3 ms·
Not worse then the TFA. IMO the other side of the arguing is easier: instead of the merits of the new logo, we can agree that the old logo is just not compatibl
by bmacho 4y ago
Not worse then the TFA. IMO the other side of the arguing is easier: instead of the merits of the new logo, we can agree that the old logo is just not compatible with something that is modern or inclusive, and it had to go.
- pbohun 4y agoWhat's TFA?
- bmacho 4y agoThe featured/fine/fantastic article. See for usages https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=TFA&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... (I believe it lost its original meaning, and now it refers to the article in a neutral style)
- vehemenz 4y agoExplained here in more depth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTFM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTFM
- tablespoon 4y ago> we can agree that the old logo is just not compatible with something that is modern or inclusive, and it had to go. No we can't agree on that. What you say is nonsense.
- bmacho 4y agoYes, it is nonsense indeed. What about: if they want to signal modernness and inclusiveness (regardless whether they actually want to be modern and inclusive) they had to get rid of the logo?