[rickdale]

MVNO = mobile virtual network operator. My biggest pet peeve when talking about technology is not referencing the full name of something you are going to abbreviate as if everyone knows it. The article makes no mention of MVNO so reading your comment I had to google search what exactly you were talking about. A lot of coding books and developers tend to do this and its always bothered the heck out of me.

edit: Can someone explain the dv? So people are in favor of random abbreviations?

[JumpCrisscross]

> MVNO = mobile virtual network operator

I subscribe to the Elon Musk school on acronyms--avoid at all reasonable costs [1]. That said, expanding "MVNO" to "mobile virtual network operator" does nothing for the discussion. If you aren't familiar with the former, you won't be with the latter.

Repairing the original sin of calling such virtual networks MNVOs post hoc is simply more friction than going along with an agreed term.

[1] http://www.ibtimes.com/spacex-boss-elon-musk-threatened-dras...

[hwillis]

"mobile virtual network operator" was exactly what I thought it would be, but there's no way I could figure out what MVNO was without googling it. The name is not totally obfuscating but the acronym is.

[stagbeetle]

At least "mobile virtual network operator" has some context clues (along with the subject matter) and is easy to guess.

"MVNO" has none such.

[Dobbs]

I am not familiar with MVNO but I can read "mobile virtual network operator" and instantly understand what it means by knowing what the individual words mean and putting it together. Expanding MVNO at least once when originally introducing the term helps.

[mikeash]

I am familiar with MVNO, and reading "mobile virtual network operator" would make me stop for a moment to figure out what they were talking about.

When an acronym is in common use, not using it will cause trouble for people who are used to it.

As long as it's something easily googleable, it really doesn't seem like a big deal either way. If you don't know what MVNO stands for, it'll take two seconds to find out. This does not apply for cases where there's lots of different meanings, or the acronym is spelled the same as a common word.

[dnadler]

Hence the common syntax: "mobile virtual network operator (MVNO)"

I really don't see the downside of not expanding it once, unless you're trying to avoid educating people.

[cerved]

You mean AAARC

[genkaos]

"Can someone explain the dv?"

Oh the irony! :D

[seibelj]

You googled it and learned what it was, now you know what it means and probably a lot more. If you want to learn stuff yourself you should be prepared to research. You are on a technology website reading an article about telecom, if you want to participate in the comments a baseline level of understanding isn't a big ask.

[rickdale]

if you want to participate in the comments a baseline level of understanding isn't a big ask.

Thats not fair. I came to the comments after reading the article to learn more about the article. I think its considered poor quality to make a comment like ADF is the worst. Without referecing what ADF is first, or without being referenced in the article.

[howard941]

WTF is ADF? Something to do with druids?

[tzs]

It's a general technology website, not a telecom-only technology website. The baseline level of understanding should be of technology in general, not the baseline of a telecom specialist.

If the telecom discussion ventures into specialized territory, then it is fine if the non-telecom people have to do some research to follow along.

In this case, though, if the words "mobile virtual network operator" are written out I think most HN readers will be able to figure out what they mean in the context of the comment without needing an external reference. There wasn't really anything going on that a non-telecom person wouldn't be able to follow, except for the expansion of the acronym.

It doesn't require research to make the comment understandable in this case. It just required mindless expansion of an acronym. Making multiple readers all do the same mindless task to understand the comment is inefficient.

There is a widespread, long established, endorsed by many style guides convention for handling this in technical writing: write out the term in full the first time, followed by the acronym in parenthesis, and then use the acronym in subsequent uses. I can see no reason to ignore this long standing convention in this particular case.

(For purposes of that convention, I think it would be OK to consider replies to a comment to be part of the same document as the comment, so if the commentator write "mobile virtual network operator (MVNO)" once, replies could use a bare "MVNO").

[stagbeetle]

Knowing "MVNO" is almost tangential to the OP's main point.

Replacing "MVNO" with "cell service provider," and perhaps adding "that piggybacks off existing infrastructure," would've helped in keeping focus on the main point.

Having to take away your focus from the discussion is only an impediment in this situation.

[matt_wulfeck]

Most of us are intelligent enough to google words we don't know. No reason to bring your personal pet peeves into an unrelated discussion.

[rickdale]

I did google it, thats not the point. It wasn't a "word" I didn't know, it was an abbreviation of a topic that was the main source of the top comment (at the time).