Why is this so heavily upvoted? Does that indicate actual value to LW, or just a majority of lurking septemberites captivated by cute pixel art?
Pointing out how the genesis of the upvotes is based on mechanisms only weakly related to the content value seems pertinent to answering the two questions in the quote.
It’s definitely pertinent, but it seems a bit one-sided? As an upvoter, I was trying really hard confess my love for whale and quantify it alongside my appreciation for fun and clarity. So I’m concerned that the above reads more like “it was probably all nyans and noms” as opposed to “nyans and noms were a factor.”
The whale, the fun and the clarity (and the wardrobe, too) all belong on the same side of “structure, seriousness, watertightness” versus “fun and clarity” as per the dichotomy in my initial comment’s quote. It would be weird if content hadn’t been a factor, albeit one that’s been swallowed whole by a vile white whale.
I must confess I don’t understand half of what you guys are referring to.
You’re not missing much, it’s just some throwaway references that aren’t central to the point.
“The whale, the fun and the clarity” has the same structure as the movie “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe” and also starts with an animal.
swallowed whole by a vile white whale
Swallowed whole by the whale was supposed to say that the content factor was secondary to the “whale factor”. The “swallowed” also allures to the whole Jonah story (who lived in a whale’s stomach), the whole / [wh]ile / whale was just infantile switching out of vowels, since interestingly all have a Hamming distance of just 1 (you only need to swap one letter).
talk about nomen est omen, nom nom
Your name contains a food item, and you provide guilty comfort food for thought with your post, so “nomen est omen” applies, i.e. your name is a sign of your purpose. The “nom nom” I just appended because it keeps with the food theme, and also because interestingly the “nom nom” is a partial anagram of “nomen est omen”.
Yea … not exactly essential to my arguments. Which in a way does support my points! :)
Pointing out how the genesis of the upvotes is based on mechanisms only weakly related to the content value seems pertinent to answering the two questions in the quote.
It’s definitely pertinent, but it seems a bit one-sided? As an upvoter, I was trying really hard confess my love for whale and quantify it alongside my appreciation for fun and clarity. So I’m concerned that the above reads more like “it was probably all nyans and noms” as opposed to “nyans and noms were a factor.”
The whale, the fun and the clarity (and the wardrobe, too) all belong on the same side of “structure, seriousness, watertightness” versus “fun and clarity” as per the dichotomy in my initial comment’s quote. It would be weird if content hadn’t been a factor, albeit one that’s been swallowed whole by a vile white whale.
I must confess I don’t understand half of what you guys are referring to.
You’re not missing much, it’s just some throwaway references that aren’t central to the point.
“The whale, the fun and the clarity” has the same structure as the movie “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe” and also starts with an animal.
Swallowed whole by the whale was supposed to say that the content factor was secondary to the “whale factor”. The “swallowed” also allures to the whole Jonah story (who lived in a whale’s stomach), the whole / [wh]ile / whale was just infantile switching out of vowels, since interestingly all have a Hamming distance of just 1 (you only need to swap one letter).
Your name contains a food item, and you provide guilty comfort food for thought with your post, so “nomen est omen” applies, i.e. your name is a sign of your purpose. The “nom nom” I just appended because it keeps with the food theme, and also because interestingly the “nom nom” is a partial anagram of “nomen est omen”.
Yea … not exactly essential to my arguments. Which in a way does support my points! :)
So it had nothing to do with Moby Dick?
No, of course not!