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

Unsuck It (2010)

unsuck-it.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 89 posts

Re: Unsuck It (2010)

#71

Post by reaperducer »

soneca wrote: post #53
reaperducer wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This applied only to broadsheets (New York Times), and not to newspapers that used tabloid layout (Chicago Sun-Times). The reason "above the fold" was valuable real estate was because whatever was there would be visible in newspaper vending machines, newspaper racks, and the stacks at kiosks. Newspapers that printed on tabloid-sized paper didn't have that problem, since they were not folded horizontally. Tabloid news…

GP point maintains. At least in my country, I never saw ads above the folder, but the main headlines.

GP point maintains

I wasn't refuting the GP. I was adding more information.

Re: Unsuck It (2010)

#72

Post by tyingq »

jasonv wrote: post #20
fbelzile wrote: post #2

This is awesome. It has my favorite one: "ping me" Man, I hated hearing this. Just use normal words, please.

I don't mind that one, but "rockstar" in job descriptions drives me batty. As do "send it" and "stan". So, it's across all cultural borders these days.

It's particularly irritating when every position a company posts asks for a "rockstar". That's a recipe for, uh, something other than what they need.

Re: Unsuck It (2010)

#73

Post by bohrasd »

tyingq wrote: post #9

I imagine our pointy-haired bosses would appreciate an "unsuck it" for tech jargon, with stuff like: orthagonal -> unrelated immutable -> unchangeable idempotent -> (is there a very short phrase that works here?)

idempotent -> same same, but different

Re: Unsuck It (2010)

#74

Post by marcosdumay »

NoodleIncident wrote: post #66
tyingq wrote: post #9

I imagine our pointy-haired bosses would appreciate an "unsuck it" for tech jargon, with stuff like: orthagonal -> unrelated immutable -> unchangeable idempotent -> (is there a very short phrase that works here?)

I like that orthagonal suggests that they definitely intersect, but go in two different directions. Unrelated is too harsh in most of the situations you'd use orthagonal.

Well, orthogonal lines don't have to intersect in in geometry (you just need more than 2 dimensions), and "intersect" is meaningless in algebra. So, I don't think that's really implied.

Re: Unsuck It (2010)

#75

Post by marcosdumay »

chrisweekly wrote: post #19
tyingq wrote: post #9

I imagine our pointy-haired bosses would appreciate an "unsuck it" for tech jargon, with stuff like: orthagonal -> unrelated immutable -> unchangeable idempotent -> (is there a very short phrase that works here?)

idempotent -> side-effect-free? safely-repeatable?

> side-effect-free

Hum... No, that's not the meaning at all.

> safely-repeatable

And now you'll get stuck explaining exactly what "safe" means.

Re: Unsuck It (2010)

#77

Post by jolmg »

chrisweekly wrote: post #19
tyingq wrote: post #9

I imagine our pointy-haired bosses would appreciate an "unsuck it" for tech jargon, with stuff like: orthagonal -> unrelated immutable -> unchangeable idempotent -> (is there a very short phrase that works here?)

idempotent -> side-effect-free? safely-repeatable?

> side-effect-free?

No, those are pure.

A pure, idempotent function would be one where f(f(x)) = f(x).

An idempotent function could have side-effects. Imagine turn_on() where if it's already on, then nothing happens and it just stays on.

Re: Unsuck It (2010)

#78

Post by indymike »

phildenhoff wrote: post #18

Seeing all the phrases my old colleagues used has really solidified that leaving consulting was a good choice for my own sanity. Stop trying to ping me on a go-forward basis to utilize and action upcoming synergies in a fulsome manner!

At the end of the day, it's all clear.

Re: Unsuck It (2010)

#79

Post by yesenadam »

techbio wrote: post #45

An update on the model of Ambrose Bierce's "Devil's Dictionary": https://www.gutenberg.org/files/972/972-h/972-h.htm

Don Watson's Watson's Dictionary of Weasel Words: Contemporary Cliches, Cant and Management Jargon (2004) seems very similar in tone to Unsuck It. It has political and corporate-speak, with real-world examples! The best part is the biblical/Shakespeare/traditional sayings with the weasel words substituted. So funny. (He wrote another, Worst Words: A compendium of contemporary cant, gibberish and jargon (2015) which I haven't seen but guess is similar)

Re: Unsuck It (2010)

#80

Post by tyingq »

jolmg wrote: post #77
chrisweekly wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

idempotent -> side-effect-free? safely-repeatable?

> side-effect-free? No, those are pure. A pure, idempotent function would be one where f(f(x)) = f(x). An idempotent function could have side-effects. Imagine turn_on() where if it's already on, then nothing happens and it just stays on.

I think there's two different readings of "side effect free" here. The fact that nothing happens on the second+ invocation is, for me, the example of no unwanted side effects. An unwanted side effect might be sending more voltage down the line on each invocation...120, 240, 360.
Post reply on HN