4 ms·

Most complicated writing of the kind PG is complaining about isn't beautiful, though. It's verbose and clumsy and full of less good replacements for common word

Most complicated writing of the kind PG is complaining about isn't beautiful, though. It's verbose and clumsy and full of less good replacements for common words, like "purchase" instead of "buy", "utilize" instead of "use" and so on. Or it has flowery phrases that add nothing. A recent example is Github's recent blog post about a security vulnerability they fixed [0]. Its opening paragraph: "On the evening of March 8, we invalidated all authenticated sessions on GitHub.com created prior to 12:03 UTC on March 8 out of an abundance of caution to protect users from an extremely rare, but potentially serious, security vulnerability affecting a very small number of GitHub.com sessions." "out of an abundance of caution" adds nothing other than the faint smell of a desperate attempt to reassure the reader. The sentence would read much better without it. I'm all for rich language where it's useful or appropriate (a novel, etc) but in most cases I just want to know what's up. [0] https://github.blog/2021-03-08-github-security-update-a-bug-related-to-handling-of-authenticated-sessions/ https://github.blog/2021-03-08-github-security-update-a-bug-...

billfruit 6y ago
I remember that sort of confounding beaureucratic usage of English being referred to as 'Mandarin' English.
- zdragnar 6y ago
  That is interesting, because it implies exactly the opposite of what it seems to. Mandarin was the official language of the government, and so all regional and local bureaucracies, during the days of dynasties in China. Although it may sound foreign to locals in various provinces, it guaranteed that every part of the government had a common understanding. Quite the opposite of fluff for fluff's sake.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
lovecg 6y ago
I think it does add information. “Out of an abundance of caution” is a stock phrase that means “we don’t think this is currently a problem but it’s a prudent thing to do”. Without it, the statement is open to interpretation: were any users actually affected?
- PascLeRasc 6y ago
  Then say that. Use two paragraphs if you have to.
dreamer7 6y ago
I was hoping you would share your simplified version of the GitHub quote. So let me attempt it instead - "On the evening of March 8, we logged out all users from GitHub.com who had logged in prior to 12:03 UTC on March 8. This was done to protect users from an extremely rare, but potentially serious, security vulnerability affecting a very small number of GitHub.com sessions. No user accounts were affected" I really couldn't simplify much without losing information. Logging out users isn't the same as invalidation of authenticated sessions because this probably revoked access to bots / API calls etc.
- PascLeRasc 6y ago
  Email from security@github.com, sent on March 9th Last night, we logged out your Github account to fix a security flaw. Your account was not breached. You can read more details here [1]. [1] https://github.blog/2021-03-08-github-security-update-a-bug-related-to-handling-of-authenticated-sessions/ https://github.blog/2021-03-08-github-security-update-a-bug-...
  - dreamer7 6y ago
    This is good but without the extra words "extremely rare, potential harm.." this feels like it was a dangerous miss. I would worry about future such occurrences rather than just archiving it. Also I would definitely read more details. So perhaps this message works better in educating users
mcguire 6y ago
PG is complaining about most complicated writing, which is not beautiful. It uses too many words and the wrong words, like "purchase" instead of "buy" and "utilize" instead of "use". It has complex phrases that add nothing. Github's blog post about fixing a security weakness [0] is a recent example: "On the evening of March 8, we invalidated all authenticated sessions on GitHub.com created prior to 12:03 UTC on March 8 out of an abundance of caution to protect users from an extremely rare, but potentially serious, security vulnerability affecting a very small number of GitHub.com sessions." "Out of an abundance of caution" adds only the smell of a desperate attempt to reassure the reader. The sentence would be much better without it. I like rich language where it is useful or fitting but, usually, I only want to know what the writer is communicating. Hmm. You may be right.
- swyx 6y ago
  can you learn to use > when quoting? its hard to read what you are saying vs what you are responding to. like this: > Hmm. You may be right. thats all i ask

billfruit 6y ago

I remember that sort of confounding beaureucratic usage of English being referred to as 'Mandarin' English.

zdragnar 6y ago
That is interesting, because it implies exactly the opposite of what it seems to. Mandarin was the official language of the government, and so all regional and local bureaucracies, during the days of dynasties in China. Although it may sound foreign to locals in various provinces, it guaranteed that every part of the government had a common understanding. Quite the opposite of fluff for fluff's sake.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

lovecg 6y ago

I think it does add information. “Out of an abundance of caution” is a stock phrase that means “we don’t think this is currently a problem but it’s a prudent thing to do”. Without it, the statement is open to interpretation: were any users actually affected?

PascLeRasc 6y ago
Then say that. Use two paragraphs if you have to.

dreamer7 6y ago

I was hoping you would share your simplified version of the GitHub quote. So let me attempt it instead - "On the evening of March 8, we logged out all users from GitHub.com who had logged in prior to 12:03 UTC on March 8. This was done to protect users from an extremely rare, but potentially serious, security vulnerability affecting a very small number of GitHub.com sessions. No user accounts were affected" I really couldn't simplify much without losing information. Logging out users isn't the same as invalidation of authenticated sessions because this probably revoked access to bots / API calls etc.

PascLeRasc 6y ago
Email from security@github.com, sent on March 9th Last night, we logged out your Github account to fix a security flaw. Your account was not breached. You can read more details here [1]. [1] https://github.blog/2021-03-08-github-security-update-a-bug-related-to-handling-of-authenticated-sessions/ https://github.blog/2021-03-08-github-security-update-a-bug-...
- dreamer7 6y ago
  This is good but without the extra words "extremely rare, potential harm.." this feels like it was a dangerous miss. I would worry about future such occurrences rather than just archiving it. Also I would definitely read more details. So perhaps this message works better in educating users

mcguire 6y ago

PG is complaining about most complicated writing, which is not beautiful. It uses too many words and the wrong words, like "purchase" instead of "buy" and "utilize" instead of "use". It has complex phrases that add nothing. Github's blog post about fixing a security weakness [0] is a recent example: "On the evening of March 8, we invalidated all authenticated sessions on GitHub.com created prior to 12:03 UTC on March 8 out of an abundance of caution to protect users from an extremely rare, but potentially serious, security vulnerability affecting a very small number of GitHub.com sessions." "Out of an abundance of caution" adds only the smell of a desperate attempt to reassure the reader. The sentence would be much better without it. I like rich language where it is useful or fitting but, usually, I only want to know what the writer is communicating. Hmm. You may be right.

swyx 6y ago
can you learn to use > when quoting? its hard to read what you are saying vs what you are responding to. like this: > Hmm. You may be right. thats all i ask