I think I also disagree with something about the Moloch comparison. Like, I agree that the distinction you draw is important. But, something something… feels like there just can’t be too many Molochs? If that was a common way-of-naming, it’d quickly become too overwhelming.
There is definitely a sense in which a name like Moloch is ‘expensive’ because you can’t reasonably be expected to re-derive its meaning from the term, or at least most people using the term didn’t previously know about the original Moloch. Terms that sort of say what they are are a lot less expensive, since people can be reminded of them and even learn them from context, and someone who doesn’t know the term is A Thing doesn’t feel as lost.
Moloch is a good name because it is important. If it wasn’t important, the name would be bad because, while good for referring to Moloch, it wouldn’t be worth a Coined Unique Name Slot, or whatever.
I think I also disagree with something about the Moloch comparison. Like, I agree that the distinction you draw is important. But, something something… feels like there just can’t be too many Molochs? If that was a common way-of-naming, it’d quickly become too overwhelming.
There is definitely a sense in which a name like Moloch is ‘expensive’ because you can’t reasonably be expected to re-derive its meaning from the term, or at least most people using the term didn’t previously know about the original Moloch. Terms that sort of say what they are are a lot less expensive, since people can be reminded of them and even learn them from context, and someone who doesn’t know the term is A Thing doesn’t feel as lost.
Moloch is a good name because it is important. If it wasn’t important, the name would be bad because, while good for referring to Moloch, it wouldn’t be worth a Coined Unique Name Slot, or whatever.