3 ms·
RTFA and TFA are not equivalent! One is a verb, "you should RTFA, it answers your question!" while the other is a noun, "TFA mentions this syntax is useful beca
by the_af 3y ago
RTFA and TFA are not equivalent! One is a verb, "you should RTFA, it answers your question!" while the other is a noun, "TFA mentions this syntax is useful because [...]".
In any case, I made the mistake of assuming everyone is currently familiar with the idiom just because it was widespread when I joined HN.
I suppose at one point it'll be a mistake to assume everyone knows what ROTFL or LOL or IMO mean, just because they used to be widespread internet culture at one point.
- dchftcs 3y agoI said "derivative", not equivalent. Also, TFA used singularly is different from just saying "the article", e.g. when you want to imply RTFA. Within your comment you could see the "F" part was quite out of nowhere and can be considered rude.
- the_af 3y ago> Within your comment you could see the "F" part was quite out of nowhere and can be considered rude. Not if you see actual usage: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=TFA&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... Context matters, and people here usually interpret it as "The Fine Article", and it was indeed written in that sense. It's supposed to be a shortcut (not rude like RTFM, which does have a meaning of impatience because it's directed at people perceived as too lazy to search the docs). Anyway, a shortcut that requires this much explanation is a failed shortcut, and I apologize for that. It's sometimes hard for me to realize that what used to be a really common idiom that needed no explanations can quickly become something unfamiliar to new readers. Just in case, I won't use it again.
- cout 3y agoI miss being able to say "re" (re-hi or re-hello) instead of WB (welcome back).