3 ms·

It wasn't the lambdas, it was the combination of "cloud-native", which is a very salesmany term, and "leverage", which is my pet hate word. It's exactly as usef

It wasn't the lambdas, it was the combination of "cloud-native", which is a very salesmany term, and "leverage", which is my pet hate word. It's exactly as useful as "use", only much more pretentious. I'm just easily triggered with language :P More off-topic (or, rather, on-topic), I find lambdas great for things like a static website that needs a few functions. I especially like how Netlify uses them, they seem to fit that purpose exactly.

normalnorm 7y ago
> I'm just easily triggered with language :P Me too! It makes me irrationally angry when people regurgitate linguistic clichés. I was already mad with: "python does not have a go-like concurrency story" when it would be enough (and 1000x less cringe) to say: "python does not have go-like concurrency" I think these mindless clichés make language really ugly and dysfunctional, and even worse they are thought-stoppers, because they make the reader/listener feel like something smart is being said, because they recognize the "in-group" lingo. In my experience, people get really offended when you point this out. It's kind of an HN taboo to discuss this. Which is also interesting in itself. Going forward we should pay more attention to our communication use cases. Btw: I wonder if we can stack several of these clichés. For example: "leverage" + "use case" = "leverage case".
- StavrosK 7y ago
  I agree, I think Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" is spot on here. I try to use simpler language whenever possible, I agree that people think that using longer words makes them sound smart but is just worse for communication. I've found it's a taboo to discuss anything even slightly personal. People are averse to feeling bad, so criticism needs to be extremely subtle in order to not offend. > Btw: I wonder if we can stack several of these clichés. For example: "leverage" + "use case" = "leverage case". I hate you for even thinking of this.
  - rumanator 7y ago
    > I've found it's a taboo to discuss anything even slightly personal. People are averse to feeling bad, so criticism needs to be extremely subtle in order to not offend. The personal association you made between "discussing anything even slightly personal" and "criticism needs to be extremely subtled" makes it sound that your problem isn't language or Orwellian discourse but the way you subconsciously link discussing personal matters with harshly criticising those you speak with for no good reason. If your personal conversations boil down to appease your own personal need to criticise others then I'm sorry to break it to you but your problem isn't language.
    - StavrosK 7y ago
      You just misconstrued my saying "personal" and clearly meaning "personal criticism" as meaning personal things in general and then criticized me on that straw man. I don't hold that opinion at all. You also went to "Orwellian discourse", which has a specific meaning, from a text by Orwell I mentioned. It seems to me like you got personally offended, interpreted my comment in the most uncharitable way, and chose to lash out at me instead, and I'm not sure why. I wasn't even talking about anyone specifically.
      - rumanator 7y ago
        You were the one associating discussing remotely personal stuff with criticising others, and if that was not bad enough your personal take was that you felt the need to keep criticising others but resorting to subtlety just to keep shoveling criticism without sparking the reactions you're getting for doing the thing you want to do to others. I repeat, your problem is not language. Your problem is that you manifest a need to criticize others. That problem is all on you.
        StavrosK 7y ago
        Ah, okay. If I had said "any remotely personal criticism", like I meant, you'd have an entirely different conclusion, but I guess that doesn't matter when you just want to jump to conclusions. This shows from the fact that you're saying "criticize" like it's a bad thing.

normalnorm 7y ago

> I'm just easily triggered with language :P Me too! It makes me irrationally angry when people regurgitate linguistic clichés. I was already mad with: "python does not have a go-like concurrency story" when it would be enough (and 1000x less cringe) to say: "python does not have go-like concurrency" I think these mindless clichés make language really ugly and dysfunctional, and even worse they are thought-stoppers, because they make the reader/listener feel like something smart is being said, because they recognize the "in-group" lingo. In my experience, people get really offended when you point this out. It's kind of an HN taboo to discuss this. Which is also interesting in itself. Going forward we should pay more attention to our communication use cases. Btw: I wonder if we can stack several of these clichés. For example: "leverage" + "use case" = "leverage case".

StavrosK 7y ago
I agree, I think Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" is spot on here. I try to use simpler language whenever possible, I agree that people think that using longer words makes them sound smart but is just worse for communication. I've found it's a taboo to discuss anything even slightly personal. People are averse to feeling bad, so criticism needs to be extremely subtle in order to not offend. > Btw: I wonder if we can stack several of these clichés. For example: "leverage" + "use case" = "leverage case". I hate you for even thinking of this.
- rumanator 7y ago
  > I've found it's a taboo to discuss anything even slightly personal. People are averse to feeling bad, so criticism needs to be extremely subtle in order to not offend. The personal association you made between "discussing anything even slightly personal" and "criticism needs to be extremely subtled" makes it sound that your problem isn't language or Orwellian discourse but the way you subconsciously link discussing personal matters with harshly criticising those you speak with for no good reason. If your personal conversations boil down to appease your own personal need to criticise others then I'm sorry to break it to you but your problem isn't language.
  - StavrosK 7y ago
    You just misconstrued my saying "personal" and clearly meaning "personal criticism" as meaning personal things in general and then criticized me on that straw man. I don't hold that opinion at all. You also went to "Orwellian discourse", which has a specific meaning, from a text by Orwell I mentioned. It seems to me like you got personally offended, interpreted my comment in the most uncharitable way, and chose to lash out at me instead, and I'm not sure why. I wasn't even talking about anyone specifically.
    - rumanator 7y ago
      You were the one associating discussing remotely personal stuff with criticising others, and if that was not bad enough your personal take was that you felt the need to keep criticising others but resorting to subtlety just to keep shoveling criticism without sparking the reactions you're getting for doing the thing you want to do to others. I repeat, your problem is not language. Your problem is that you manifest a need to criticize others. That problem is all on you.
      - StavrosK 7y ago
        Ah, okay. If I had said "any remotely personal criticism", like I meant, you'd have an entirely different conclusion, but I guess that doesn't matter when you just want to jump to conclusions. This shows from the fact that you're saying "criticize" like it's a bad thing.