This particular case isn't as bad as others, but especially when getting into any sort of technical conversation it's wildly frustrating to see multiple acronyms used with no indication of what they stand for. Then you go to look it up and there's like 29 results that fit the acronym, half of them being plausible.
I was always taught to use the full word/name/whatever the first time it occurs in writing and immediately provide the acronym in brackets (I've also seen vice-versa, which is fine), then feel free to acronym-soup the rest of the text. I sorely miss when that was the rule, now that it seems like it is the exception.
Sometimes you're not the intended audience and that's okay too. Constantly explaining acronyms that everyone in the audience uses daily gets frustrating too.
Imagine if every article written for senior software engineers in VC-backed companies had to re-explain what PR, CI, VC and AWS stand for. Or if every article for American audiences re-explained LA, NYC, and EST.
Jargon is useful.
> We accepted a pull request ("PR") for our continuous integration ("CI") server. As a result, CI will now automatically trigger a canary release instead of the old blue-green deployment process, except on AWS where canary releases are not supported.
Note that there's no real interruption to the flow of the writing, as I only spell it out the first time it is mentioned. Nor do I stop to explain what "pull-request" means -- the full name (unlike the acronym) is enough to perform a search on the topic and read about it if needed. And I don't do this universally: everyone I know uses "AWS" instead of "Amazon Web Services" and even pronounces it that way in conversation, so I don't bother explaining that one.
Maybe that’s how this author’s bubble feels about FOMO.
I for one don’t think I’ve ever heard the full version of “FOMO” in conversation. Similarly to how everyone I know says “pee-arr” and may not even remember it’s short for something.
Writing out an acronym one time in your paper/article/blog is not "constantly".
>Sometimes you're not the intended audience
Often times I run into this issue when I am the intended audience, but may not be familiar with the trendiest acronym to describe something. Or I'm familiar with 2-3 uses of the same acronym and am not sure which one is applicable.
Exactly, and neither is it explaining.
I don't get what the big deal is, "fear of missing out (FOMO)" is just four words extra, once, and you don't need to write an essay on the etymology of the term or something. It just ensures we're all on the same page and when it's not clear to someone they can google it. Do people not know how many overlapping abbreviations there are? It's almost like the acronyms are shortening the words somehow to a smaller representation that is not necessarily unique.
I think you mean "your paper/article/weblog (blog)"
But clipping isn't the same as acronyms, mainly because a clipped word is (generally) easily searchable whereas acronyms are shared across several domains and will sometimes overlap inside a single domain, which is the source of the frustration for me.
So in this case I think spelling out the acronym is neither necessary (as articles typically needn’t define moderately well known words) nor sufficient (as the term’s meaning is more than just the expansion of the acronym).
Guess it’s an acronym.
It's used in mainstream television advertisements like the FOMOH ads by the NHL (fear of missing out on hockey).
FOMO is probably as well-known as other acronyms that aren't explained every time they come up: IRS, LGBT, DMV, MLB, NYC, etc.
And, really, if you don't know it, you just do this:
CTRL+T define:FOMO ENTER
I mean, we're already in a web browser...
But here we go, now we're deep in an HN thread about something so incredibly trivial – it really is true that our day jobs are bullshit if we've got this much time to kill on this kind of discussion. (I'm unemployed, what's the rest of y'all's excuse?)
It's not like the article dives into terms like SE, ICP, AE, CSM, or anything like that.
"Non-trivial consequences," lol, cracks me up. Won't anyone think of all the lost productivity?
I replied to someone talking about not spelling out acronyms by talking more about not spelling out acronyms.
I don't know much more on topic I could possibly be.
Sorry if I offended I guess? I'll try not to discuss things as much on this discussion board.
IRS & DMV are very US-specific (I do happen to know what they mean, but I'd venture many non-Americans wouldn't). I have no idea what MLB means...
(looked it up - if it's referring to baseball, well then, again, somewhat US-centric. Though I am surprised I've never heard it called that, vs, say, NBA, which long ago gained international recognition.)
I'm in a meeting right now :-)
No, that just happened a moment ago. :)
I am familiar with the concept; just not familiar with it as an acronym.
BOGO as a shopping term has been around as long as I can remember.
Then I got to explain bogo as a prefix in computing and chess before picking nits like "shouldn't it be BOGOF" (typical HN commentor that I am)?
I've never seen it as just BOGO though.
English is the lingua franca of the Internet, but this example shows that some acronyms are not as global as people might think. I guess BOGO (buy one get one) might be commonplace if you shop in an American store, but anybody else that doesn't live there might not have had exposure to it before, and get quite annoyed. Same with stuff like GOP (Grand Old Party) or even DUI (Driving Under the Influence). Americans on the Internet just love to drop their three-letter acronyms on an international forum.
Acronyms are context and location sensitive. One should refrain to use them on the Internet unless you can expect anyone who's reading you to know then (i.e. FBI, WHO, UN)
> I was surprised to hear how much FOMO (Fear of Missing Out) my friends were experiencing.
I had also forgotten what FOMO stood for but thankfully the article defined it above the first page fold.