6 ms·
Human systems are not computer systems. In computer systems, edge cases are usually worthy of investigation and rethinking. In human systems, edge cases are to
by Carioca 5y ago
Human systems are not computer systems. In computer systems, edge cases are usually worthy of investigation and rethinking. In human systems, edge cases are to be dealt with when they appear
- dredmorbius 5y agoThose disagreeing with your comment might want to consider that it's very close in spirit and meaning to what JKM wrote in TFA: Computers don’t have emotions; I don’t need to worry insulting the vast majority of S3 objects when I defensively check integrity every time. But humans are different; when we design a human system around uncommon cases, we do need to consider the ramifications on the majority.
- tchalla 5y ago> JKM wrote in TFA As a human, can you please tell all of us what these abbreviations are?!
- 3np 5y agoJKM: Jacob Kaplan-Moss, the name of he author, featured in header and footer of... ...TFA: The Featured Article a.k.a. (also known as) OP (original post(er))
- Mezzie 5y agoFor some reason I'd always been under the impression that the 'F' in 'TFA' was a different word. This makes so many exchanges less hostile in retrospect. Oops.
- ankitpati 5y agoThis, right here, is why I never use acronyms with the sixth letter of the English alphabet anywhere in them. Heck, as you might already have noticed, I don’t use said letter at all, unless it is part of a word. This is one “human corner case” I have no shame working around. Wouldn’t want to convey hostility where none exists.
- stronglikedan 5y agoThe F-word (I'll spare your virgin eyes), or even the letter F, is not capable of conveying hostility on it's own, so there is no sense in omitting it.
- marcosdumay 5y agoThe acronym was coined with the non "fine" meaning for that letter. It was much later that internet culture got more polite and people retroactively replaced the meaning on RTFM and RTFA.
- krupan 5y agoFeatured, Fine, Fu… could be any of those. Deliberate ambiguity is fun for a lot of humans
- jetbooster 5y agoI'm almost certain what you're thinking is the original usage. TFA (disparaging, implying the person you are responding hasn't read it) was co-opted as TFA (neutral)
- dredmorbius 5y ago"Fabulous!!!"
- dredmorbius 5y agoCorrect. I prefer "TFA" to "OP" as the latter may be ambiguous as to whether it refers to the article or, more typically in my experience, commentary on it. Even here, "OP" might reference either a thread root or the parent of the post immediately being replied to. In the second case, if I were to say "OP" here, I'd be referring to your comments parent, by tchalla, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30345056 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30345056
- kenneth 5y agoWould it be so difficult to just write "the article?"
- dredmorbius 5y ago"TFA" is a well-known and long-standing usage within the hacker community. It came to prominance at Slashdot, which I'd read back in the day, and is at least some decades old. It refers specifically to the submitted article, and carries an overtone, sometimes tongue-in-cheek, sometimes subtle, sometimes more blunt, that the person being referred to ought to read the specific submitted work more closely. Perhaps at all. And without crossing HN's guidelines against specific accusations. That is, the meanings are similar but different. "TFA" is more concise and specific. All of which make it the more fabulous ;-) It turns out I do use both terms fairly frequently, as my comment history shows. The distinction is largely as I've described above. "The article" usually refers to some additional or other reference rather than the HN submission. "TFA" in the context if "you/I should have read that closely". TFA: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=1&prefix=true&query=by%3Adredmorbius%20%22TFA%22%20&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=1&prefix=true&que... "the article" https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=1&prefix=true&query=by%3Adredmorbius%20%22the%20article%22%20&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=1&prefix=true&que...
- Aloha 5y agoComplexity is a much larger issue in human centric systems than it is in computers. We can hide the complexity in computer systems even engineer the risks of it out, this is not the case in human centric systems. That complexity will endanger everyone involved. KISS is a good principle generally, but it's the most important principle in humans systems, sometimes even ahead of completeness.
- dotancohen 5y ago> when we design a human system around uncommon cases, we do need to consider the ramifications on the majority This is how I feel every time some new service asks me which pronouns I prefer. I'm happy that some people get to choose the pronouns they feel represent them (or avoid the pronouns they feel disservice them), but it seems like it is both pushing an agenda and adding additional friction to the process. Just leave the option setCustomerPronoun() available without making it a necessary step. I've chosen a contentious example, but there are dozens of others. Just for another example, if I was born in 1977 (above age of consent), what does the forum software care my exact date of birth and err when I don't want to provide it?
- gopher_space 5y agoWhat sort of agenda was selecting Mr./Mrs. from the drop down pushing?
- dotancohen 5y agoI mean pronouns of type VARCHAR, not ENUM.
- beaconstudios 5y agoIt's not really an agenda to leave the option open - people not identifying with male or female (or fluidly between the two) doesn't harm anybody. Surely for it to be an agenda, it has to be putting somebody else out?
- dotancohen 5y agoSure, present the option in the UI options. But it doesn't have to be front and center in the sign-up form.
- beaconstudios 5y agoI don't get the issue. Making gender-nonconforming people's options the same level in the UI as male and female is a bad thing? Seems like pretty standard egalitarian design to me.
- Helmut10001 5y agoRe: "Edge cases" - Reminds me of where today's legal systems appear to be directed.
- arcticbull 5y agoWhich is why crypto cannot work for the general public. It pretends otherwise in spite of overwhelming evidence.
- yuvadam 5y agoI'm curious to understand what exactly you mean by that statement
- thematrixturtle 5y agoI presume they mean that out in the real world, there are lots of edge cases where reversing a transaction is a better outcome than chest-thumping about "Code is Law".
- Tabular-Iceberg 5y agoThat was a solved problem long before computers came about. If a transaction is wrong, don’t change it, add another that compensates for the error. The real problem with crypto is that usually what is asked for is a ledger, and the crypto and distributed parts are just bloat.
- duxup 5y agoYeah and the way I described it every "skeptical instructions" was a catch ... that triggered on every call. Unlike code that triggers (hopefully) only when something weird happens, the cost of the special instructions and the dysfunction that followed was ultra high.