dri_ft

Still top of the list for me is Olin Shivers' 1994 acknowledgements to his scsh project:

>Who should I thank? My so-called ``colleagues,'' who laugh at me behind my back, all the while becoming famous on my work? My worthless graduate students, whose computer skills appear to be limited to downloading bitmaps off of netnews? My parents, who are still waiting for me to quit ``fooling around with computers,'' go to med school, and become a radiologist? My department chairman, a manager who gives one new insight into and sympathy for disgruntled postal workers?

>My God, no one could blame me -- no one! -- if I went off the edge and just lost it completely one day. I couldn't get through the day as it is without the Prozac and Jack Daniels I keep on the shelf, behind my Tops-20 JSYS manuals. I start getting the shakes real bad around 10am, right before my advisor meetings. A 10 oz. Jack 'n Zac helps me get through the meetings without one of my students winding up with his severed head in a bowling-ball bag. They look at me funny; they think I twitch a lot. I'm not twitching. I'm controlling my impulse to snag my 9mm Sig-Sauer out from my day-pack and make a few strong points about the quality of undergraduate education in Amerika.

>If I thought anyone cared, if I thought anyone would even be reading this, I'd probably make an effort to keep up appearances until the last possible moment. But no one does, and no one will. So I can pretty much say exactly what I think.

>Oh, yes, the acknowledgements. I think not. I did it. I did it all, by myself.

https://scsh.net/docu/html/man.html

>looks like many "BBC Four Classic Documentaries Collection" programs of the last century get the same treatment

Fair enough, it may be that the warning is just a generic one slapped on all their old repeats, but I do think that commissioning a new ten minute introduction from Mary Beard is going above and beyond. I haven't seen it so didn't want to speak too much on it, but from what I gathered it's a mixture of measured praise and blame for Clarke's eurocentrism.

>I have Civilisation in hardcopy

It's a good series, I would recommend it if you haven't already seen it. (My biggest gripe with the BBC rebroadcasting it is that it prompted them to take down from youtube the copy I was in the middle of watching!) By the way, for a more xenophilic production of similar scope, you might wish to take a look at The Silk Road[0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Silk_Road_(Japanese_TV_ser...

Seeing that this discussion is still going on (I'm impressed!) I shall provide an example which I believe fits the bill. Around the time you first asked the question I learnt that the BBC are currently re-airing a classic documentary series of theirs, Civilisation, by Kenneth Clarke. This is essentially a history of post-classical European civilisation from the end of the dark ages to the present day. The programme is what we would now call eurocentric in its focus, and it does celebrate that european culture, but it certainly doesn't denigrate any other, or claim that that of Europe is greater than any other. Nonetheless the BBC felt it necessary in rebroadcasting it to prepend a warning that the programme reflects the 'standards and attitudes of its time'[0]. What views are these which the BBC feels it necessary to disclaim? One can only assume it is the attitude of celebrating rather than denigrating western culture and history. The programme must not go out without warnings lest anyone get the impression that we appreciate our own civilisation! I believe that that can fairly be called oikophobia.

[0] https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-the-bbc-censuring... They also commissioned a ten-minute preface talk by Mary Beard but as I couldn't watch this myself (it's only on the BBC iplayer for which I will not sign up) I shall refrain from comment.

As a lagniappe (not a word we have in my country, by the way), I share this rather cruel Pound story which may nonetheless, as it did me, amuse you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auberon_Waugh#Waugh.27s_views (2nd paragraph, or look for 'Pound')

>Long, grammatically perfect comments that sound hollow and a bit lengthy

It's worse than I thought. They've already managed to mimick the median HN user perfectly!

I was just working on a comment featuring the word oikophilic when I had to go to bed, so it's nice to see that one managed to get written anyway.

>for more detail: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

Oh, I see. We actually discussed Pound about four years ago - just a little back and forth about the ABC of Reading: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24196681

>What's your explanation of why Pound went Fascist?

I'm not sure I particularly have one; I haven't read any of his longer political or cultural (i.e. non-literary) works. I just think it's silly to correlate an approach to translation that you dislike with fascism. Especially as I'm not sure it even makes sense on its own terms: I can only read your comment as 'lazy translator? Figures that he would be a fascist', but if I imagine the type of translation a fascist would approve of, the approach I picture is fastidious, fussy, concerned with fidelity to the point of stickler-ishness. (Isn't that from where we get 'grammar nazi'?)

And oh, well, since you ask I'll take a shy at it: my vague sense is that he became fascist because saw a society in decline due to it becoming more and more a sham society: opulence without virtue, power without vigour, money no longer tied to actually existing goods. (Of course, all of this shades easily into antisemitism.) He saw fascism as the answer; It's easier to see in retrospect that it wasn't.

Woefully glib.

Not taking a side, but to understand the comment you are replying to, you would do well to look up the concept of countersignalling.

When was this? I noticed chatGPT becoming succinct almost to the point of being standoffish about a week or two ago. Probably exacerbated by my having some custom instructions to tame its prior prolixity.

>Graffitis

Graffiti is already plural, or at least uncountable.

You should probably put some kind of contact details on your HN profile in case an interested party should happen across this post.

>a planet where winter came in periods too long for the natives of the planet to remember

Not Asimov's Nightfall?

Don't think Alex Lee Moyer had a thing to do with the Red Pill.

Well, I sort of agree. A halting, too-strongly-pushed, stopping-at-the-end-of-every-line reading doesn't exactly let the lines sing. But there is an art to reciting iambic pentameter whereby it can attain the naturalness of speech while still retaining that underlying rhythm. When it's done well, you might not even realise they're doing it - until your ear is attuned enough to pick it up.

I really think this is a dying art, by the way. If you see a Shakespeare production, at least here in the UK, the actors older than about sixty are able to imbue the lines with that underpinning iambic rhythm; the younger actors don't know how or don't bother. For me, that means they don't really catch that song-like quality. I really think those older actors might be the last generation to properly know how to scan.

>Some of the best political speeches have that kind of song-like rhythm, although they aren't verse. I'm thinking of e.g. Churchill, or the Gettysburg Address.

Incidentally, somewhere I came across Arthur Quiller-Couch discussing this. He used as his example this speech of Edmund Burke, which he claimed achieved its power by means of hidden iambic pentameter:

>The calculation of profit in all such wars is false. On balancing the account of such wars, ten thousand hogsheads of sugar are purchased at ten thousand times their price. The blood of man should never be shed but to redeem the blood of man. It is well shed for our family, for our friends, for our God, for our country, for our kind. The rest is vanity; the rest is crime.

He points out that three fragments are actually iambic lines:

>Are purchased at ten thousand times their price... >Be shed but to redeem the blood of man... >The rest is vanity; the rest is crime.

Of course, this was in a time when the audience's ear (though perhaps not conscious mind) would be better attuned to that rhythm.

getHenriadByPlayName('1h4')

Indeed it should be spoken aloud (or at least 'aloud in your head'). But if it should be spoken as if it were prose, why do you think he took all the trouble to put it in to verse?

There's quite a lot of work on this kind of thing; any edition of Shakespeare with good notes will alert you where a line resembles something 'proverbial'. One thing you notice is that although he often alludes to proverbial sayings, he seldom includes them verbatim - more often, it is a glancing, passing suggestion of them, or he uses them with a twist, or as part of some more complex figure of speech he is developing.

edit: there's actually a great example in the article: "No man’s pie is freed from his ambitious finger".

For what it's worth, he also uses 'whom' at the start of a sentence, correctly according to formal grammar but where most English speakers would intuitively use 'who'. That level of fussing over nominative/accusative can be the give-away sign of a classical grammar stickler, though equally it can just indicate a native speaker of a cased language such as German.

  Be not the first by whom the new are tried,
  Nor yet the last to lay the old aside.

- Alexander Pope.

Scheme feels really verbose to me. I get that it's 'minimal' and 'elegant' and everything, but then why are all the identifiers so long? I feel like I have to do a lot of typing to get anything done. Maybe it's better if you're using emacs and have good lispy autocomplete, I don't know. But broadly, it makes me feel like the people who developed scheme were working from a very specific definition of 'elegant', and it doesn't align with mine. Janet feels better for that.

>It was missing the simple, elegant sexp syntax I dearly love

In what sense does Janet not have sexp syntax? Seems plenty sexpy to me. Purists seem to say it's not a lisp because its underlying data structure is not (cons-based) lists as in classical lisp, but I don't see what syntactic difference there is.

I heard at least part of this version of the story a few years ago from someone who was in the British music industry at the time. I seem to recall getting the impression that he was relaying what he'd heard at the time, but of course I can't rule out that he got it from the Times article you mentioned.

The liberals want to strengthen explicit institutions (welfare, education, etc). The conservatives want to strengthen implicit institutions (trust, community).

Reading the Garden Party at the moment.

Settled for 30,000, mind.

Let's see Paul Allen's operating system.

Let's see Paul Allen's color palette.

yagni, yagnas, yagnat...

> "Nah man I aren't gonna" <-- this is wrong

Well, yes, because the first person singular of to be is am, not are. It works fine with I am or you are.

> I'm not gonna do that <--- looks good to me

> You aren't gonna need that <--- also looks good to me

'You aren't gonna need it' looks weird because it deviates from the stock phrase YAGNI, but it's not wrong.