7 ms·
This manifestation of the threes trope below everything 2048 related reminds me of a comment I recently read below a Stephen Wolfram related post: https://news
by pololeono 2y ago
This manifestation of the threes trope below everything 2048 related reminds me of a comment I recently read below a Stephen Wolfram related post:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41406645 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41406645
All: please don't repeat the usual Wolfram trope. (If you don't know what I mean by that, a decade's worth of explanation can be found via https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que....)
The issue is not that it's wrong, it's that it's extremely repetitive and we want fresh discussion on HN, preferably about the specific content of an article.
- samatman 2y agoI saw that comment but didn't follow the algolia link. I didn't realize Stephen Wolfram was dang's personal We Do Not Mention the Orangutan. I suppose that given the inevitable prevalence of clichéd back-and-forth tropes and exchanges on HN, there's little choice but to draw a line in the sand on specific versions and hope it serves as a stand-in for all of them.
- dang 2y agoI don't know who the orangutan is, but that's just one of a thwack of tropes that make me wince on HN. A multithwack. A plenithwack. They can't be stopped but one can maybe dampen them a bit sometimes. Or not.
- tptacek 2y agoTIL, and, on the off chance you didn't go look this up, it's extremely worth it: https://www.reddit.com/r/EdgarAllanPoe/comments/17cehq8/we_do_not_talk_about_the_orangutan/ https://www.reddit.com/r/EdgarAllanPoe/comments/17cehq8/we_d... (no matter whether it's true or not)