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

The architecture of “not bad”: Decoding the Chinese source code of the void

suggger.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 154 posts

Re: The architecture of “not bad”: Decoding the Chinese source code of the void

#121

Post by rcxdude »

FloorEgg wrote: post #62

Something that occured to me years ago is we have a quirk in English language that gets in the way of accurately emapthizing with each other, especially when trying to design things well (like products and experiences). We don't say "unwant", and we don't clearly differentiate between a lack of want and a repulsion or unwant or negative want. Someone might say "I don't want x" or "I don't need x" and it's unclear if:…

I think I've used the phrase 'I actively don't want X' to emphasize unwant before. In my work I do try to disambiguate between the things I care about and don't, especially when delegating to people.

Re: The architecture of “not bad”: Decoding the Chinese source code of the void

#122

Post by rcxdude »

the_af wrote: post #94
Glyptodon wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In English it's rude to say there's something wrong with somebody's child, so people will say "Jane sure is different." Though it's generally still considered saying too much.

"Jane is special": also rude, right?

That's also a consequence of the euphemism treadmill.

Re: The architecture of “not bad”: Decoding the Chinese source code of the void

#123

Post by kruffalon »

rotbart wrote: post #86

This is not exclusive to the East, but any culture with a high cost of expression. Recent interview with a Russian CEO, talking about how they have "growth across the board, only in the negative direction"

I really think this is it.

And I suspect that in general more people (and sub cultures) in the US will start using more non-committal language in the coming decades. When repression grows harder it might become more important to not be noticed.

It would be interesing to know if the regional differences in the US that people are talking about here could be traced back to those places having a more homogeneous population with regards to hierarchical religious practices, country of origin, single-ish way to make a living or similar so that it is very important to not be cast out of the group.

Another perspective is also how this phenomenon relates to what I think is called "code switching" that individual persons from oppressed groups often use in contact with an individual from the oppressing group in daily life. Like how BIPOC interact with white people, women with men or young people with adults - where a not insignificant part of the interaction is about keeping the oppressive party calm and content.

----

English is not my language and I'd like to learn better. Please help me by correcting spelling, expressions and idioms.

Re: The architecture of “not bad”: Decoding the Chinese source code of the void

#124

Post by kruffalon »

pezezin wrote: post #81
stared wrote: post #32

I find the original post confused. What it has to with code? Why putting the US as "the West"? Why the Eastern void is bad? (Oftentimes it's the Western void which is oblivion, Eastern which is nirvana.) In Polish, 'niezły' (literally 'not bad') means 'very good'. Even in English there are many such things, e.g. 'indestructible', 'immortal'. When it comes to labels on food there is "no preservatives" or similar. It e…

> Why putting the US as "the West"? This line of thought seems to be extremely common among Americans, and honestly it is quite annoying for the rest of us.

True, but on the other hand they always give themselves away so it's very easy to spot and adjust expectations.

I found this article and discussion valuable anyway.

I would also encourage you to stop using "Americans" as synonymous to "US:er", there are many countries, cultures and peoples in the American continents that are not from the USA and quite a few that geographically exist within it too.

By pointing out that they are US:ers we can help each other to remind ourselves and them that they are not in fact the only version of human that exist.

Re: The architecture of “not bad”: Decoding the Chinese source code of the void

#125

Post by jesterswilde »

In it, the author contrasts 无 (Wú) and 有 (Yǒu). For some extra context of that specific contrast, here are a couple excerpts from the first poem of the Dao De Jing. (spacing is mine)

无 名天地之始

有 名万物之母

---

故 常无欲，以观其妙

... 常有欲，以观其徼。

---

The duality of 'with' and 'without', existence / non-existence is central and embodied heavily by those 2 words.

I am (slowly) trying to learn Chinese by reading the Dao, or possibly the other way around. I ran across this site (which I have 0 affiliation with) but it seems to be a small and unique site made by someone who just wanted it to exist, which very HN: https://dao-de-jing.com/

Re: The architecture of “not bad”: Decoding the Chinese source code of the void

#126

Post by incr_me »

popalchemist wrote: post #103
incr_me wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ever read Plato?

Indeed but we have veered far from Plato's school of thought ever since the dualism of Descartes and it was further reinforced by the rise in materialism following the "death of god" and the discovery of the atom.

I hear you on that, but it's not like Laozi's thought is particularly useful to Chinese capitalism, either. Certainly any remnant gestures towards the dialectics of Marx by the CCP are farcical. We can allow for some local variance, of course, while still seeing the vulgarization of the whole world, so to speak. I think it's important to appreciate that the seed of dialectical thought can never be vanquished; Kant accidentally paved the way for Hegel's abolition of Cartesian dualism, and Hegel had no problem making use of the German language, so seemingly divorced from Plato's Greek, to do that. Dialectical thought can't help but appear over and over again, no matter the language, because all language is a product of the real world.

Again, it would be a mistake to not afford some degree of autonomy to language. The question is to what degree language is free to structure the world. Ultimately any language, I believe, can be expanded to express whatever new ideas arise in society, so that it is the real conditions that have ultimate power "in the last instance".

Re: The architecture of “not bad”: Decoding the Chinese source code of the void

#128

Post by thyristan »

AStrangeMorrow wrote: post #21
kimixa wrote: post #7

As a Brit, I'm not quite sure this article is right in it's declaration it's a universal "English" thing and not more "American English".

Yeah, same as a French speaker first living in the US, I have to sometimes refrain myself from calling things “just fine”, “will do” or “not bad”. These are still used in American English, but I tend to use them for cases were people normally use more positive/stronger version. Like at a grocery store: “is that enough? That will do yes -> yes that’s perfect”

Same for a German.

Scales of goodness of expressions are shifted relative to English: "good" (gut) to a German means "it totally fulfills all my needs and expectations, so it is perfect for my purpose". "very good" (sehr gut) means "it exceeds all my expectations" and to a German already sounds like total hyperbole. Anything like "delightful" or "excellent" to a German sounds either totally sleazy or sarcastic.

When something is not perfect but adequate and we are happy with it, we would say something like "not bad", "it's fine" or "you can leave it like that". Which to the english speaking world has totally different connotations and can lead to rather interesting misunderstandings.

And especially "not bad" ("nicht schlecht") can be confusing in that it is sometimes something rather positive. It, in German and said in the right tone of voice" can mean "this is suprisingly good".

Re: The architecture of “not bad”: Decoding the Chinese source code of the void

#129

Post by turkishmonky »

mathewsanders wrote: post #27

This makes me think of a tool from semiotics called the Greimas square where you can have opposing concepts e.g. A and B (ugly & beautiful, for & against, legal & illegal). At the surface level they can appear as binaries, but the negation of A is not equivalent to B and vice versa (e.g. illegal is not equivalent to not-legal) and encourages the consideration of more complex meta-concepts which at surface level seem…

I have found myself using "decent" frequently (especially in code comments) for situations that are technically ok, but far from perfect.

"Passable" is my go to for just below that.

Sometimes it's also interesting how gen-z lingo fills gaps - such as "that's a choice"

Re: The architecture of “not bad”: Decoding the Chinese source code of the void

#130

Post by pezezin »

kruffalon wrote: post #124
pezezin wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why putting the US as "the West"? This line of thought seems to be extremely common among Americans, and honestly it is quite annoying for the rest of us.

True, but on the other hand they always give themselves away so it's very easy to spot and adjust expectations. I found this article and discussion valuable anyway. I would also encourage you to stop using "Americans" as synonymous to "US:er", there are many countries, cultures and peoples in the American continents that are not from the USA and quite a few that geographically exist within it too. By pointing out tha…

Fair enough. I am Spanish, so I am very much aware of the situation, I have plenty of friends and acquaintances from LATAM xD.

If I am speaking Spanish I would say "estadounidense" or "gringo" depending on my mood, but I have yet to find a satisfying word in English...

Post reply on HN