Hacker News Reader

Comment by systems | Hacker News Reader

yea, please change that cover image, it looks like those visual illusions explicit images

its not technically explicit, but its implied

Thank you. A book like this choosing an image of "mountains" that is evocative of staring up at a naked woman's body is a stunning, poor choice.

Choices like this could alienate a large number of potential Nim programmers, and make me question the tone and nature of the community.

The actual book cover is https://www.amazon.de/dp/B0B4R7B9YX

it's the same image, spanning front to back cover

Yes and if you look at that book and see a naked woman then it's more telling about you than anyone else.

our biology primes us to see these things, our lizard brain is quite powerful despite the belief we can live above it.

> it's more telling about you than anyone else

I'll reflect this back to you and your statement. Making such statements says quite a bit about how you see and treat people

I'd also note that I did write I didn't see it the first time, and only saw it after another commenter pointed it out. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38544483)

"out biology primes us..." but "I didn't see it the first time, and only saw it after another commenter pointed it out."

part 1 addresses the general premiss that if you see sexual imagery in a non-sexual image, then there is <something> about you

part 2 addresses the personalization of the accusation

exact same for me, although after seeing it I do have a difficult time believing it was accidental.

But I also don't care, it doesn't bother me at all.

> I'll reflect this back to you and your statement. Making such statements says quite a bit about how you see and treat people

What I suspect is you haven't looked at a picture of the actual book cover and therefore haven't realised that it looks rather different in action.

this is a good example of gaslighting

and it is usually how those visual illusions are used, if you see this than you are that, but if you see the other thing you are normal

its a bad image, it is a visual illusion, are they aware of it or not this is the question

This is not a good example of gaslighting. If you look at the actual book cover and you see that, then it's very telling. If you look at the image on the blog post and see it, it's different. The book cover images are missing quite a bit of it and the parts where it cuts off are quite import to an illusion.

You two need to calm down.

It may not be obvious if you're just looking at the book. But if the images of the front and back are put together side by side, like in the post, I think it's quite obvious. I'd be surprised if this wasn't intentional.

What would it be "telling" exactly? That someone recognizes the general shape of a naked woman?

The language creator (who is the author of this book) said this too: https://forum.nim-lang.org/t/10312#68553

That's pretty telling for the creator and community to think that way. Nim doesn't have a great ecosystem, but this really doesn't help sell it either.

Based. This tells me the creator is sane and has his head screwed on properly.

I think you mean “female nude” not “explicit” here.

They aren't synonyms; “implied explicit” is an oxymoron, “implied female nude” is not. (Thouugh really, “suggestive of” or “evocative of” is probably more accurate than “implied” here, too.)

There are multiple definitions:

ex·plic·it

/ikˈsplisət/

* stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.

* (of a person) stating something in a clear and detailed way.

* describing or representing sexual activity in a graphic fashion.

Yes, and? Presumably the uncited cut-and-paste from a (poor, IMO) dictionary is intended to suggest that the third definition applies, but nudity isn't sexual activity [0] and, more to the point, the sense of “graphic” in the that definition is basically a combination of vivid and explicit in the sense of the first definition, and remains an antonym of “implied”.

[0] which is more of a problem with your choice of authority, because most dictionaries wouldn't limit the relevant definition this way.

Copied from Google (who pull from Oxford), but a variation of "depicting nudity or sexual activity" is included in most if not all definitions. Do you have a source you prefer that contradicts this?

In common usage, an "explicit image" implies the third definition. It's not explicit as opposed to blurry or abstract, it's explicit as opposed to non-sexual. Since the context was discussion of the contents of an image, the word "image" was implied.

Ironic that a statement about an ambiguous image that might be misinterpreted to be something it is not has spurred such a rousing discussion about the ambiguity of the comment itself, which may be misinterpreted to mean something it is not saying.

As other commenters have noted, this is a stretched across the front and back. It makes me think this illusion was not intended and is more an artifact of having a mirrored image so that the back is a reflection of the front. I don't see any issue with the book cover as it appears on the linked Amazon page, for example.

I knew I was not the only one. It is ... sus.

had to go back b/c I didn't see it the first time, now it is quite evident

how intentional I will let the crowd decide

It's like that episode of Everybody Loves Raymond where Ray's mom (Marie Barone) creates a sculpture that looks like a womb area, and only Ray and his wife can immediately see the ... hidden image, and Ray's dad (Frank Barone) for some reason is very drawn to the sculpture and he can't quite put his finger on it. After Ray, lets his mom know, then she can't unsee it.

Hilarity ensues.

Implied is literally the opposite of explicit

I believe they put "not" in front of "explicit" for this reason

That's not how 'but' works, also the word 'explicit' is used differently here.

I read it as

"this is not an explicit image of looking up a woman's body, but it is implied"

I take issue with the but part, which "implies" it was intentional. I'm not in a place to judge that, but I can definitely see the "implied" imagery

... if we can further mix the connotations of the words from the comment we are talking about, without increasing confusion...

Is this a joke?

Bruh!! You've stirred my inner poet.

Ode to my most beautiful Goddess Nim.

My beloved goddess, I wish to roam around your lush forests and valleys, and scale the peaks of programming ecstasy with you my most beautiful goddess.

I yearn to plough the depths of your fertility, planting my seeds into your fertile soil, and watch the seedlings sprout and grow into great giant oaks of Mandelbrot complexity and beauty.

I want to bathe in your flowing rivers of ectasy, raise my face to the sky and feel the spray of your golden showers on my face, drink your golden ambrosia and feel the wisdom of your inspiration flow through my veins into my fingers, weaving skeins of golden code that induce envy in the greatest weavers of code.

Oh beloved Goddess Nim, my programming muse.

Bruh!!

.....

I ought to stop here before I cause a global crisis of PEKBACs among diehard Nim programmers.

TBH, I didn't see it at first, but those beautiful mountain peaks and valleys have converted me into a diehard Nim programmer.

PS. Should I post this on the Nim Slacks, Reddits, Matrixes et al?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com