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

A Mulching Proposal (2019)

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 115 posts

Re: A Mulching Proposal (2019)

#101

Post by alex_smart »

spqr42 wrote: post #68
tuukkah wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is right there in those IPA renderings. The superscript h means the g should be aspirated (like the k typically is in 'key' in English; also 'spin' vs 'pin'). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspirated_consonant You might not hear the difference as the English language does not assign meaning to that difference. But if I pronounce 'key' or 'pin' without aspiration, you may feel that I speak with an ac…

spin, bin, and pin rhyme to me an a native English speaker. Are you sure westerners say ghee “wrong” and not just with a different accent?

Yes, I am sure that westerners are saying ghee wrong. The sounds they make when they say "ghee" maps to a completely different (non-existent) word in Indian languages

It's the exact same way Indians mispronounce many English words when they map it to some equivalent native sounds.

Re: A Mulching Proposal (2019)

#102

Post by bryanrasmussen »

csense wrote: post #69
tuukkah wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is right there in those IPA renderings. The superscript h means the g should be aspirated (like the k typically is in 'key' in English; also 'spin' vs 'pin'). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspirated_consonant You might not hear the difference as the English language does not assign meaning to that difference. But if I pronounce 'key' or 'pin' without aspiration, you may feel that I speak with an ac…

I read the Wikipedia article, listened to some of the sounds and I still don't get it. I don't hear or "feel" a difference between the "p" in "pin" and "spin", except in "spin" the "p" sound is sort of "concatenated" to the "s" sound with no transition. In the "[tân] / [tʰân]" Chinese example, to me the "unaspirated t" is indistinguishable from a "d" sound. Maybe English speakers are "blind" to the aspirated / unaspi…

this is similar to many immigrants learning the Danish language, there are at least 22 vowel sounds (but probably more like 40 when you count regional pronunciations) and 9 vowel letters, but it can be different to hear the difference or associate them with the right vowel letter.

Re: A Mulching Proposal (2019)

#103

Post by bryanrasmussen »

h2odragon wrote: post #47
DoreenMichele wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compared to A Modest Proposal , it's clearly second rate. Everyone knows the elderly are less nutritious than the young. Better nutrition is a critical element of making a better future.

I'd be more worried about flavor and texture than nutrition. Old grandmas tend to be tough and chewy.

what kind of barbarian dislikes beef jerky?!?

Re: A Mulching Proposal (2019)

#104

Post by tuukkah »

alex_smart wrote: post #98
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ghee That has an audio recording of someone pronouncing it. Sounds like it’s the former per your example.

That pronunciation is incorrect.

Correct as an English word, incorrect as a Hindi etc. word, right? When a language borrows a foreign word, it doesn't bring any new sounds (or letters) with it but adapts the word to the language instead.

Re: A Mulching Proposal (2019)

#105

Post by anigbrowl »

jbuhbjlnjbn wrote: post #63
bodhi_mind wrote: post #58

Somewhat (not) related, my dog is nearing death and I’ve contemplated burying his body once he dies, planting a tree over the grave, then transplanting the tree to a pot and train it as a bonsai.

Sounds like an excellent story base for a future horror movie: the tree morphs back into the dog, but with strange, sinister superpowers. I'd watch it for sure.

This is an extremely inconsiderate response to someone talking about an imminent bereavement. Read the room.

Re: A Mulching Proposal (2019)

#106

Post by anigbrowl »

dang wrote: post #93
neilv wrote: post #6

The title "A Mulching Proposal" references https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal

Yes. We've reverted the title now - submitted title was "Algorithmic System for Turning the Elderly into High-Nutrient Slurry", which besides gutting the historical reference, gives way the joke and breaks the HN guidelines: " Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize. " https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

The original submission title was much better, and doesn't give away the joke. This headline is part of the joke, but one that will cause it to be missed by many people. I don't think you should revert headlines so readily unless significant confusion/upset results. There's a lot of poorly-written headlines out there, and it's not uncommon to see a well-written article saddled with a terrible or tendentious headline.

Re: A Mulching Proposal (2019)

#107

Post by anigbrowl »

version_five wrote: post #96
dang wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. We've reverted the title now - submitted title was "Algorithmic System for Turning the Elderly into High-Nutrient Slurry", which besides gutting the historical reference, gives way the joke and breaks the HN guidelines: " Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize. " https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

In the pdf article, the submitted title was in fact the subtitle. I can see an argument for choosing the subtitle like that when an article has the form Pithy phrase: subtitle that actually tells you something

Especially given the lamentable academic fad for such titles, a la Stupid is good: capturing unwary readers' attention by exploiting incongruity'.

Re: A Mulching Proposal (2019)

#108

Post by dang »

version_five wrote: post #96
dang wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. We've reverted the title now - submitted title was "Algorithmic System for Turning the Elderly into High-Nutrient Slurry", which besides gutting the historical reference, gives way the joke and breaks the HN guidelines: " Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize. " https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

In the pdf article, the submitted title was in fact the subtitle. I can see an argument for choosing the subtitle like that when an article has the form Pithy phrase: subtitle that actually tells you something

Yup we often do that when the original title is inadequate (e.g. too baity or misleading). But the original title was fine here!

Re: A Mulching Proposal (2019)

#109

Post by friend_and_foe »

kerkeslager wrote: post #41

This is satire, but if it were just a little less obvious satire, half of HN would be defending it as a good idea. Think Real Estate NFTs or payday loans done right. You guys are the butt of the joke and you're laughing because you're not in on it.

I was going to get crabby with you right back and remind you that you're on HN too, but https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35588997#35590128

Re: A Mulching Proposal (2019)

#110

Post by unmole »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #20
simplotek wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the oblivious like me, what's the pun?

In context: > Elderly volunteers (or "mulchees") are provided with generous payments for their families before being rendered down and recombined with other chemicals into a range of substitutes for common foodstuffs, including hash browns (Grandmash™), bananas (Nanas™) and butter (Fauxghee™). So one meaning is Faux Ghee (faux as in fake, Ghee as in a type of clarified butter, originating from South Asia) which follo…

Faux Ghee is a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalda
Post reply on HN