you suggest a child can do that?

Yes actually, a decently intelligent high school child could win against that pack of dim bulbs. Republican debates are a joke won by whichever person throws enough red meat to the crowd and insults the other guy the best; they're an embarrassment to even watch.

Re: Cleartext: A text editor that only allows the 1,000 most common words in English

#217

Post by sametmax »

AndrewUnmuted wrote: post #42
gregschlom wrote: post #24

Am I the only one to find that using only the 1,000 most common words actually makes thing harder to understand? The writer ends up having to use convoluted paraphrases to refer to things where a precise, well defined and well understood word exists but it's not part of the top 1,000.

The technique is working quite well for Donald Trump: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/09/15/ho... > Some of his answers last only a few seconds, some are slightly longer, but almost all consist of simple sentences, grammatically and conceptually, and most of them withhold their most important word or phrase until the very end. Trump’s sentences end with a pop, and he seems to know instinctively wh…

It's because he doesn't aim to actually solve problems or provide meaningful answers. Simples words are good if your goal is to be rally a large number of people. But it's not practical if you want to build a car, honestly debate about social issues or describe how un cell works.

What a lot of smart people don't understand though, is that in politics, not trying to solve problems, but trying to appeal to people is the goal. And you don't use the same tools at all for that.

Re: Cleartext: A text editor that only allows the 1,000 most common words in English

#218

Post by iamcurious »

Retra wrote: post #155
hackbinary wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe the author is just out by an order of magnitude? Maybe it should be 10,000 words?

Maybe it should be the 1000 least ambiguous words.

I suspect that a list of the least ambiguous words would be made entirely of numbers.

Re: Cleartext: A text editor that only allows the 1,000 most common words in English

#219

Post by kbenson »

sametmax wrote: post #217
AndrewUnmuted wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The technique is working quite well for Donald Trump: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/09/15/ho... > Some of his answers last only a few seconds, some are slightly longer, but almost all consist of simple sentences, grammatically and conceptually, and most of them withhold their most important word or phrase until the very end. Trump’s sentences end with a pop, and he seems to know instinctively wh…

It's because he doesn't aim to actually solve problems or provide meaningful answers. Simples words are good if your goal is to be rally a large number of people. But it's not practical if you want to build a car, honestly debate about social issues or describe how un cell works. What a lot of smart people don't understand though, is that in politics, not trying to solve problems, but trying to appeal to people is th…

I think it works well for high level overviews. This may be in part because it prevents the use domain knowledge and terminology, which is natural for an expert who might be writing the overview, but hard for a layman to grasp. Put more simply, I think it's useful to describe something generally, but not when trying to describe in detail or specify attributes exactly.

Re: Cleartext: A text editor that only allows the 1,000 most common words in English

#220

Post by JoeAltmaier »

iamcurious wrote: post #218
Retra wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it should be the 1000 least ambiguous words.

I suspect that a list of the least ambiguous words would be made entirely of numbers.

Couple. Trio. Threesome. Still room for ambiguity!
Post reply on HN