Live data from Hacker News

“I just chose words carefully”

unsung.aresluna.org

201–210 of 374 posts

Re: “I just chose words carefully”

#201
post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Japan they have the abbreviation “NG” (“not good”) that’s often used as the opposite of “OK”. I always liked how, when I worked for a Japanese machine learning company, classifiers would be between “OK” and “NG”. Maybe semantically “okay” and “not good” are not great opposites, but I always liked how having textual alignment makes the contrast immediately obvious

It's not unusual in France to use OK and KO. I never liked it much because it's too easy to confuse and no semantically a good opposite either, but visually it does look very balanced.

Is it because KO and chaos are both pronounced /ka.o/?

Re: “I just chose words carefully”

#202
Although they are rarely read in monospace, I write all my emails in monospace, and frequently "choose my words carefully" to have the text left and right justified.

Every now and again someone notices.

I invite you to have a look at my profile ... I cheated once.

Re: “I just chose words carefully”

#204

In programming certain word choices are valuable in this way. It's sad that pairs like true/false, good/bad, first/rest, and left/right are unequal length. But there are nice pairs like old/new, head/tail, fast/slow, same/diff, and right/wrong, which can help with create natural vertical alignment throughout a function.

> It's sad that pairs like true/false, good/bad, first/rest, and left/right are unequal length. You're just matching them wrong. On/off and yes/no may look unequal, but what about yes/off or on/no?

true/lies

Re: “I just chose words carefully”

#205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not unusual in France to use OK and KO. I never liked it much because it's too easy to confuse and no semantically a good opposite either, but visually it does look very balanced.

Is it because KO and chaos are both pronounced /ka.o/?

I've always just understood it as in knockout, chaos wouldn't fit in the way OK and KO are used (as predicate adjectives, if I understand English grammar classes correctly) but it is part of why some people like to use "KO", I'm not sure.

Re: “I just chose words carefully”

#206
From the title, I knew what it was about.

This Super Metroid guide is some crazy stuff I'll always remember. I was reading it and then a 10 minutes later I noticed, it was such unique feeling. Definitely a piece of art.

Re: “I just chose words carefully”

#207
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"No widows" on its own isn't enough to create a distinctive dialog cadence. "Widows" (alone at the top) and "orphans" (alone at the bottom) are single lines cut off from the rest of a paragraph by a column/page break. The solution is generally just to fiddle with column/page breaks, which is purely typographical. I'm sure that there's a distinct identity to X-Files dialog; it's just not due to this quirk. I can total…

I had the same thought, but I think the idea is that it didn't so much create a specific cadence as the cadence was a bit odd because the language needed to fit the visual layout rather than feel natural when spoken.

the distinctive cadence is not a direct consequence from eliminating widows but from the mental process used to achieve this efficiently. language goes from natural fluidity to stacking Lego bricks.

Re: “I just chose words carefully”

#208
In a similar vein, Taylor Otwell from Laravel writes his comment blocks exactly three lines long and each line is three characters shorter than the line above, e.g.

    /*
    |--------------------------------------------------------------------------
    | Application Name
    |--------------------------------------------------------------------------
    |
    | This value is the name of your application, which will be used when the
    | framework needs to place the application's name in a notification or
    | other UI elements where an application name needs to be displayed.
    |
    */
https://github.com/laravel/framework/blob/13.x/config/app.ph...

Re: “I just chose words carefully”

#209

I like the idea that arbitrary constraints can actually improve writing. Without a constraint, it's easy to fall back on familiar phrasing, while having to work around something unusual forces you to reconsider each word. I wonder if this applies to programming and other creative work too.

Live is short, required time to market is even shorter. Arbitrary constraints might work if you have nothing better to do, but if you have a goal, or specific ideas you want to train, you'll get more natural constraints.

I would argue that limitations, forced or arbitrary lead to more interesting (and perhaps in the end more useful) products.

In the GDC 2016 talk "8 Bit & '8 Bitish' Graphics-Outside the Box" by Mark Ferrari he mentions something similar. (paraphrasing) "If you can make anything you like (with modern Photoshop) you won't need to stop to consider the core of your idea." A lot of our thoughts are not as original as we like to believe and constraints can push your to consider your ideas and designs from another perspective leading to better understanding or design of the core concept. Often because the ideal path to realizing your idea is not available so you will have to reconsider the need or how to creatively implement something that approaches your desired outcome.

Now the GDC talk is about pixel art but the same is true in writing or any creative process (for example painting or coding). Famously some writers limit their selves to typewriters, for example George Orwell or Matty Healy.

Re: “I just chose words carefully”

#210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They pronounce these words as if the e and the l were reversed, if "truffle" was written in a phonetic manner it would be written "truffel". You can just look this up. The usual way to write "truffle" in a phonetic manner is of course /tɹʌfl̩/. You'll note that there is no vowel in the second syllable at all; it consists of just the L. (And that's what the small mark below the L means - "syllabic".) This is the sta…

Well I know what you mean, it's phonetic in the same way that a silent "ent" and "p" in "comptent" are "phonetic" in French, or the silent "n"s in "pannenkoeken" are in Dutch. In common language though we call that "not phonetic". But that's not what the person you were responding to was talking about, and it also has nothing to do with IPA notation: we were obviously not writing IPA here. However to come back to IPA…

> Well I know what you mean, it's phonetic in the same way that a silent "ent" and "p" in "comptent" are "phonetic" in French

No, that's not what I said at all. Stipulating that the -ent and the -p- are silent in the French word comptent, there is also a French word comte of identical pronunciation, which limits the amount of phonetic information that the silent -ent and -p- could be carrying. (In fact, I believe the verb ending may be realized in certain cases, as the "silent N" ending the English indefinite article is often realized.)

The doubling of the "f" in truffle is nothing like that. The hypothetical word trufle would be pronounced differently. That difference wouldn't have anything to do with the F, but nevertheless it is indicated by the spelling; the spelling is conveying phonetic information.

This is also the case for the spelling -le. It represents an English sound. It is the spelling you would expect a trained speaker to produce for a novel word featuring that sound. You can't get any more phonetic than that.

> Wiktionary (not a definitive source I know, but there is no definitive source whatsoever about anything regarding the English language) does that say "truffle" rymes with /-ʌfəl/ with a schwa right there between the f and the l.

I'll return to this in a moment.

> The pronunciation of the word itself in Wiktionary is indicated with a syllable break rather than a schwa,

Just to be clear, the "syllable break" is the period between the f and the syllabic l. The symbol that tells you the l constitutes a syllable in itself is the small mark underneath it.

> which I would absolutely dispute

Why? That's how the word is pronounced.

> and indeed it looks like Cambridge dictionary puts a schwa there in addition to the syllable break.

We're back to the first point!

First, let's observe that there is absolutely no dispute over the idea that "truffle" is two syllables long. The presence of a syllable break is universally agreed.

Second, the reason wiktionary gives a more accurate rendition of the pronunciation is that it's mostly maintained by enthusiasts.

The convention of dictionaries is cited by wikipedia:

> Many dialects of English may use syllabic consonants in words such as sudden [ˈsʌd.n̩], awful [ˈɔːfɫ̩] and rhythm [ˈɹɪðm̩], which English dictionaries' respelling systems usually treat as realizations of underlying sequences of schwa and a consonant (for example, /ˈsʌd.ən/).

( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllabic_consonant )

This is a convention, no less than the spelling "-le" is. It is advantageous in dictionaries, where you'd like each syllable to be more or less pronounceable on its own; the grapheme "-le" can't occur in isolation. The phonetic analysis is what I already told you it is, and what wikipedia repeats in that quote.

(In the case of sudden, the difference is crystal clear - if you pronounce it without detaching your tongue from the roof of your mouth between the /d/ and the /n/, you can only be producing a syllabic n. You can also do this test with subtle, but not with truffle, since /f/ doesn't share the same articulatory properties that /d/, /t/, and /l/ do.)

Post reply on HN