4 ms·

I used to argue in semantic disputes, but they're really only meaningful in a court of law. Outside of that, it's mostly opinion (a waste of time imho) https:/

I used to argue in semantic disputes, but they're really only meaningful in a court of law. Outside of that, it's mostly opinion (a waste of time imho) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_dispute

curuinor 4y ago
this guy put the fact that he's a gigantic pedant right up front in the blog title, what'd you expect? let him go and do the pedantry thing, it's instructive
- mwattsun 4y ago
  That's why I qualified "waste of time" with "in my humble opinion." What I didn't say is that's it's a giant trap that I fall into when organizing my files and that's what I meant when I said it was a waste of time.
kergonath 4y ago
Well, it is a “Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry”, after all.
mumblemumble 4y ago
I'd argue it's not mostly opinion. This article is pretty bread-and-butter Brett Deveraux. His general thing is that he picks a topic, and gets really pedantic about in order to motivate (and provide a framework for) explaining some interesting aspect of military doctrine or history. In this article, he digs into tank/not-tank in order to fuel a discussion of the development of military doctrine around armored vehicles, including explaining the problems that different kinds of them are trying to solve, and even describing how different semantic distinctions used by other countries helps to highlight differences in their military thinking. I suppose whether or not one thinks that's a waste of time is ultimately down to how much of an interest one takes in military topics. But I'd be hard-pressed to concede that the author's choice to dig into semantics is a waste of time in and of itself. It's quite self-evidently a clever and effective expository tactic.
- coredog64 4y ago
  > tank/not-tank My college roommate used to joke that in the Air Force, gate guards would draw a picture of a tank on their hands and that’s what they’re doing when they salute people in: “Tank? Not-tank”
- lupire 4y ago
  The analysis is interesting but "not a tank" is a distraction. Names are boring. Names are useful after the thing is defined in a useful way, not before.
  - jsrcout 4y ago
    Names are interesting. They combine many kinds of history.
  - hnaccount_rng 4y ago
    And yet most arguments you will _ever_ have are because different people mean related but different things when using the same word. So having, especially public, discussion without having the understanding of where the terms come from, what they refer to and what else can be referred to by them (so sources of misunderstanding) is a problem. Which is _exactly_ the point of the TFA
- mwattsun 4y ago
  Thanks, now I get it. Programmers have these kinds of arguments all the time.
aaron695 4y ago

curuinor 4y ago

this guy put the fact that he's a gigantic pedant right up front in the blog title, what'd you expect? let him go and do the pedantry thing, it's instructive

mwattsun 4y ago
That's why I qualified "waste of time" with "in my humble opinion." What I didn't say is that's it's a giant trap that I fall into when organizing my files and that's what I meant when I said it was a waste of time.

kergonath 4y ago

Well, it is a “Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry”, after all.

mumblemumble 4y ago

I'd argue it's not mostly opinion. This article is pretty bread-and-butter Brett Deveraux. His general thing is that he picks a topic, and gets really pedantic about in order to motivate (and provide a framework for) explaining some interesting aspect of military doctrine or history. In this article, he digs into tank/not-tank in order to fuel a discussion of the development of military doctrine around armored vehicles, including explaining the problems that different kinds of them are trying to solve, and even describing how different semantic distinctions used by other countries helps to highlight differences in their military thinking. I suppose whether or not one thinks that's a waste of time is ultimately down to how much of an interest one takes in military topics. But I'd be hard-pressed to concede that the author's choice to dig into semantics is a waste of time in and of itself. It's quite self-evidently a clever and effective expository tactic.

coredog64 4y ago
> tank/not-tank My college roommate used to joke that in the Air Force, gate guards would draw a picture of a tank on their hands and that’s what they’re doing when they salute people in: “Tank? Not-tank”
lupire 4y ago
The analysis is interesting but "not a tank" is a distraction. Names are boring. Names are useful after the thing is defined in a useful way, not before.
- jsrcout 4y ago
  Names are interesting. They combine many kinds of history.
- hnaccount_rng 4y ago
  And yet most arguments you will _ever_ have are because different people mean related but different things when using the same word. So having, especially public, discussion without having the understanding of where the terms come from, what they refer to and what else can be referred to by them (so sources of misunderstanding) is a problem. Which is _exactly_ the point of the TFA
mwattsun 4y ago
Thanks, now I get it. Programmers have these kinds of arguments all the time.

aaron695 4y ago