4 ms·

Genuinely curious aside—you used TFA twice. It means “the fucking article” here, right? When you use TFA, your otherwise helpful comment reads as if it’s angry,

Genuinely curious aside—you used TFA twice. It means “the fucking article” here, right? When you use TFA, your otherwise helpful comment reads as if it’s angry, exasperated, or some otherwise negative feeling that stands in opposition to the rest of your comment—which reads as a genuine attempt to be helpful and explain. Why do use TFA?

lixtra 7y ago
TFA can also stand for The Fine Article. By HN rules you should assume the best; in this case for you, he was talking about the fine article.
- bobwaycott 7y ago
  I did assume the best—hence pointing out twice how helpful the comment was. I was merely curious why the author of the comment used TFA, and if they meant something else than the typical meaning of the acronym. Unless you personally know the contents of the author’s mind, I don’t believe you can answer for their meaning with much authority. You seem to have misunderstood my intent with asking (or do you generally like reminding long-time HN users about rules?). I’m not offended by the usage of TFA or assuming the worst of the commenter. I am curious about the juxtaposition of a helpful tone alongside a rather well-established acronym. Either way, thanks. I’ll hope the author confirms that was their actual meaning.
  - kryogen1c 7y ago
    Hello! I wasnt aware "TFA" could be interpreted with a negative connotation, although that seems obvious in retrospect. Just trying to participate in the HN community, and also because its less typing : ) As a matter of writing style, repeating acronyms are invisible to the reader, whereas repeating words are annoying and remove value. This may be an opinion I gained from my military service, which was acronym-heavy. I appreciate the question and its perspective.
gwd 7y ago
I think this is one of those things where the meaning has evolved over time, at least as someone who's been on Slashdot since the early '00s but only joined HN a few months ago. Originally, you'd only see "TFA" as part of RTFA, generally with the assumption that the person you're replying to had not read the article. ("If you'd RTFA, ..."; "Maybe you should RTFA.") But "TFA", although it derives from "RTFA", never seem to had the same negative connotations. It's just that sometimes you want to refer to the original article in question, but "original article" is long to type and/or ambigious. (Do you mean the news article from the NYT, or the scientific paper the NYT article is reporting on?) And "TA" is too short for people to clearly know what you're talking about (And did you mean "teaching assistant"?) "TFA" is short and unambigious: it always means the article linked to from the main page. Long story short: Although etymology would suggest that "TFA mentions this" is as aggressive as "Maybe you should RTFA", in actual developed usage, they're very much not the same.
- kryogen1c 7y ago
  > Long story short: Although etymology would suggest that "TFA mentions this" is as aggressive as "Maybe you should RTFA", in actual developed usage, they're very much not the same. That was my understanding and my intended usage.

lixtra 7y ago

TFA can also stand for The Fine Article. By HN rules you should assume the best; in this case for you, he was talking about the fine article.

bobwaycott 7y ago
I did assume the best—hence pointing out twice how helpful the comment was. I was merely curious why the author of the comment used TFA, and if they meant something else than the typical meaning of the acronym. Unless you personally know the contents of the author’s mind, I don’t believe you can answer for their meaning with much authority. You seem to have misunderstood my intent with asking (or do you generally like reminding long-time HN users about rules?). I’m not offended by the usage of TFA or assuming the worst of the commenter. I am curious about the juxtaposition of a helpful tone alongside a rather well-established acronym. Either way, thanks. I’ll hope the author confirms that was their actual meaning.
- kryogen1c 7y ago
  Hello! I wasnt aware "TFA" could be interpreted with a negative connotation, although that seems obvious in retrospect. Just trying to participate in the HN community, and also because its less typing : ) As a matter of writing style, repeating acronyms are invisible to the reader, whereas repeating words are annoying and remove value. This may be an opinion I gained from my military service, which was acronym-heavy. I appreciate the question and its perspective.

gwd 7y ago

I think this is one of those things where the meaning has evolved over time, at least as someone who's been on Slashdot since the early '00s but only joined HN a few months ago. Originally, you'd only see "TFA" as part of RTFA, generally with the assumption that the person you're replying to had not read the article. ("If you'd RTFA, ..."; "Maybe you should RTFA.") But "TFA", although it derives from "RTFA", never seem to had the same negative connotations. It's just that sometimes you want to refer to the original article in question, but "original article" is long to type and/or ambigious. (Do you mean the news article from the NYT, or the scientific paper the NYT article is reporting on?) And "TA" is too short for people to clearly know what you're talking about (And did you mean "teaching assistant"?) "TFA" is short and unambigious: it always means the article linked to from the main page. Long story short: Although etymology would suggest that "TFA mentions this" is as aggressive as "Maybe you should RTFA", in actual developed usage, they're very much not the same.

kryogen1c 7y ago
> Long story short: Although etymology would suggest that "TFA mentions this" is as aggressive as "Maybe you should RTFA", in actual developed usage, they're very much not the same. That was my understanding and my intended usage.