> That quote, on it's own, has a very different meaning to readers if it is not accompanied by the rest of the article.
No, it doesn't. I read the title, then I read the entire article, and at the end, I was left with the understanding that Linus Torvalds no longer reads the code for kernel patches, which was exactly what I expected from the title.
The only people who might possibly be confused by the title are people who try to be hyper-literal and pedantic, but those are the same people who would see a quote that says "I don't read" and assume it means the person quoted is illiterate. That kind of thing is a reader-specific problem, and not a problem with the quote.
All that I can tell you concretely is that when I read the headline, this is more or less what went through my head:
>"!?! ...something seems off, I better check the comments for quick clarification"
I then went to the comments, found (as the top comment) a clear clarification, and upvoted it.
Now, that initial "!?!", roughly described as a combination of apprehension and alarm, was not the product of hyper-literalism. Rather it was the product of the headline text and several fuzzy associations I have formed over the years, conscious and otherwise. A quick sampling of some of the prominent conscious associations, translated to english, could be "HN loves when Linus says crazy things", "Linus doesn't write code, he manages and merges.", and "News means something has changed".
Had I been less interested in the topic of "Linus says things", I would have left it at that and moved onto another article.
I think I would describe the notion "It cannot be deceptive because it is a quote and true" as the real hyper-literalism. Truth and deception are not mutually exclusive by any means.
I didn't say a quote cannot be deceptive. I don't see this one as even remotely deceptive, though. If you know who Linus is, you know he owns the Linux kernel. A quote about him not reading code would therefore be taken to refer to the kernel code. In that context, the quote is accurate. Linus by his own admission is not reading the kernel code any more.
Not really... Not from what I already perceived it.
> I don't see him suggesting anything
Um, I am not suggesting that he is?
What are you trying to get at here? Do you think I am lying when I say I felt deceived? I don't doubt you when you say you didn't feel deceived.. both are legitimate experiences.
> Not really... Not from what I already perceived it.
What did/do you perceive his role to be? He manages and he doesn't read code, exactly what the headline says.
> Um, I am not suggesting that he is?
Then I have no idea what you mean when you said "or that he was suggesting something somewhat outlandish".
> What are you trying to get at here? Do you think I am lying when I say I felt deceived? I don't doubt you when you say you didn't feel deceived.. both are legitimate experiences.
I'm just trying to understand what you felt deceived about. If you felt deceived, then you felt deceived, and I'm not disputing that. I just don't understand why you felt deceived.
Comments
> That quote, on it's own, has a very different meaning to readers if it is not accompanied by the rest of the article.
No, it doesn't. I read the title, then I read the entire article, and at the end, I was left with the understanding that Linus Torvalds no longer reads the code for kernel patches, which was exactly what I expected from the title.
The only people who might possibly be confused by the title are people who try to be hyper-literal and pedantic, but those are the same people who would see a quote that says "I don't read" and assume it means the person quoted is illiterate. That kind of thing is a reader-specific problem, and not a problem with the quote.
All that I can tell you concretely is that when I read the headline, this is more or less what went through my head:
>"!?! ...something seems off, I better check the comments for quick clarification"
I then went to the comments, found (as the top comment) a clear clarification, and upvoted it.
Now, that initial "!?!", roughly described as a combination of apprehension and alarm, was not the product of hyper-literalism. Rather it was the product of the headline text and several fuzzy associations I have formed over the years, conscious and otherwise. A quick sampling of some of the prominent conscious associations, translated to english, could be "HN loves when Linus says crazy things", "Linus doesn't write code, he manages and merges.", and "News means something has changed".
Had I been less interested in the topic of "Linus says things", I would have left it at that and moved onto another article.
I think I would describe the notion "It cannot be deceptive because it is a quote and true" as the real hyper-literalism. Truth and deception are not mutually exclusive by any means.
I didn't say a quote cannot be deceptive. I don't see this one as even remotely deceptive, though. If you know who Linus is, you know he owns the Linux kernel. A quote about him not reading code would therefore be taken to refer to the kernel code. In that context, the quote is accurate. Linus by his own admission is not reading the kernel code any more.
I find the quote to be both accurate and (in the context of it being a headline on HN) deceptive.
What exactly about the quote do you consider deceptive "in the context of it being a headline on HN"?
It gave me the impression that Linus's role in the project has changed dramatically, or that he was suggesting something somewhat outlandish.
So it gave you an accurate impression. Linus's role has changed dramatically.
As for you thinking he's suggesting something outlandish, I don't see him suggesting anything. The quote is a statement about something he does.
> Linus's role has changed dramatically.
Not really... Not from what I already perceived it.
> I don't see him suggesting anything
Um, I am not suggesting that he is?
What are you trying to get at here? Do you think I am lying when I say I felt deceived? I don't doubt you when you say you didn't feel deceived.. both are legitimate experiences.
> Not really... Not from what I already perceived it.
What did/do you perceive his role to be? He manages and he doesn't read code, exactly what the headline says.
> Um, I am not suggesting that he is?
Then I have no idea what you mean when you said "or that he was suggesting something somewhat outlandish".
> What are you trying to get at here? Do you think I am lying when I say I felt deceived? I don't doubt you when you say you didn't feel deceived.. both are legitimate experiences.
I'm just trying to understand what you felt deceived about. If you felt deceived, then you felt deceived, and I'm not disputing that. I just don't understand why you felt deceived.