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

What's Not to Like?

theamericanscholar.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 26 posts

Re: What's Not to Like?

#11

Post by galaxyLogic »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #4
galaxyLogic wrote: post #2

Since this is about language and similes, what about "You can't compare apples and oranges"? People say that frequently, but why in particular is that so? I think you can compare any one thing to any other one thing. You can discuss what are their common features and what features they have that are not shared. So it seems to me "Can't compare apples and oranges" is often used just as a polemic device, trying to atta…

It seems to me that "can't compare apples and oranges" is trying to say that you're using apple criteria to try to judge oranges. It's not that you can't compare apples and oranges, but you have to use fruit criteria to do so, not apple criteria or orange criteria. So, to stop using similes: You can compare CPUs. You can compare memory chips. You can also compare memory chips and CPUs on, say, power consumption. But…

Good point. If things exist in different "ontological categories" trying to evaluate which of them is "better" makes little sense.

But apples and oranges are both good food, so we can compare how much calories you get forjm them, or vitamins etc.

Re: What's Not to Like?

#12

Post by soco »

Night_Thastus wrote: post #3
galaxyLogic wrote: post #2

Since this is about language and similes, what about "You can't compare apples and oranges"? People say that frequently, but why in particular is that so? I think you can compare any one thing to any other one thing. You can discuss what are their common features and what features they have that are not shared. So it seems to me "Can't compare apples and oranges" is often used just as a polemic device, trying to atta…

I think it's more you shouldn't judge apples based on the criteria of how good it is at being an orange , and vice-versa. Kind of like how you don't judge a fish on how well it climbs trees.

Who doesn't love them tree climbing fishies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudskipper

Re: What's Not to Like?

#13

Post by karolinepauls »

singleshot_ wrote: post #10
karolinepauls wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's always been like "you cannot compare values of different units" to me. Maybe we should start saying "you cannot compare kilograms to metres".

A kilogram is more than enough gasoline to move my car a meter.

`kg of fuel per metre` is division, not comparison. You can divide different units by each other. It isn't guaranteed to always make sense but it's very useful.

Re: What's Not to Like?

#14

Post by singleshot_ »

karolinepauls wrote: post #13
singleshot_ wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A kilogram is more than enough gasoline to move my car a meter.

`kg of fuel per metre` is division, not comparison. You can divide different units by each other. It isn't guaranteed to always make sense but it's very useful.

The result of division of two numbers is a comparison of those numbers.

Re: What's Not to Like?

#15

Post by putinapologist »

galaxyLogic wrote: post #2

Since this is about language and similes, what about "You can't compare apples and oranges"? People say that frequently, but why in particular is that so? I think you can compare any one thing to any other one thing. You can discuss what are their common features and what features they have that are not shared. So it seems to me "Can't compare apples and oranges" is often used just as a polemic device, trying to atta…

[dead]

Re: What's Not to Like?

#16

Post by aspenmayer »

galaxyLogic wrote: post #11
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me that "can't compare apples and oranges" is trying to say that you're using apple criteria to try to judge oranges. It's not that you can't compare apples and oranges, but you have to use fruit criteria to do so, not apple criteria or orange criteria. So, to stop using similes: You can compare CPUs. You can compare memory chips. You can also compare memory chips and CPUs on, say, power consumption. But…

Good point. If things exist in different "ontological categories" trying to evaluate which of them is "better" makes little sense. But apples and oranges are both good food, so we can compare how much calories you get forjm them, or vitamins etc.

I think oranges and citrus generally is a weird variable because it’s hard to grow outside of tropical climates or advanced techniques:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orangery

> In England, John Parkinson introduced the orangery to the readers of his Paradisus in Sole (1628), under the heading "Oranges". The trees might be planted against a brick wall and enclosed in winter with a plank shed covered with "cerecloth", a waxed precursor of tarpaulin, which must have been thought handsomer than the alternative:

> > For that purpose, some keep them in great square boxes, and lift them to and fro by iron hooks on the sides, or cause them to be rowled by trundels, or small wheeles under them, to place them in a house or close gallery.

So apples and oranges aren’t equally Veblen goods, which is another wrinkle. Apples can grow nearly anywhere, and do.

More context here:

https://www.gardenhistorygirl.co.uk/post/the-juicy-tale-of-t... | https://archive.is/l580N

Specific citrus fruits are sacred:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etrog

I’ve never heard of apples being special outside of the Garden of Eden.

Re: What's Not to Like?

#17

Post by jfengel »

galaxyLogic wrote: post #2

Since this is about language and similes, what about "You can't compare apples and oranges"? People say that frequently, but why in particular is that so? I think you can compare any one thing to any other one thing. You can discuss what are their common features and what features they have that are not shared. So it seems to me "Can't compare apples and oranges" is often used just as a polemic device, trying to atta…

It seems to be a corruption of an older phrase comparing apples to oysters. Citation from 1670:

https://archive.org/details/bim_early-english-books-1641-170...

Apples and oysters are still things you can eat, but they're at least further apart than two fruits. The book also cites the similar expression "chalk and cheese".

Re: What's Not to Like?

#18

Post by bigDinosaur »

singleshot_ wrote: post #14
karolinepauls wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

`kg of fuel per metre` is division, not comparison. You can divide different units by each other. It isn't guaranteed to always make sense but it's very useful.

The result of division of two numbers is a comparison of those numbers.

The number of apples divided by the kilogram of oranges I have is a meaningless comparison and makes no sense, though.

Re: What's Not to Like?

#19

Post by ethan_smith »

galaxyLogic wrote: post #2

Since this is about language and similes, what about "You can't compare apples and oranges"? People say that frequently, but why in particular is that so? I think you can compare any one thing to any other one thing. You can discuss what are their common features and what features they have that are not shared. So it seems to me "Can't compare apples and oranges" is often used just as a polemic device, trying to atta…

The phrase originated from the Latin "non comparabilis" (not comparable) and gained popularity in English around the 1670s precisely because these fruits, while both round and sweet, have fundamentally different textures, flavors and growing conditions - making it a useful shorthand for comparing things with different essential qualities.

Re: What's Not to Like?

#20

Post by [deleted] »

ethan_smith wrote: post #19
galaxyLogic wrote: post #2

Since this is about language and similes, what about "You can't compare apples and oranges"? People say that frequently, but why in particular is that so? I think you can compare any one thing to any other one thing. You can discuss what are their common features and what features they have that are not shared. So it seems to me "Can't compare apples and oranges" is often used just as a polemic device, trying to atta…

The phrase originated from the Latin "non comparabilis" (not comparable) and gained popularity in English around the 1670s precisely because these fruits, while both round and sweet, have fundamentally different textures, flavors and growing conditions - making it a useful shorthand for comparing things with different essential qualities.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN