glomerulus comments on Bridge Collapse: Reductionism as Engineering Problem - Less Wrong

44 Post author: RobbBB 18 February 2014 10:03PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (61)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: glomerulus 20 February 2014 12:16:15AM 2 points [-]

Rational!Harry describes a character similar to the base except persistently Rational, for whatever reason. Rational-Harry describes a Harry which is rational, but it's nonstandard usage and might confuse a few people (Is his name "Rational-Harry"? Do I have to call him that in-universe to differentiate him from Empirical-Harry and Oblate-Spheroiod-Harry?). Rational Harry might just be someone attaching an adjective to Harry to indicate that at the moment, he's rational, or more rational by contrast to Silly Dumbledore.

Anyway, adj!noun is a compound with a well-defined purpose within a fandom: to describe how a character differs from canon. It's an understood notation, and the convention, so everyone uses it to prevent misunderstandings. Outside of fandom things, using it signals casualness and fandom-savviness to those in fandom culture, and those who aren't familiar with fandom culture can understand it and don't notice the in-joke.

Comment author: Mestroyer 20 February 2014 03:46:20AM 1 point [-]

I always figured it was like the scope resolution operator ("::") in C++, but in some weird functional language that AI people liked.

Comment author: komponisto 20 February 2014 01:16:20AM 0 points [-]

Rational Harry might just be someone attaching an adjective to Harry to indicate that at the moment, he's rational, or more rational by contrast to Silly Dumbledore.

Yes, that's why I favor the hyphen (in response to shminux above).

Comment author: RobbBB 20 February 2014 03:22:50AM *  0 points [-]

Yes. I used it in an earlier version of this post reflexively, without even thinking about the connection to fanfics. My thinking was just 'this is clearer than subscript notation, and is a useful and commonplace LW shibboleth'.