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

Please don’t let anyone Americanise it (1992)

news.lettersofnote.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 326 posts

Re: Please don’t let anyone Americanise it (1992)

#261

Post by ehaliewicz2 »

pessimizer wrote: post #207
pikminguy wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you're getting how important the word instant is in this context. An analog clock might be better for decoding an unfamiliar time system. It might be better for teaching children how we count time. It might implicitly contain more information. It might be better in a thousand ways. None of that matters. For whatever reason I get a faster and more accurate sense of what time it is from a digital watch. I…

> Therefor the assertion that an analog readout is more instantly meaningful for everyone is wrong. Maybe I'm confused about the assertion. The sentence "A picture with a bird in it" is more quickly recognized by very fluent English speakers than an actual picture of a bird. But it conveys far less information to a far narrower audience.

The problem with the original statement is the phrase "more instantly meaningful". It might be correct if it said "more meaningful", but I doubt it's more `instantly` meaningful for someone who can read numbers quickly.

Re: Please don’t let anyone Americanise it (1992)

#262

Post by underwater »

CalRobert wrote: post #5

There's a deeply frustrating infantilisation when something is localized in the same language. My kids and I love Bluey, an Australian show, but apparently the producers had to refuse to have it redone with US and UK accents to stop it happening. Never understood what the problem with having David Attenborough instead of Sigourney Weaver narrate Planet Earth was either.

Fun fact which is strangely on point for this thread: Dave Mccormack, the voice of Dad on Bluey, was previously known for his band Custard. One of their most popular songs was "I feel like Ringo". Ringo Starr was famously the narrator of Thomas the Tank Engine.

Re: Please don’t let anyone Americanise it (1992)

#263

Post by Beldin »

pikminguy wrote: post #25
eadmund wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> His argument about digital watches did not age well. Didn't it? I think it remains true. Time is a continuum, not discrete; analogue watches demonstrate that, while digital ones do not. And yes, schools have to teach one how to use a clock, but at the end of the process one actually has enhanced one's understanding of time. Much like using a slide rule teaches one far more about numbers and maths than using a calcu…

Even if you're right that analog watches are better tools that's not what Adams was saying. "We all know, really, that [analog clock face] is a lot more instantly meaningful to us than 15:39" which is just wrong. Plenty of people, myself included, get more instant meaning from a digital readout.

Having witnessed kids learning time: they will happily give "15:39" as an answer. But if you ask them when it'll be 4 o'clock, they literally have no idea - not even of yhe direction (forward or back).

I think this is Adams' point: digital watches pretend to give you information but only give you data. That's a reason to consider them silly: they make you work (translating their data to something with meaning) while pretending to do the work for you.

Note: analogue watches also require interpretation. But they support coarse- as well as fine-grained interpretation: is it before or after a whole hour? Closer to half than to whole? Or to a quarter? 10 past or to? Etc.

Re: Please don’t let anyone Americanise it (1992)

#264

Post by underwater »

beaconstudios wrote: post #259
underwater wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The myth of the Philosopher's Stone is not widely known outside the UK. Without correct context the title is dead boring and doesn't sound like it has anything to do with magic. Imagine picking up a book called "John Smith and the Architect's Compass" and having someone tell you the title makes sense because there is a legend about an ancient cult who guards a a device that can locate the holy grail.

the myth is explained in the book. the only difference between 'philosopher's stone' and 'sorcerer's stone' is that the former provides a connection to a real myth.

Philosopher is an overloaded term. For someone who doesn't know the myth the definition is squarely non-magical. For someone browsing a bookstore the magical meaning is missing. It just sounds dry and boring. That doesn't help the book get sold.

At the time she was an unknown author with a single kids book. I think changing the title to make the theme more obvious was justifiable. Changing the term throughout the book was unnecessary.

Personally, I grew up with the Philosopher's Stone and always wondered why she chose that name. It was only years later when I learned it was a legend outside the books did it make sense. The book does explain the meaning in the context of the novel, but not the wider cultural significance. That dampens the impact (just like how the Crystal Skull is not nearly as impactful as the Holy Grail in Indiana Jones).

Re: Please don’t let anyone Americanise it (1992)

#265

Post by wetpaws »

dragontamer wrote: post #217

A lot of "Americanization" sucks. But I want to point out some counter-examples. 1. Digimon Season 1 English Dub is far superior to the Japanese original. Many people choose Cowboy Bebop as the "Better in English" anime, but... Digimon S1 is night-and-day. Stronger script with better jokes/puns, cooler attack names (English "Pepper Breath" vs the Japanese "Baby Flame"), everything is straight up better in English. 2.…

That's not americanisation, that's translation.

Re: Please don’t let anyone Americanise it (1992)

#266

Post by em500 »

underwater wrote: post #253
beaconstudios wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The philosopher's stone was a specific historical idea, the catalyst that would allow alchemists to create the elixir of life.

The myth of the Philosopher's Stone is not widely known outside the UK. Without correct context the title is dead boring and doesn't sound like it has anything to do with magic. Imagine picking up a book called "John Smith and the Architect's Compass" and having someone tell you the title makes sense because there is a legend about an ancient cult who guards a a device that can locate the holy grail.

It's pretty widely known at least in Western Europe. I knew it from primary school history class in the Netherlands (long before the first Harry Potter book was published). Similar for German and French colleagues.

Not sure why the title should be changed to sound like it has something to do with magic. For people who are aware of the legend, the original title would mostly bring up associations with alchemy.

Re: Please don’t let anyone Americanise it (1992)

#267

Post by fsckboy »

pikminguy wrote: post #25
eadmund wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> His argument about digital watches did not age well. Didn't it? I think it remains true. Time is a continuum, not discrete; analogue watches demonstrate that, while digital ones do not. And yes, schools have to teach one how to use a clock, but at the end of the process one actually has enhanced one's understanding of time. Much like using a slide rule teaches one far more about numbers and maths than using a calcu…

Even if you're right that analog watches are better tools that's not what Adams was saying. "We all know, really, that [analog clock face] is a lot more instantly meaningful to us than 15:39" which is just wrong. Plenty of people, myself included, get more instant meaning from a digital readout.

c'mon, not believable. his statement about digital time display is correct, and it strikes me that you are pretending it's not.

"it's 10 till", or "5 minutes before the hour" are statements that capture the human concept of time much better than 15:52

Re: Please don’t let anyone Americanise it (1992)

#268

Post by cameronh90 »

WalterBright wrote: post #256
jawns wrote: post #7

His argument about digital watches did not age well. My kids have known how to understand a digital clock since they were toddlers, but even now, in elementary school, they require entire lesson units in school on telling time from a clock face. Beyond that, he argues that pie charts tell us more about the relationship between things than tables of numbers, and a clock face is "the world's most perfect pie chart." Bu…

I wear an analog watch for the simple reason that I can tell the time at a glance, and don't need glasses to get it. With a digital watch, I have to wear glasses and deliberately focus on it. There's good reasons why cars and airplanes still have analog displays, and people present data with graphs rather than columns of numbers.

Analogue displays are quicker to read, but less precise. Which is better depends.

On analogue clocks, it doesn't usually matter if I think it's 8:32 when it's really 8:34 unless I'm running for the train. However, I often make the terrible mistake of reading the wrong hour entirely. For that reason (and that I'm frequently running for trains) I do generally prefer digital clocks.

For a rev meter on a car on the other hand, all I care about is if it's getting too far to the bottom or too close to the red. Whether it's 3218RPM vs 3389RPM is entirely irrelevant. So for that, analogue is far better.

For flying, I quite like that electronic flight instrument panels have both analogue and digital displays.

Re: Please don’t let anyone Americanise it (1992)

#269

Post by int_19h »

pikminguy wrote: post #179
pessimizer wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Plenty of people, myself included, get more instant meaning from a digital readout. More from outside knowledge than from the digital readout itself. There's no way to tell from a digital readout there are 60 minutes in an hour or seconds in a minute, or that there's a 12-hour period that means something (and no hints to guess.) There's no evidence that the time represented on a digital readout changes at a constan…

I don't think you're getting how important the word instant is in this context. An analog clock might be better for decoding an unfamiliar time system. It might be better for teaching children how we count time. It might implicitly contain more information. It might be better in a thousand ways. None of that matters. For whatever reason I get a faster and more accurate sense of what time it is from a digital watch. I…

I think "faster" and "more accurate" are getting inappropriately conflated in this discussion.

It is faster to visually parse two hands of an analog watch than it is to parse four digits of a digital watch. But the price you pay for this is accuracy, and if you wanted to parse the analog watch face as accurately as digital, it'd take you more time than just reading the digits.

Re: Please don’t let anyone Americanise it (1992)

#270

Post by lolinder »

fsckboy wrote: post #267
pikminguy wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you're right that analog watches are better tools that's not what Adams was saying. "We all know, really, that [analog clock face] is a lot more instantly meaningful to us than 15:39" which is just wrong. Plenty of people, myself included, get more instant meaning from a digital readout.

c'mon, not believable. his statement about digital time display is correct, and it strikes me that you are pretending it's not. "it's 10 till", or "5 minutes before the hour" are statements that capture the human concept of time much better than 15:52

They may capture your concept of time, but I agree with the parent. I always have to translate "5 minutes before the hour" to "3:55" in my head before I really understand what was said.
Post reply on HN