3 ms·

An interesting solution suggested in the replies (https://x.com/andrew_n_carr/status/2081534245370314816 https://x.com/andrew_n_carr/status/2081534245370314816)

by rzk 3mo ago

An interesting solution suggested in the replies (https://x.com/andrew_n_carr/status/2081534245370314816 https://x.com/andrew_n_carr/status/2081534245370314816): The fix for this is to say: only report to me in ASD-STE100 Simplified Technical English. More info about it here: Simplified Technical English - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplified_Technical_English https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplified_Technical_English

dizhn 3mo ago
Nice. It sounds like doing a few passes on industrial product documentation with this might be beneficial.
artogahr 3mo ago
I looked into it a bit more, and while it does look helpful in the first glance, it actually isn't a good fit for code. It's very aviation-terminology-focused. A better guide would be something like Google Developer Style Guide
- quinncom 3mo ago
  Or, as the Wikipedia Simplified Technical English Wikipedia mentions, use Plain English or Plain Language as non-aerospace alternatives: > The US government's Plain English lacks the strict vocabulary restrictions of the aerospace standard, but represents an attempt at a more general writing standard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_English https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_English > Modern corporations and academic organizations hire technical writers already trained to follow a simplified form of English that the layman reader can easily understand, known as plain language (PL). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_language And so we've looped back around OP’s “plain English” phrasing.
mechanicum 3mo ago
I was curious so I asked Claude how it would do that: https://gist.github.com/waddie/b26166eec6cf675c044c09a95a754d7d https://gist.github.com/waddie/b26166eec6cf675c044c09a95a754... I thought this bit was interesting: > TE has no register for hedging, ownership of an opinion, or acknowledging that a reasonable person would disagree. Modality is roughly can / must / do not. […] Where a thought can't be said in STE without becoming a lie, I'd mark it and say it plainly rather than mangle it. Confidence and disagreement are the two things I'd insist on smuggling through.

by rzk 3mo ago

dizhn 3mo ago

Nice. It sounds like doing a few passes on industrial product documentation with this might be beneficial.

artogahr 3mo ago

I looked into it a bit more, and while it does look helpful in the first glance, it actually isn't a good fit for code. It's very aviation-terminology-focused. A better guide would be something like Google Developer Style Guide

quinncom 3mo ago
Or, as the Wikipedia Simplified Technical English Wikipedia mentions, use Plain English or Plain Language as non-aerospace alternatives: > The US government's Plain English lacks the strict vocabulary restrictions of the aerospace standard, but represents an attempt at a more general writing standard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_English https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_English > Modern corporations and academic organizations hire technical writers already trained to follow a simplified form of English that the layman reader can easily understand, known as plain language (PL). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_language And so we've looped back around OP’s “plain English” phrasing.

mechanicum 3mo ago

I was curious so I asked Claude how it would do that: https://gist.github.com/waddie/b26166eec6cf675c044c09a95a754d7d https://gist.github.com/waddie/b26166eec6cf675c044c09a95a754... I thought this bit was interesting: > TE has no register for hedging, ownership of an opinion, or acknowledging that a reasonable person would disagree. Modality is roughly can / must / do not. […] Where a thought can't be said in STE without becoming a lie, I'd mark it and say it plainly rather than mangle it. Confidence and disagreement are the two things I'd insist on smuggling through.