[HN Gopher] Unsuck It (2010)
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Unsuck It (2010)
        
       Author : dsr_
       Score  : 108 points
       Date   : 2021-02-22 17:30 UTC (5 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (unsuck-it.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (unsuck-it.com)
        
       | kps wrote:
       | I am disappointed that 'actionable' doesn't present the original
       | meaning -- providing cause to take legal action -- given how well
       | it typically fits corpspeak in place of the intended one.
        
       | fullstackchris wrote:
       | Shamelessy perused my most recent side project to see if I had
       | any of this language on my pages. Luckily none such words were
       | found!
        
       | tyingq wrote:
       | If you stump it, you get:
       | 
       |  _" Well, tickle my taint. That one hasn't come up yet. Not to
       | worry. We're on it."_
        
         | jihadjihad wrote:
         | It really jibes with the site's logo
        
       | danieldrehmer wrote:
       | GPT-3?
        
       | neatwithatwist wrote:
       | I still use this site occasionally. Used it way more when I
       | worked in Consulting. Has actually been useful.
        
       | techbio wrote:
       | An update on the model of Ambrose Bierce's "Devil's Dictionary":
       | 
       | https://www.gutenberg.org/files/972/972-h/972-h.htm
        
       | phildenhoff wrote:
       | Seeing all the phrases my old colleagues used has really
       | solidified that leaving consulting was a good choice for my own
       | sanity. Stop trying to ping me on a go-forward basis to utilize
       | and action upcoming synergies in a fulsome manner!
        
         | Jtsummers wrote:
         | My desk at an old job was adjacent to the desk of the woman in
         | charge of a safety process (some variant of 5S and something
         | else, I think). Every week there'd be a small gathering at her
         | desk including a couple managers and people from some other
         | departments (not sure what their roles were otherwise, the
         | managers I knew were a few levels above me in engineering).
         | 
         | I heard nearly every buzzword bingo term during those meetings.
         | I swore off the idea of every becoming any kind of manager
         | after that. Fast forward a decade, I'm pissed off with how
         | things aren't working and aren't changing so I opt myself into
         | a management adjacent position ("process improvement"). I ended
         | up in many, many more management meetings than I ever want to
         | and learned that there were still more buzzword bingo words for
         | me to learn! I escaped after a time because I realized that
         | they were just playing a convoluted drinking game (I think if
         | you say or hear "synergy" 1000 times it's guaranteed to make
         | you an alcoholic, but the drinks are after hours instead of
         | when the game is played).
        
           | imwillofficial wrote:
           | ::in a drunken haze:: "Circle back to that!" "We faced
           | challenges!" "Synergize our core competencies!" ::passes
           | out::
        
             | dsr_ wrote:
             | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyV_UG60dD4
             | 
             | (Weird Al Yankovic: Mission Statement)
             | 
             | First verse:
             | 
             | We must all efficiently Operationalize our strategies
             | Invest in world-class technology And leverage our core
             | competencies
        
       | dang wrote:
       | Discussed at the time:
       | 
       |  _Unsuck It - translate business jargon_ -
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1600102 - Aug 2010 (23
       | comments)
        
       | bussierem wrote:
       | This reminds me of https://mourner.github.io/bullshit.js/
        
       | culopatin wrote:
       | Im having fun browsing it but it is one of the slowest sites I've
       | actually waited for to load.
        
       | mirkules wrote:
       | > Illegal Alien: person.
       | 
       | This is like saying "another word for car is 'vehicle'". It's not
       | the same thing.
       | 
       |  _Maybe_ it's an outdated expression, but it still signifies a
       | person who crossed a country's border illegally and does not have
       | legal status.
       | 
       | Maybe in some libertarian circles where there ideologically are
       | no such things as borders this would be true, but the world
       | exists, countries exist, laws exist and changing words to suit an
       | ideology instead of facts is kind of silly.
       | 
       | P.S. I got to "Illegal Alien" by entering "Synergy" then
       | following along.
        
         | Jtsummers wrote:
         | > Maybe it's an outdated expression, but it still signifies a
         | person who crossed a country's border illegally and does not
         | have legal status.
         | 
         | Actually, it doesn't even mean _just_ that, that 's just the
         | popular perception. Anyone not present legally would be an
         | illegal alien, even if they crossed the border legally. I knew
         | many international students who became illegal aliens due to
         | overstaying their visas or who violated their visa in some way
         | through work they did.
        
       | ryandrake wrote:
       | The one all the cool-kid execs are using these days is "lean in
       | to" as a replacement for the boring "focus on". As in "We're
       | going to be _leaning in to_ Cloud and Chat Apps this quarter in
       | order to grow our investment into execution and innovation... "
        
       | fbelzile wrote:
       | This is awesome. It has my favorite one: "ping me"
       | 
       | Man, I hated hearing this. Just use normal words, please.
        
         | 1-more wrote:
         | If they reply with anything other than ACK tell them they are
         | breaking protocol
        
         | jasonv wrote:
         | I don't mind that one, but "rockstar" in job descriptions
         | drives me batty.
         | 
         | As do "send it" and "stan". So, it's across all cultural
         | borders these days.
        
           | woodrowbarlow wrote:
           | when someone says "rockstar programmer" i hear "doesn't play
           | well with others".
        
           | ficklepickle wrote:
           | OK boomer.
           | 
           | I'm stanning so hard I'm just gonna send it, fam.
           | 
           | Just kidding. I'm old too. Get off my lawn, unless you are
           | playing lawn darts.
        
         | dec0dedab0de wrote:
         | I used to hate all that nonsense, then at some point in the
         | last 15 years I got assimilated. Though, I still can't
         | understand anything an executive says.
        
         | 0xdeadbeefbabe wrote:
         | Yeah, normal words like "reaching out" (said the way Neil
         | Diamond says it, with some seriousness and a straight face). It
         | turns professional life into melodrama.
        
           | fbelzile wrote:
           | Or just, email me when... or call me when... At least it
           | gives me a hint about the best way to contact you about
           | something.
        
             | wiml wrote:
             | "ping me" does have a useful connotation, though, like
             | "touch base" or "give a heads-up" it suggests a pretty
             | minimal communication, just to let someone know that
             | something has or will occur. Making a distinction between a
             | short notice that can be followed up on if needed, vs. a
             | more detailed memo or report.
        
       | tyingq wrote:
       | I imagine our pointy-haired bosses would appreciate an "unsuck
       | it" for tech jargon, with stuff like:
       | 
       | orthagonal -> unrelated
       | 
       | immutable -> unchangeable
       | 
       | idempotent -> (is there a very short phrase that works here?)
        
         | entropicdrifter wrote:
         | idempotent -> one-and-done ?
         | 
         | It's kinda hard to summarize
        
         | astrea wrote:
         | Those aren't even jargon, they're just words a well-educated
         | person would know.
        
           | kube-system wrote:
           | Idempotent is definitely jargon. It was coined by a
           | mathematician and the word has no use outside of a math/cs
           | context.
        
           | reaperducer wrote:
           | It's not about education or vocabulary. It's about using
           | words to make yourself sound important, when you're not.
           | 
           | The problem is that people who don't have a good vocabulary
           | abuse these words and change their meaning for self-serving
           | purposes, and not to communicate.
        
             | astrea wrote:
             | Perhaps that's just projections of your own insecurities
             | and those words are just simply what come to mind for them
             | or find the most descriptive.
        
               | reaperducer wrote:
               | _Perhaps that 's just projections of your own
               | insecurities and those words are just simply what come to
               | mind for them or find the most descriptive._
               | 
               | No, it's because I have a degree is Communication, and
               | understand the importance of language in the workplace.
               | 
               | Any "insecurity" is just defensiveness on your part.
               | 
               | Or, to put it in language you might understand: "Troll
               | harder, n00b."
        
               | imwillofficial wrote:
               | Ooooh the guy with the degree in communications has
               | decided what is useful and what is over the top in
               | regards to mid tier vocabulary usage.
               | 
               | I think you've missed the point of this whole website my
               | friend.
        
         | chrisweekly wrote:
         | idempotent -> side-effect-free? safely-repeatable?
        
           | tyingq wrote:
           | Ah, that's helpful. _" Safely repeatable, with no side
           | effects"_ will be my new answer if anyone asks.
        
         | zodiakzz wrote:
         | transparent -> opaque
        
         | seph-reed wrote:
         | Idempotent -> singularly consistent
         | 
         | It's not a perfect definition, but I don't think execs really
         | need to know what idempotent is.
        
         | chousuke wrote:
         | You could replace orthogonal and immutable perhaps, but
         | idempotency has a rather precise technical definition that
         | doesn't really have any synonyms. It's a useful word too,
         | because idempotency is generally a very desirable property to
         | have in many systems.
         | 
         | If you do any kind of system automation, it would get quite
         | cumbersome if you had to keep talking about operations which
         | only effect change when they actually need to.
        
         | gherkinnn wrote:
         | Got me.
         | 
         | But I like to think that using precise technical terms such as
         | "idempotent" is perfectly fine. "Immutable", works as well,
         | since you have "mutable", and "mutation" to go with it. Both
         | also carry a lot of contextual information that make them hard
         | to replace.
         | 
         | (There has to be a proper linguistic term to describe these
         | properties)
         | 
         | "Touch base" is none of those things. Ever.
        
         | Twisol wrote:
         | Hm. "Safely repeatable"? Idempotence is a pretty specific
         | concept.
        
         | NoodleIncident wrote:
         | I like that orthagonal suggests that they definitely intersect,
         | but go in two different directions. Unrelated is too harsh in
         | most of the situations you'd use orthagonal.
        
         | Florin_Andrei wrote:
         | _" Hey, you're an idempotent kind of person: all I need to know
         | about you I learned on day 1, and nothing's changed since
         | then."_ /s
        
           | lotsofpulp wrote:
           | Does this work too?
           | 
           | "Hey, you're an idempotent kind of person: all you think you
           | need to know about me you learned on day 1, and nothing's
           | changed since then."
        
       | DonHopkins wrote:
       | As snarky as a fish, a barrel, and a smoking gun!
       | 
       | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suck.com
       | 
       | https://web.archive.org/web/20181215003853/http://www.suck.c...
        
       | jessriedel wrote:
       | Doesn't the phrase "add color" go back at least to the century-
       | old idea of a "color" commentator (who operates opposite the
       | "play-by-play" commentator) of sports radio and later sports TV?
       | I'd be pretty surprised if this wasn't used for things outside of
       | sports before MBAs started using. And if the MBAs invented the
       | turn of phrase, I'd say it's clever and evocative!
       | 
       | This seems very different than mere business euphemism like
       | "realize negative gains".
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | gherkinnn wrote:
       | It's not necessarily the words themselves, but the type of person
       | who is associated with them. And I hate it when a word I like
       | gets appropriated by unlikable people.
       | 
       | "Touch base" and "Bio break" are an exception. Makes me squeal
       | every time, no matter who uses them.
        
         | tyingq wrote:
         | "Synergy" haunts me, as well as repurposing words like
         | "ideation". If I play word association, "suicidal" is the only
         | context where "ideation" sounds correct.
        
       | piinbinary wrote:
       | This one is great:
       | 
       | > counterintuitive
       | 
       | > Based on facts or evidence, rather than on magic-gut
       | divination.
        
       | dylan604 wrote:
       | Clicked on browse, and then read the first term for 'above the
       | fold'. pure gold
       | 
       | Unsucked:
       | 
       | The mystical location on websites where advertisers want their
       | ads to appear. Originally referred to physical newspapers, which
       | folded in half and made money from advertising. Today, newspapers
       | don't have advertisers and just fold.
        
         | jefftk wrote:
         | To be dull: "above the fold" means visible on the initial page
         | view, without any scrolling.
        
           | reaperducer wrote:
           | Which made sense when everyone was browsing at 800x600. But
           | these days who knows what the size of an initial page view
           | is. Not just devices, but windows within those devices.
        
             | shawn-furyan wrote:
             | Get that newfangled SVGA outta here. VGA (640x480) is the
             | One True Resolution(tm).
        
               | 867-5309 wrote:
               | most mobile browsers actually use low resolutions like
               | this by default
        
             | jefftk wrote:
             | Publishers have good information on a per ad slot basis
             | telling them how likely they are to be initially on screen.
             | It's not yes/no, the way it would be if everyone's screen
             | was the same size or on a physical newspaper, but
             | percentages are still useful.
             | 
             | Mostly people use viewability instead:
             | https://headerbidding.co/mrc-viewability-standards/
        
         | tyingq wrote:
         | I know I'm venturing off-topic here, but I believe _" above the
         | fold"_ in the newspaper world referred to story prominence on
         | the front page rather than advertising.
         | 
         | I don't recall, even long ago, seeing ads on real newspapers
         | that were both front-page and _" above the fold"_. I imagine _"
         | above the fold"_ wasn't related to advertising until the web
         | existed.
        
           | troyvit wrote:
           | When I studied journalism in the early '90s our professors
           | drew a direct correlation between newspapers that showed ads
           | "above the fold" and those that didn't. According to the
           | profs if they practiced the former they were clearly not real
           | journalistic enterprises. USA Today did it and they used it
           | as a case that proved their point. How times change.
        
             | tyingq wrote:
             | That's interesting. I can't find a picture of a paper USA
             | Today with an actual advert front page, above the fold.
             | They do put little gossipy teaser type "boxes" there that I
             | guess could be considered "ads" to read a story in their
             | Celebrity section. But no actual advertisement for some 3rd
             | party product or service. Not saying that didn't happen,
             | but it's at least not easy to find.
        
             | shawn-furyan wrote:
             | Would that it were so simple to assess the value and
             | integrity of individual voices vying for attention among
             | the roaring cacophony that is the internet.
        
           | exmadscientist wrote:
           | Around here they did exist, but were not so prominent,
           | usually in a sidebar or topbar format. I think they were more
           | common on slow news days, which both does and doesn't make
           | sense.
           | 
           | They became more common overall as newspapers declined; how
           | prominent they are now, I don't know, because the dead tree
           | edition isn't worth reading anymore.
        
           | reaperducer wrote:
           | This applied only to broadsheets (New York Times), and not to
           | newspapers that used tabloid layout (Chicago Sun-Times).
           | 
           | The reason "above the fold" was valuable real estate was
           | because whatever was there would be visible in newspaper
           | vending machines, newspaper racks, and the stacks at kiosks.
           | 
           | Newspapers that printed on tabloid-sized paper didn't have
           | that problem, since they were not folded horizontally.
           | 
           | Tabloid newspapers were generally read by the working class
           | and were sized so that they could be read on trains, buses,
           | and communal lunch tables. Broadsheets were read by the
           | bosses who had private offices, individual desks, and space
           | to spread out.
           | 
           | / Previously worked for two newspaper companies.
        
             | andi999 wrote:
             | Reminds me of who reads British newspapers:
             | 
             | https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M
        
             | soneca wrote:
             | GP point maintains. At least in my country, I never saw ads
             | above the folder, but the main headlines.
        
               | tomjakubowski wrote:
               | I recall the Chicago Tribune putting ads in the masthead,
               | usually a reference to a promotional story lurking deeper
               | inside the paper. And then there was this.
               | 
               | http://mchenrycountyblog.com/2013/01/21/message-of-the-
               | day-a...
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-02-22 23:00 UTC)