> PitM attack
I see we've arrived at the point where we're re-naming commonly established acronyms in order to remain politically correct.
I see we've arrived at the point where we're re-naming commonly established acronyms in order to remain politically correct.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Just because an article includes some provocation does make it ok* to swallow the bait and then bring it in here and start a flamewar with it. There's a much better option: don't take the bait in the first place.
* edit: I meant does not make it ok, of course - that was a typo.
What I'm telling the GP, and HN users generally, is that when something lands with them as a provocation or bait, we need them to pause instead of rushing to HN threads to vent about it, regardless of what the intention of the writer seems to them to be. It's all too easy for readers to get provoked, especially on the internet, even when no one intended to provoke them. Instead of reacting reflexively and making the thread even worse, we need them to handle that reaction and wait until they're able to be a bit more thoughtful [2].
Of course it's also my job to make that case to the commenter without inadvertently provoking anybody else. Obviously I didn't pull that off this time. I can see how my GP comment looked like a claim about your article, and I should have been more careful to disambiguate my own intent [3]. Sorry for fucking that up!
On another note, I wish you wouldn't be "careful not to participate" on topics that you know a lot about! If you participate by sharing some of what you know, there's a chance for people to learn. Of course the arguments here are pitiful—HN is a large internet forum. I don't like it either. But it's all relative, and you (i.e. all of us) shouldn't underestimate the power of adding solid information to a discussion.
[1] I used to tell people "Please don't X, regardless of how right you are"—but that sounds like I'm saying they're right, which I'm not (I say that to everybody). So now I phrase it as regardless of how right you are or feel you are, which seems to preempt that misunderstanding: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
[3] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
I'm not sure how big the gain is here. Are people really going to read "man in the middle" and assume that no woman could ever do this?
Why is it good? What benefit does it achieve other than confusing people. It is also a good reminder that how things were before. One should not forget the past and things accomplished by many efforts. How is it different than 1984's newspeak or the idea of 'changing the history? Why not choose an approach similar to this (first link I found about Warner Bros' approach): https://twitter.com/stilkov/status/506324544177836032
Humans aren't computers. They have a finite number of concepts they can keep in their head. Using existing conventions leads to better understanding as it allow folks to get through a discussion without having to backtrack as often.
I care. There's no need to make challenging technical texts more obtuse to read by reinventing all the terms.