5 ms·

Agreed, it’s pretty ridiculous to think otherwise.

theoh 8y ago
I know HN is kind of a safe space for engineers to express their (sometimes arrogant or poorly informed) opinions about other people's fields. But this seems over-the-top. Who are these "ridiculous" people in New York, whose grasp of the situation around why this particular font ever came to be used in NY signage is so laughably feeble and inferior to the commenter's own? There may be no mystery worth solving, but neither is there a clearly identifiable moment when a shopkeeper selected the font for the first time. In high-profile design, in contrast, historical moments like that are often traceable—they do have an author.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- matt4077 8y ago
  I think these comments' arguing over the "mystery" isn't necessarily the problem... It's that people can apparently read a lavish, deeply-researched article, yet are incapable of discussing it in terms other than its headline. So they are somewhat right, obviously. And the article comes to the same conclusion[0]. But those that consider this narrow answer as in any way central to the article suffer from some fundamental misunderstanding of the genre. I can just imagine them complaining about Infinite Jest: First, because they are unlikely to consider it very jesty. And secondly because it isn't actually infinite. [0]: while even finding a candidate for "a clearly identifiable moment when a shopkeeper selected the font for the first time"–25 years after the fact.
  - evrydayhustling 8y ago
    I have nothing against the article, but I don't think you have to be superficial to see a bait and switch. The article trades throughout on the idea that Choc is a cultural touchstone in NYC, but the closest it comes to investigating that is quotes from one shopkeeper. There's a brief with a signmaker who doesn't admit an association with Choc, and then a lot of typographers. This approach frustrates me in other media - it's especially common in podcasts. Sometimes the author finds something that interests them, but ultimately feels they have to sell the story with a different hook. I wish authors would instead take it as a challenge to get other people invested in what captivated them. For example, the story could have pretty easily owned the obvious Asian restaurant association up front, but deliberately explored the font origins anyway (and maybe more specifically in that context).
    - kazinator 8y ago
      > There's a brief with a signmaker who doesn't admit an association with Choc Thanks to whom we're duly informed that these Choc signs are not really advertising at all, but mere graffiti.

I know HN is kind of a safe space for engineers to express their (sometimes arrogant or poorly informed) opinions about other people's fields. But this seems over-the-top. Who are these "ridiculous" people in New York, whose grasp of the situation around why this particular font ever came to be used in NY signage is so laughably feeble and inferior to the commenter's own? There may be no mystery worth solving, but neither is there a clearly identifiable moment when a shopkeeper selected the font for the first time. In high-profile design, in contrast, historical moments like that are often traceable—they do have an author.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
matt4077 8y ago
I think these comments' arguing over the "mystery" isn't necessarily the problem... It's that people can apparently read a lavish, deeply-researched article, yet are incapable of discussing it in terms other than its headline. So they are somewhat right, obviously. And the article comes to the same conclusion[0]. But those that consider this narrow answer as in any way central to the article suffer from some fundamental misunderstanding of the genre. I can just imagine them complaining about Infinite Jest: First, because they are unlikely to consider it very jesty. And secondly because it isn't actually infinite. [0]: while even finding a candidate for "a clearly identifiable moment when a shopkeeper selected the font for the first time"–25 years after the fact.
- evrydayhustling 8y ago
  I have nothing against the article, but I don't think you have to be superficial to see a bait and switch. The article trades throughout on the idea that Choc is a cultural touchstone in NYC, but the closest it comes to investigating that is quotes from one shopkeeper. There's a brief with a signmaker who doesn't admit an association with Choc, and then a lot of typographers. This approach frustrates me in other media - it's especially common in podcasts. Sometimes the author finds something that interests them, but ultimately feels they have to sell the story with a different hook. I wish authors would instead take it as a challenge to get other people invested in what captivated them. For example, the story could have pretty easily owned the obvious Asian restaurant association up front, but deliberately explored the font origins anyway (and maybe more specifically in that context).
  - kazinator 8y ago
    > There's a brief with a signmaker who doesn't admit an association with Choc Thanks to whom we're duly informed that these Choc signs are not really advertising at all, but mere graffiti.