The phrase “how are you” is no different from a TCP Handshake. In order to establish communication, the first initiating computer will send out a synchronize, the responder sends a synchronize-acknowledge, then the initiator will give back a single acknowledge. This is just how human language does it, with a slight order change.
“How are you?”—Synchronize request
“Good, how are you?”—Acknowledge synchronize request, send sync request of your own
“I’m good too”—Acknowledge
Just like in computers, the purpose is not to convey information in itself. It is to establish communication including the rules of communication each side will be using. If you want to change the transfer protocol over to UDP, that is also acceptable (eg, “how are you?” “ugh terrible! ). You can also throw up halt flags before conversation begins (eg, “how are you?” “sod off”). The initial synack is also good for pinging (eg, “how are you?” … “sorry I was busy thinking”).
However, the one thing that neither humans nor computers use synack for is transmitting information. Doing so is simply a breach of information transfer protocol and may result in you defecting by accident.
This is a brilliant analogy and I’m definitely stealing it for my own use.
Related metaphor from Robert Heinlein’s Time Enough For Love:
Moving parts in rubbing contact require lubrication to avoid excessive wear. Honorifics and formal politeness provide lubrication where people rub together. Often the very young, the untraveled, the naïve, the unsophisticated deplore these formalities as “empty,” “meaningless,” or “dishonest,” and scorn to use them. No matter how “pure” their motives, they thereby throw sand into machinery that does not work too well at best.
SInce we are on the subject of quotes, here’s one from C.S. Lewis, who I am not generally a fan of, but this is something that struck me when I read it for the first time:
“Oh, Piebald, Piebald,” she said, still laughing. “How often the people of your race speak!”
“I’m sorry,” said Ransom, a little put out. “What are you sorry for?”
“I am sorry if you think I talk too much”
“Too much? How can I tell what would be too much for you to talk?”
“In our world when they say a man talks much they mean they wish him to be silent.”
“If that is what they mean, why do they not say it?”
“What made you laugh?” asked Ransom, finding her question too hard.
I really like this reply. The initial point about the TCP Handshake makes a lot of sense and relates to the core point, and the supporting parts about other communication types gives me some fresh insights that I can try to use in other conversations.
The phrase “how are you” is no different from a TCP Handshake. In order to establish communication, the first initiating computer will send out a synchronize, the responder sends a synchronize-acknowledge, then the initiator will give back a single acknowledge. This is just how human language does it, with a slight order change.
“How are you?”—Synchronize request
“Good, how are you?”—Acknowledge synchronize request, send sync request of your own
“I’m good too”—Acknowledge
Just like in computers, the purpose is not to convey information in itself. It is to establish communication including the rules of communication each side will be using. If you want to change the transfer protocol over to UDP, that is also acceptable (eg, “how are you?” “ugh terrible! ). You can also throw up halt flags before conversation begins (eg, “how are you?” “sod off”). The initial synack is also good for pinging (eg, “how are you?” … “sorry I was busy thinking”).
However, the one thing that neither humans nor computers use synack for is transmitting information. Doing so is simply a breach of information transfer protocol and may result in you defecting by accident.
This is a brilliant analogy and I’m definitely stealing it for my own use.
Related metaphor from Robert Heinlein’s Time Enough For Love:
SInce we are on the subject of quotes, here’s one from C.S. Lewis, who I am not generally a fan of, but this is something that struck me when I read it for the first time:
I really like this reply. The initial point about the TCP Handshake makes a lot of sense and relates to the core point, and the supporting parts about other communication types gives me some fresh insights that I can try to use in other conversations.