[Quarrelsome]

they battered if you put it in your pocket. The idea of paper looking guilty chimes with the idea that you're reading it in the back of the classroom when you're not supposed to be.

I mean seriously? We're so cooked if this is the "red flag".

[simonw]

I have never seen a printed Discworld book that would fit in a pocket. Have you?

EDIT: I stand corrected, turns out they DID have pocket sized editions in France: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48247127#48248586

[gorgmah]

In france, there was an edition of the discworld series literally called "pocket", and yes it sometimes fit in pockets (which had to be on the bigger end of pockets though), especially if you bended the book a little. Looked like this: https://www.babelio.com/livres/Pratchett-Les-annales-du-Disq...

The first books of the discworld were thin too.

[simonw]

Thanks, I didn't know that! Definitely smaller than the paperbacks we had in the UK, and pocket-sized.

[scubbo]

Not to say that the article doesn't have plenty of other flaws, but - yes, my original paperbacks certainly did.

[onraglanroad]

Yes. The original small ones would fit in my jacket pockets or the back pocket of my jeans.

[mpalmer]

There's like nine red flags. You are holding the English language to an incredibly low standard.

[Quarrelsome]

we can talk about the others if you like, but we were discussing this one and I am a little disappointed about us just moving elsewhere. Are you yielding, or do you still think guilty paper is somehow sus?

> You are holding the English language to an incredibly low standard.

I'm holding humans to a low standard. That's why editors exist.