431–440 of 502 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is 30 years old very new? We're on a site for tech people. I would wager most are familiar with this term.
Most people on this site are also familiar with the “XKCD 10000”. But not all, so: https://xkcd.com/1053/ (Amusingly, it even uses “30 years” as the timeframe.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should the author care to make it digestible to the crowd who is clueless on the matter? Their goal is to capture attention and start discussion within the community. To me it doesn't seem reasonable at all. It's just entitled at best.
Good communication should be the goal of all writing.
Must I beg to have an acronym spelled out a least once, the first time it's used? Even if you assume 90% of readers already know, the other 10% (including me, in this case) will thank you, it doesn't take much effort, and it expands the reach of your communication or idea. Exceptions for cases where the acronym is just so well known that a lot of people don't even know what it stands for even though they know the con…
It's such a small but immensely helpful thing to do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I dont know what CTF stands for so I dont know if I am interested in this article or learning anything about it. Maybe I am. Are you really arguing for not just typing out whatever 3 words this stands for once in the name of clarity?
it's the first result I get on anonymous google search. It's like complaining about not spelling C in "bake cake in 170 C"
Must I beg to have an acronym spelled out a least once, the first time it's used? Even if you assume 90% of readers already know, the other 10% (including me, in this case) will thank you, it doesn't take much effort, and it expands the reach of your communication or idea. Exceptions for cases where the acronym is just so well known that a lot of people don't even know what it stands for even though they know the con…
CTF stands for Capture the Flag. So with that definition you have exactly zero more information about the article then without it. So I assume next you want a short description of what it actually means, like "CTF (Capture the Flag) are security competitions where the objective is to break...", which is completely ridiculous to include in an article aimed specifically at the CTF crowd.
...which is completely ridiculous to include in an article aimed specifically at the CTF crowd.
Must I beg to have an acronym spelled out a least once, the first time it's used? Even if you assume 90% of readers already know, the other 10% (including me, in this case) will thank you, it doesn't take much effort, and it expands the reach of your communication or idea. Exceptions for cases where the acronym is just so well known that a lot of people don't even know what it stands for even though they know the con…
As someone who spent years reading academic journals where spelling out acronyms on first occurrence is mandatory , the comments here are jarring. Think about it -- those are academic journals where most people do know what those acronyms mean. It's such a small but immensely helpful thing to do.
Spelling it out when 99.9% of your audience doesn't need it actually is the opposite of in-group signaling, it makes it feel like it's aimed at a wider audience, when it's not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which acronym do you mean? CTF? I think that acronym, just like BGP, is more well known by itself than what it stands for. More generally, not every piece of writing is meant for every audience. Like if someone writes a blog post about CTFs aimed at people who like CTFs, nobody in the target audience needs to have CTF explained to them. Ultimately HN is a link aggregator, but sometimes its a bit like eavesdropping on…
Best practice in writing about technical concepts is to spell out acronyms like this on their first use. There is a ton of stuff I learn about here on HN that I didn't know anything about before. It doesn't help that the linked article never bothers to explain this either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is 30 years old very new? We're on a site for tech people. I would wager most are familiar with this term.
Most people on this site are also familiar with the “XKCD 10000”. But not all, so: https://xkcd.com/1053/ (Amusingly, it even uses “30 years” as the timeframe.)
Pretty ironic that this article was also written using LLMs. It has all the LLM-isms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should the author care to make it digestible to the crowd who is clueless on the matter? Their goal is to capture attention and start discussion within the community. To me it doesn't seem reasonable at all. It's just entitled at best.
Good communication should be the goal of all writing.