6 ms·

Some people call Hacker News the "Orange Site", but of course that's way too fruit-centric, so we shouldn't call it that -- the website banner is not actually a

by feoren 3y ago

Some people call Hacker News the "Orange Site", but of course that's way too fruit-centric, so we shouldn't call it that -- the website banner is not actually a citrus fruit at all! Or can we just accept that orange-the-color is a fundamentally different idea than orange-the-fruit, despite the fact that the former is named after the latter? Can we accept that "earth" can simply refer to the material that makes up the hard surface layer of a planet, as a different idea than "Earth" the planet after which it's named? Is that OK? Do we really need to come up with a new word for "Solar Power" if the power comes from a light source other than our own sun? Can we call the large-scale geoengineering of Mars "terraforming", or must we insist that it's "marsaforming" (and not "geoengineering", but "marsoengineering")? Can we call something "romantic" even if it isn't actually written in Latin ("from Medieval Latin rōmānicē, Vulgar Latin rōmānicē (“in the Roman language”, adverb"))? Is that OK with everyone? It's a damn earthquake.

barrysteve 3y ago
Once Mars is settled/colonized/freedom I'm sure political ambivalence will encourage people to rename earthquakes to marsquakes. An earthquake on Mars very quickly becomes the local Martian government's problem when it is insanely expensive to fix.. and the vocab would follow..
austinjp 3y ago
This is reductio ad absurdam. Planetquake. Or just quake. Incidentally, Sol isn't an 'official' name for our sun. The term 'solar power' is more like a brand-name that's been genericised.
burnished 3y ago
..how did the words 'marsquake' and 'geocentric' set you off so badly? None of your examples even loosely fit the mold, 'terra' and 'geo' don't refer to a specific planet in this context at all. Marsquake is a fun word. You can also call it an earthquake and no one will bat an eye.
- ChainOfFools 3y ago
  I'm not sure why I agree with the op, but I do. I think it has something to do with the fact that this convention of planet prefix, and geological activity suffix is not going to work well at astronomical scales. Epsilon-eridani-c-quake is kind of a mouthful, no? It could be argued that doesn't work very well on a human scale either. after all when there's an earthquake, barring a civilization-ending apocalyptic situation, it's not the whole Earth that's quaking (at a human scale perspective), but rather a localized crustal region of it. A patch of earth (lowercase).
  - dumpsterdiver 3y ago
    This is akin to worrying that the sky is falling when literally two drops of rain fell. "Oh my god, what are we going to do when the rest of it comes?!"
  - burnished 3y ago
    Cute nicknames don't scale and thats OK. Worry about it when scaling becomes a problem.
- feoren 3y ago
  > 'terra' and 'geo' don't refer to a specific planet in this context at all Although originating as basically meaning "dry land", the word "Terra" became a proper name for the Earth in Latin around the Renaissance. The prefix "Geo" comes from the Greek for "Earth", the name of our planet. If you argue that "geo" really just means "land, ground, soil", etc., then you are exactly agreeing with me, since the word "earth" went through the same evolution: Geo-the-planet was named after geo-the-dirt. Earth-the-planet was named after earth-the-dirt.
  - nine_k 3y ago
    If we start retiring Earth-centric terms too quickly, we'll have to invent tons of planet-specific cognates: not geography but marsography, lunagraphy, etc. Same with Sun-centric terms vs other star systems. I would suggest going for generic terms like "planetquake".
ChainOfFools 3y ago
That raises an interesting question, is the surface of Mars made out of mars, or is it made out of Earth? In english, capitalizing a noun clarifies this, but that approach may not generalize to other languages.
- croddin 3y ago
  Once we start construction on mars, will the machines be called marsmoving equipment?
Kye 3y ago
Is this a bit? It feels like a bit.
- adolph 3y ago
  It got enough comments chewing it that it’s at least a byte
- feoren 3y ago
  Not a bit, but maybe sport? I truly believe everything I said, and I believe it's a solid argument against a practice I see as silly and unsustainable: replacing any word that sounds superficially related to the name "Earth" as soon as the events are happening on some other planet. I'm saying that whatever reasons you use to avoid "earthquake" because it's on Mars, the exact same reasons mean you should avoid the term "romantic" to describe something that isn't written in Latin -- this shows the reasoning is deeply flawed. Basically a proof by contradiction. I hope that came across? But of course I realize it's completely unimportant. Arguing is fun. It's not trolling: I'm not trying to get a rise out of people. Nor is it a bit: I'm not kidding or falsely representing any of my beliefs. I'm just having a bit of sport arguing with strangers online. If you see someone online making passionate arguments about minor word-use issues, or which superhero would win in a fight, or whether the Byzantine Empire was actually part of the Roman Empire or not, you're witnessing the same sport, and you're free to engage or not as you choose.
tomrod 3y ago
Quake is sufficient, no need to apply designations.
- adolph 3y ago
  Many things may quake, friends.
  - tomrod 3y ago
    Indeed. Such as planets, love handles during aerobics, and Jello.
    - dekhn 3y ago
      and bowels.
    - NooneAtAll3 3y ago
      ...or Quake 2 or even 3
  - ribosometronome 3y ago
    Yes... and? Do you think that's problematic here? Why? Language is pretty robust and we're able to deduce a ton of meaning from context. The term by itself is already used to refer to earthquakes. For all the other things that quake, we don't need to prefix them with the quaking entity to understand the meaning. You aren't going to say that someone was humanquaking in their boots so that people understand that the person wasn't actually experiencing anything on the Richter scale. Similarly, if I mention a quake on Mars, it's pretty apparent I'm not referring to Mars trembling in fear.
    - adolph 3y ago
      Yes, context can provide what an abstract term cannot. As a suggestion, using the term "seismic" to refer to subsurface vibrations would be more specific than "quake."
    - 3y ago
thaumasiotes 3y ago
> Can we accept that "earth" can simply refer to the material that makes up the hard surface layer of a planet, as a different idea than "Earth" the planet after which it's named? Is that OK? No, the planet is named after the substance, not the other way around.
- feoren 3y ago
  Of course I agree with you, which only strengthens my argument. But anyone who thinks we need to make up words like "Marsquake" clearly disagrees with you, and those are the people I am arguing against. It was a preemptive concession to ignore that point -- even if earth-the-material were named after Earth-the-planet, there's still no need to abandon the thousands of earth-related words as soon as we step foot on another planet. I felt that if I argued "Planet is named after material, therefore it's an earthquake" people would have missed the more important argument. (Not that any of this is particularly important.)
PhasmaFelis 3y ago
I'm quite fond "areoforming," actually. And "aerography," etc. From Ares, the Greek god who the Romans called Mars--I've seen it used here and there. It's very much the same thing as "a gaggle of geese" or "a murder of crows." It's just a bit of fun. Nothing to get worked up about.

by feoren 3y ago

barrysteve 3y ago

Once Mars is settled/colonized/freedom I'm sure political ambivalence will encourage people to rename earthquakes to marsquakes. An earthquake on Mars very quickly becomes the local Martian government's problem when it is insanely expensive to fix.. and the vocab would follow..

austinjp 3y ago

This is reductio ad absurdam. Planetquake. Or just quake. Incidentally, Sol isn't an 'official' name for our sun. The term 'solar power' is more like a brand-name that's been genericised.

burnished 3y ago

..how did the words 'marsquake' and 'geocentric' set you off so badly? None of your examples even loosely fit the mold, 'terra' and 'geo' don't refer to a specific planet in this context at all. Marsquake is a fun word. You can also call it an earthquake and no one will bat an eye.

ChainOfFools 3y ago
I'm not sure why I agree with the op, but I do. I think it has something to do with the fact that this convention of planet prefix, and geological activity suffix is not going to work well at astronomical scales. Epsilon-eridani-c-quake is kind of a mouthful, no? It could be argued that doesn't work very well on a human scale either. after all when there's an earthquake, barring a civilization-ending apocalyptic situation, it's not the whole Earth that's quaking (at a human scale perspective), but rather a localized crustal region of it. A patch of earth (lowercase).
- dumpsterdiver 3y ago
  This is akin to worrying that the sky is falling when literally two drops of rain fell. "Oh my god, what are we going to do when the rest of it comes?!"
- burnished 3y ago
  Cute nicknames don't scale and thats OK. Worry about it when scaling becomes a problem.
feoren 3y ago
> 'terra' and 'geo' don't refer to a specific planet in this context at all Although originating as basically meaning "dry land", the word "Terra" became a proper name for the Earth in Latin around the Renaissance. The prefix "Geo" comes from the Greek for "Earth", the name of our planet. If you argue that "geo" really just means "land, ground, soil", etc., then you are exactly agreeing with me, since the word "earth" went through the same evolution: Geo-the-planet was named after geo-the-dirt. Earth-the-planet was named after earth-the-dirt.
- nine_k 3y ago
  If we start retiring Earth-centric terms too quickly, we'll have to invent tons of planet-specific cognates: not geography but marsography, lunagraphy, etc. Same with Sun-centric terms vs other star systems. I would suggest going for generic terms like "planetquake".

ChainOfFools 3y ago

That raises an interesting question, is the surface of Mars made out of mars, or is it made out of Earth? In english, capitalizing a noun clarifies this, but that approach may not generalize to other languages.

croddin 3y ago
Once we start construction on mars, will the machines be called marsmoving equipment?

Kye 3y ago

Is this a bit? It feels like a bit.

adolph 3y ago
It got enough comments chewing it that it’s at least a byte
feoren 3y ago
Not a bit, but maybe sport? I truly believe everything I said, and I believe it's a solid argument against a practice I see as silly and unsustainable: replacing any word that sounds superficially related to the name "Earth" as soon as the events are happening on some other planet. I'm saying that whatever reasons you use to avoid "earthquake" because it's on Mars, the exact same reasons mean you should avoid the term "romantic" to describe something that isn't written in Latin -- this shows the reasoning is deeply flawed. Basically a proof by contradiction. I hope that came across? But of course I realize it's completely unimportant. Arguing is fun. It's not trolling: I'm not trying to get a rise out of people. Nor is it a bit: I'm not kidding or falsely representing any of my beliefs. I'm just having a bit of sport arguing with strangers online. If you see someone online making passionate arguments about minor word-use issues, or which superhero would win in a fight, or whether the Byzantine Empire was actually part of the Roman Empire or not, you're witnessing the same sport, and you're free to engage or not as you choose.

tomrod 3y ago

Quake is sufficient, no need to apply designations.

adolph 3y ago
Many things may quake, friends.
- tomrod 3y ago
  Indeed. Such as planets, love handles during aerobics, and Jello.
  - dekhn 3y ago
    and bowels.
  - NooneAtAll3 3y ago
    ...or Quake 2 or even 3
- ribosometronome 3y ago
  Yes... and? Do you think that's problematic here? Why? Language is pretty robust and we're able to deduce a ton of meaning from context. The term by itself is already used to refer to earthquakes. For all the other things that quake, we don't need to prefix them with the quaking entity to understand the meaning. You aren't going to say that someone was humanquaking in their boots so that people understand that the person wasn't actually experiencing anything on the Richter scale. Similarly, if I mention a quake on Mars, it's pretty apparent I'm not referring to Mars trembling in fear.
  - adolph 3y ago
    Yes, context can provide what an abstract term cannot. As a suggestion, using the term "seismic" to refer to subsurface vibrations would be more specific than "quake."
  - 3y ago

thaumasiotes 3y ago

> Can we accept that "earth" can simply refer to the material that makes up the hard surface layer of a planet, as a different idea than "Earth" the planet after which it's named? Is that OK? No, the planet is named after the substance, not the other way around.

feoren 3y ago
Of course I agree with you, which only strengthens my argument. But anyone who thinks we need to make up words like "Marsquake" clearly disagrees with you, and those are the people I am arguing against. It was a preemptive concession to ignore that point -- even if earth-the-material were named after Earth-the-planet, there's still no need to abandon the thousands of earth-related words as soon as we step foot on another planet. I felt that if I argued "Planet is named after material, therefore it's an earthquake" people would have missed the more important argument. (Not that any of this is particularly important.)

PhasmaFelis 3y ago

I'm quite fond "areoforming," actually. And "aerography," etc. From Ares, the Greek god who the Romans called Mars--I've seen it used here and there. It's very much the same thing as "a gaggle of geese" or "a murder of crows." It's just a bit of fun. Nothing to get worked up about.