[madelinecameron]

Calm down with the $5 words.

It isn't that I am stupid but it makes for a really annoying read when I am having to think more about the words than the meaning.

I shouldn't have to re-read this article like it is a research paper just so I can absorb what you are saying.

[daveloyall]

I haven't heard anyone complain about anyone else using complex words in a long time.

May I ask how old you are, what part of the world or country you are from, how many zeros are in your net worth, and what your political preferences are (one or two words, please).

I'm not trying to violate your privacy, I'm just always a little curious about the landscape of ideas.

[jshevek]

Which words? I would agree the author seems pretentious in tone, but I didn't notice any $5 words, nor even words whose specific meaning was misapplied. Seems to me like the author just wanted to say what he meant.

[madelinecameron]

A lot of them. It came across more like the author was trying to show off their vocab than explain a point.

For example:

>Any large and alienating infrastructure controlled by a technocratic elite is bound to provoke. In particular, it will nettle those who want to know how it works, those who like the thrill of transgressing, and those who value the principle of open access.

Okay, it makes sense what they are saying but does that not seem a little clunky to you?

Why not just say like:

> As the world has progressively become more entwined with technology, those providing these services have become more protective of the technology. As a result of this protectiveness, less people are able to fully study and understand how this infrastructure works.

disclaimer: not an English major ;)

[jshevek]

Thank you for responding and clarifying. I thought you took issue (and maybe you do...) with a dozen other terms used in the text - terms which some readers might need to look up, but which have a specific, nuanced meaning that is lost if a more common word is used. I'm biased in the authors favor because I've been accused of trying to show off my vocab (such as it is, lol) when all I'm trying to do is say what I really mean.

As for that first sentence, I agree that your version is more clear, more accessible, but I also think that there is meaning lost. The author seems to want to draw attention to the clash of cultural values. This isn't conveyed so well in this more accessible version.

On another axis, his version evokes more powerful imagery and feelings. These words: 'alienating infrastrcuture, controlled, provoked, nettle, thrill, transgressing. 'value the principle' all have much larger emotional, visual, even tactile impact on me than the most emotional words in the other version.

I'm not saying this is right or wrong, only that this may have been the authors goal (more so than showing off their vocab). The author may also consciously value (a) emotional/visual impact on those who bother to read over (b) making the work easy for a larger body of people to read.

[crpatino]

Yes, the original sounds pompous, but your "simplification" ended up shaving off a lot of meaning. At the same time, you are clearly injecting some meaning.

By example, you seem to claim that "Any large and alienating infrastructure" is roughly equivalent to "[A world] ... more entwined with technology". Assuming "infrastructure" == "technology", the "entwined" part kind of fits the "large" part - which is value neutral -, but completely leaves aside the "alienating" part - which is not. I have (mostly) no problem with a world getting "entwined" with technology; the problem is the subset of that technology that ignores or betrays the needs and expectations of the people it claims to serve.

I could keep going and going: "has progressively become" != NULL, "those providing these services" != "technocratic elite", "... have become more protective" != "controlled by ...", "is bound to provoke" != "As a result of this protectiveness", etc.

At the end of day you are entitled to your own opinion, but please own up to it and present it as your own!!! Do not try to pass your own ideas as a simplified version of the original article. It is not.

[madelinecameron]

Went back and re-read it, the entire first section is a lot of overly complex babble. The rest of it is much better.