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

Owls in Towels

owlsintowels.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 106 posts

Re: Owls in Towels

#65

Post by patates »

roughly wrote: post #3

This is a delight! This site is a great reminder that almost everyone visiting Hacker News has a set of skills which can be put to beneficial use for causes you care about - this is a small, simple, cheap site (and I mean that in a good way!) that attracts attention, awareness, and donations to something the author cares about. It’s easy for us, but it’s magic for most people. Don’t let your tech industry imposter sy…

> cheap site (and I mean that in a good way!)

I guess English needs different words for the German "Günstig" and "Billig". They both translate to cheap, but "Günstig" means something like cost-effective/affordable (but I guess not quite?), and is positive, while "Billig" is strictly negative.

Re: Owls in Towels

#67

Post by thesuitonym »

patates wrote: post #65
roughly wrote: post #3

This is a delight! This site is a great reminder that almost everyone visiting Hacker News has a set of skills which can be put to beneficial use for causes you care about - this is a small, simple, cheap site (and I mean that in a good way!) that attracts attention, awareness, and donations to something the author cares about. It’s easy for us, but it’s magic for most people. Don’t let your tech industry imposter sy…

> cheap site (and I mean that in a good way!) I guess English needs different words for the German "Günstig" and "Billig". They both translate to cheap, but "Günstig" means something like cost-effective/affordable (but I guess not quite?), and is positive, while "Billig" is strictly negative.

English already has a lot of words for both meanings. It's more that American culture has designated anything low cost as being of poorer quality.

Re: Owls in Towels

#68

Post by PopAlongKid »

patates wrote: post #65
roughly wrote: post #3

This is a delight! This site is a great reminder that almost everyone visiting Hacker News has a set of skills which can be put to beneficial use for causes you care about - this is a small, simple, cheap site (and I mean that in a good way!) that attracts attention, awareness, and donations to something the author cares about. It’s easy for us, but it’s magic for most people. Don’t let your tech industry imposter sy…

> cheap site (and I mean that in a good way!) I guess English needs different words for the German "Günstig" and "Billig". They both translate to cheap, but "Günstig" means something like cost-effective/affordable (but I guess not quite?), and is positive, while "Billig" is strictly negative.

Has that changed over time? Nearly fifty years ago, when self-serve gasoline pumping at gas stations was first coming into widespread use, I (native English speaker) was in Germany and remember a slogan I saw at gas stations to promote it: "selbst tanken ist billiger tanken" (sorry if I misspelled/mis-capitalized). So it seems Billig did not have such a negative connotation then.

Re: Owls in Towels

#69

Post by seanhunter »

f4c39012 wrote: post #35
bitwize wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One brand of American dish soap, Dawn, has a duckling as a mascot, and has for some years advertised its grease-cutting capability (and gentleness on living things) by showing that it is used to clean oil off waterfowl who have been caught in a slick.

One brand of UK dish soap, Fairy Liquid, bears the label "H412 - Harmful to aquatic life with long lasting effects"

That's just to emphasise the fact that you don't use fairy liquid to clean ducks. You use it to clean fairies.

Likewise toilet duck toilet cleaner is just a brand name. You use it for cleaning duck toilets not ducks themselves. And don't get me started on duck tape. One honest mistake and it's a lifetime ban from the RSPB.

Re: Owls in Towels

#70

Post by specproc »

gsck wrote: post #59
imposterr wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've stopped using the word "cheap" to describe situations like this as the word has too many negative connotations. I tend towards "inexpensive", "cost-effective", or "low-cost". I find it better describes my intent to describe something as not costing much but not speaking to poor quality which I feel like the word "cheap" has come to imply.

Theres a phrase in the UK that is "Cheap and cheerful" which I think is perfectly apt for this

I think "cheap" sounds worse in American.
Post reply on HN