Live data from Hacker News

Occurences of swearing in the Linux kernel source code over time

vidarholen.net

251–260 of 278 posts

Re: Occurences of swearing in the Linux kernel source code over time

#251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Do better" when used in an online debate forecloses discussion. It implies that the one saying "do better" is the authority on what "better" is. What if I disagree?

Then you reply with "Because of the following reasons, doing better must entail the following actions...", rather than argue against the need to do better

It's annoying in the same way gish gallopping is annoying: you're giving me nothing except resistance in a way you've formulated to appear as though it's in good faith, even though it's not.

Re: Occurences of swearing in the Linux kernel source code over time

#252
post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but that time was nearly 30 years ago. Linux has been "mainstream" since at least August 1999.

Why August 1999? Seems quite specific?

RedHat's IPO. Seemed like as good a date as any to anchor "when Linux went mainstream". I'm sure there are other dates that are arguably at least as good here.

Re: Occurences of swearing in the Linux kernel source code over time

#253
post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s also incredibly cultural. Swearing in the workplace is much more normal here in Australia. In my first job at an American company, I was shocked how prissy people were about swearing. In my head I thought “these are adults, right? Why is everyone acting like a blushing teenager?”. I’m sure I sounded rough as guts to them. It took ages to learn to scale it back depending on who I was talking to. Swearing with som…

This is a great real world example of why we need cultural competency training. Here it would be an HR led class where we practice swearing while talking to the new Aussie coworker(s) in order to make them feel comfortable and improve their performance and ease onboarding.

> HR led class Ugh really? Another one?

> where we practice swearing Oh well hang on a second…that could be fun

Re: Occurences of swearing in the Linux kernel source code over time

#254
post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, it’s not fear, it’s indignation. You can see it on full display in the comments here. It’s not, “we shouldn’t have to live in fear of saying the wrong thing.” It’s, “how DARE they try to dictate what I can say.” It’s obvious when people get so upset over an idea as simple as “don’t curse in your work.” Not even “don’t curse out loud, just “don’t put it in your code.” It’s the easiest thing in the world to do. It…

I think it's, clearly, both. The fear is what prevents people from putting ascii sequences in their code, even though they want to (as this comment section shows).

Fear might be what keeps them from swearing in their comments at work, but it’s not what drives them to come here and declare that writing “fuck” in their work code is actually very important.

Re: Occurences of swearing in the Linux kernel source code over time

#255
post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's auto-censorship as much as language changing. For me, 'retard' is 99% associated with my friends dissing each other as kids, and 1% associated with 'delay'.

For me, it's mostly associated with being bullied as an autistic child, which might be the actual reason it's come to be seen as a "slur" Meh. Probably more likely is those damn automod settings on reddit (which aren't, you know, configured by moderators according to what their community wants or anything)

Yes, I should have added 'bullying' to the 'dissing' explanation. It was certainly that too.

Re: Occurences of swearing in the Linux kernel source code over time

#256
post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a great real world example of why we need cultural competency training. Here it would be an HR led class where we practice swearing while talking to the new Aussie coworker(s) in order to make them feel comfortable and improve their performance and ease onboarding.

> HR led class Ugh really? Another one? > where we practice swearing Oh well hang on a second…that could be fun

You should find the Australian HR Slur Song on Tumblr.

Re: Occurences of swearing in the Linux kernel source code over time

#257
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The idea that arbitrary sequences of phones or characters will cause anyone within ear or eye-shot to become offended is rather absurd. No more absurd than the notion that a mere sequence of sounds could convey any other meaning or elicit any other response.

If a comedian elicits a laugh from a person - who is at fault if the person laughs, the comedian or the person? I would argue that the person is at fault. Unless you are suggesting one does not have a choice whether to laugh or not. If that were true, then all comedians would either be funny, or not funny, for all people. That is simply not the case.

Imagine even entertaining the idea that laughter is a bad thing.

Re: Occurences of swearing in the Linux kernel source code over time

#258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a comedian elicits a laugh from a person - who is at fault if the person laughs, the comedian or the person? I would argue that the person is at fault. Unless you are suggesting one does not have a choice whether to laugh or not. If that were true, then all comedians would either be funny, or not funny, for all people. That is simply not the case.

Nonsense. You are making the assumption that laughing is always voluntary, and only to communicate that you find something amusing. Both parts of that are false - for example many people will laugh instinctively as part of a fight flight response when the perceive danger from others to communicate "hey im with you and not scared, don't hurt me more". People who hate veing tickled because they feel defenseless will st…

Imagine being so humorless as to purport that laughing at a joke is somehow equivalent to a form of torture.

Re: Occurences of swearing in the Linux kernel source code over time

#259
post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why August 1999? Seems quite specific?

RedHat's IPO. Seemed like as good a date as any to anchor "when Linux went mainstream". I'm sure there are other dates that are arguably at least as good here.

Ah right, that roughly tracks. Just wasn't obvious where "August 1999" came from.

Kind of amazing timeline in hindsight by the way; Linux was "only" 8 years old at that point.

Re: Occurences of swearing in the Linux kernel source code over time

#260
post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

//hack = I have found a way around the problem that was probably necessary to use and could even be arguably clever under the circumstances where a hack is required Example: When I suggested using data uri as source of iframe to get around domain security restrictions in FF and still allow you to click on links and scroll in iframe which using about: uri scheme did not (long story involving national security and iden…

Your definitions are entirely arbitrary and certainly not even remotely universally understood. I'd much rather a comment that succinctly but thoroughly describes what is going on and why a hack is necessary.

they are contextual expressions often emphasizing an abstract though equally shared reality -- emotional states. sorta like how "doch" functions in german sometimes. and i definitely will debate it being universally understood semantics, esp for native english speakers.

do you know many people who interpret the emotional weight of "that's fucking stupid" versus "that's stupid" as the same?

anecdotally everyone in my worldview would react differently to both, and further reactions will depend largely on how it is said -- not because of some ambiguous meaning collectively (mis)understood.

i have always found people who want to wipe clean the slate of language and all its slang and "offensive" words in favor of established definitions and order -- contextually or otherwise -- often lack a lot of emotional expression in their correspondence.

people emote. physically and verbally. and we have all kinds of mechanics to capture the nuances in contextual languages -- slang is one of the best features, and the nuances can run super deep, nuances a lot of formal writing or correspondence can lose in its rigor and strictness. especially not withstanding cadence and emotion.

youre going to have vastly different experience reading stevenson and then say twain, for example. even speaking it aloud -- but i encourage you to spot a common denominator.

their dialogue often reflects the character, the context, and the emotional state, and largely not formal. and there's a heft amount of literature that utilizes formal writing in its dialogue, and one of the first things lost in the narrative is cohesion, and therefore immersion, bc that's not how most people speak -- only a distinct subset talks like that culturally and even then it is still not totally real life.

humans are very rarely strictly formal in correspondence in practice -- we only established professional dialogue as a norm to separate the haves from the have-nots, and then made it a moral high-ground to keep the "peasants" in line.

express yourselves. say what you mean. stop letting people convince you that you should be scared of saying something like "that's fucking stupid" bc it means more for you to say "that's stupid" for the sake of arbitrary professional standards.

Post reply on HN