Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by hartpuff | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

hartpuff

> You could do merchandise, books, characters

He was talking about free merchandise, books, characters then?

View on HN

They also said:

> You could have Boaty McBoatface sale up to the ice caps to look at why they are melting.

An example of how it could be used to deliver important messages.

And merchandise can be part of the message anyway.

(I should however note that I just edited my comment to include the word "simply".)

AFAIK there's nothing to stop someone creating a character called Boaty McBoatface that teaches 4 year olds why the ice caps are melting, without having its internet joke name attached to a real life $300 million scientific research vessel.

Well yeah, but that's not the same.

And exactly what problem does attaching the name to a real boat cause? I think the objection to the name is far more childish than the name itself. "Oh no no no, we can't call it that. This is a serious boat, for serious grown ups."

If only Spitting Image was still around. This whole thing is like designed for a solid round of mockery.

Is it just $300 million scientific research vessels that should be given deliberately stupid names (that even the originator disowns), or everything?

What? I said objecting to the name is childish. That doesn't mean I think everything should have whimsical names, and I really don't know how you interpreted that from what I said?

Did I say you said everything should have whimsical names? I asked if that is what you thought. Can't you tell the difference?

So what's your presumably non-childish objection to other things being given "whimsical" names?

>So what's your presumably non-childish objection to other things being given "whimsical" names?

I don't object to that either?

My God, this is completely ridiculous, but I'll try one more time.

Do you or do you not believe everything should have a whimsical name?

To save time: If your answer to this is "No, I do not believe everything should have a whimsical name", then what is your non-childish objection to whimsical names in some cases?

That's a false dichotomy. I do not believe everything should have a whimsical name nor do I believe they shouldn't.

(Except in the sense that variety is preferable, but I don't think that's what you're getting at.)

Not supporting OP but their question is not at all a dichotomy. The question wasn't should everything have a whimsical name or should nothing have a whimsical name. The question was basically just should everything have a whimsical name. Sounds like your answer is no, because you're ok with things having whimsical names sometimes.

Yes that's how I read it, and it is a false dichotomy, because not thinking something should be the case is not the same as thinking it shouldn't be the case. They're both value judgements of which I make neither.

Are you by chance on the committee that is naming this boat?

If not, you'd be an excellent committee member. You'd be a total hit at committees.

When you allow the public to chose a name for a research vessel, it's inoffensive, popular and creates more media coverage (arguably the goal of having the vote) then no matter how whimsical you think the name is you should stick with it. If you don't want whimsy, don't ask the British public to name your ship.

No one forced them in to the situation.

FWIW I don't find the name stupid, one person's humour is another's stupidity I guess.

I agree that it's totally stupid to use online voting, that is just asking to be hijacked, and I almost believe that they should have to eat the result as a punishment. Almost.

Hopefully it's a lesson for them not to ask The Internet its opinion again.

Wow, it's extremely irritating to see this (parent) post downvoted by people who may not realize (till after downvoting) that what I replied to was edited - from denying what I said to admitting it, making my reply look redundant.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com