For me, I have no idea what "YTS" is:
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 25, 2023, 10:25:16 AM
Quote from: Crash_It on January 25, 2023, 10:23:51 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 25, 2023, 10:02:28 AM
Quote from: Crash_It on January 25, 2023, 09:26:11 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 25, 2023, 07:27:17 AM
That's why it's called an estimate.
Which is not to be taken seriously. It's only misinformation spread by conservative fear mongering blogs to make Illinois look bad when it actually is one of the best states to raise a family.
https://wallethub.com/edu/best-states-to-raise-a-family/31065
And as we all know, our lord and savior Wallethub is never wrong. Iowa and Minnesota are indeed superior to Illinois in every way.
But IL is superior to it's biggest Midwest rivals (Wisconsin and Michigan). In addition to that, it's also superior to FL,TN,NC and wherever else the yts have been moving to.
And "yts" means?
Sarcasm against Crash_It aside I've found the lack of acronym awareness to be a major issue in what I do. In particular this week I've been attending a NAVOSH course so I've been getting bombarded with a bunch of military acronyms I've never seen before. Fortunately the training guides come with glossary pages. I've found that military acronyms aren't the easiest to search for online sometimes.
I recently transitioned from being in hospitality to working in tech. Most meetings, I just let 90% of the acronyms fly over my head.
For the record, yts is "whites".
If Urban Dictionary is to be believed, and given the context of usage, looks like it's referring to white people. And potentially in a racially negative manner.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=YTs
That was my assumption, amusingly thought "youth trend setters" came up first when I searched before I created this thread.
So, another "Max griping about another user thread." C'mon, man...
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 25, 2023, 10:39:27 AM
For me, I have no idea what "YTS" is:
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 25, 2023, 10:25:16 AM
Quote from: Crash_It on January 25, 2023, 10:23:51 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 25, 2023, 10:02:28 AM
Quote from: Crash_It on January 25, 2023, 09:26:11 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 25, 2023, 07:27:17 AM
That's why it's called an estimate.
Which is not to be taken seriously. It's only misinformation spread by conservative fear mongering blogs to make Illinois look bad when it actually is one of the best states to raise a family.
https://wallethub.com/edu/best-states-to-raise-a-family/31065
And as we all know, our lord and savior Wallethub is never wrong. Iowa and Minnesota are indeed superior to Illinois in every way.
But IL is superior to it's biggest Midwest rivals (Wisconsin and Michigan). In addition to that, it's also superior to FL,TN,NC and wherever else the yts have been moving to.
And "yts" means?
Sarcasm against Crash_It aside I've found the lack of acronym awareness to be a major issue in what I do. In particular this week I've been attending a NAVOSH course so I've been getting bombarded with a bunch of military acronyms I've never seen before. Fortunately the training guides come with glossary pages. I've found that military acronyms aren't the easiest to search for online sometimes.
Corporate America also loves acronyms. If you're lucky, you work for a company that maintains a glossary of common acronyms, and everyone agrees on what they mean. If you're not lucky, you work for a company where people pull new acronyms out of their rear ends every day.
Worth noting, NAVOSH means (Navy Occupational Safety Health) if that wasn't readily apparent.
Quote from: Rothman on January 25, 2023, 11:00:03 AM
So, another "Max griping about another user thread." C'mon, man...
I don't know if you realize this (I assume you do) but you gripe about me specifically quite often. In fact, the last time I really recall you posting on certain boards like Pacific Southwest it was to gripe about me specifically. I'm not sure what point you are really trying to convey to me about "griping" when you actively engage in the same thing.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on January 25, 2023, 10:45:49 AM
I recently transitioned from being in hospitality to working in tech. Most meetings, I just let 90% of the acronyms fly over my head.
For the record, yts is "whites".
So, in other words, he's playing the race card again. Despite the fact that no one would ever know he's a minority if he didn't say so himself.
I'm clueless as to the meaning of a lot of acronyms. I frequently have to look a number of them up to see what they mean.
First time I ever saw FIFY was on this form, and I had to ask what it meant.
I've only seen TFTMS on this forum, and I forgot what it means.
I think one of the first acronyms I remember seeing on here was FWIW (for what it's worth).
FWIW is something I've seen outside the forum in a couple places, maybe it was also the military world? The ones that got me when I started on the forum were BGS and AADT. I got the gist of what both meant, but for awhile I thought "BGS" stood for "Big Guide Sign."
NFSW is used for people on Twitter. Something tells me it's not directions on a compass either.
Quote from: roadman65 on January 25, 2023, 11:54:20 AM
NFSW is used for people on Twitter. Something tells me it's not directions on a compass either.
I guess that's a thing too, but much more common is NSFW.
I first encountered BFE on this forum in a context where it could have been an airport code. (It was being used for its typical meaning.)
Quote from: abefroman329 on January 25, 2023, 11:01:48 AM
Corporate America also loves acronyms. If you're lucky, you work for a company that maintains a glossary of common acronyms, and everyone agrees on what they mean. If you're not lucky, you work for a company where people pull new acronyms out of their rear ends every day.
What I detest is how, in legal writing, most attorneys think it's acceptable just to "define" acronyms in parentheses and quotation marks whenever they so happen to use a term for the first time,* regardless of how buried in the middle of a brief it may be, and to expect the court and opposing counsel to both notice and remember it even if it first shows up in, say, a footnote on page 20 and then isn't used again until page 40. The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit has an excellent rule (Circuit Rule 28(a)(3)) that requires parties using acronyms or abbreviations–aside from things that are in everyday use like "IRS" or "NFL" or the like–to provide a glossary "defining each such abbreviation on a page immediately following the table of authorities." It frees the court and opposing counsel from the need to search an electronic copy of the brief to figure out what the random cryptic acronyms mean because it allows them to print off that one page (or to set that page aside when reviewing a hard copy) for reference.
*Then there are people who "define" acronyms that they never use and who insist on "defining names" for parties when it's utterly unnecessary to do so–e.g., some attorneys seem to think the court and opposing counsel won't know that "Microsoft" refers to "Microsoft Corporation" unless the brief says "Microsoft Corporation ('Microsoft')" (or similar).
Regarding "NSFW," I do not understand the Internet fad of insisting on including every trivial word in an abbreviation. That is, traditionally you'd omit things like articles. "The New York Times" is often abbreviated "NYT," for example, but the principle behind "NSFW" would counsel using "TNYT" to include the initial "The."
I've frequently seen "NWS" in lieu of "NSFW." Saves a letter. I suppose some people would argue it could be confused with "National Weather Service," but you'd think the context would debunk that notion.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on January 25, 2023, 11:59:10 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 25, 2023, 11:54:20 AM
NFSW is used for people on Twitter. Something tells me it's not directions on a compass either.
I guess that's a thing too, but much more common is NSFW.
Not Safe For Work it means. Telling you not to browse there if you're at work. I guess it's adult themed material you're being warned against.
Quote from: roadman65 on January 25, 2023, 12:58:08 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on January 25, 2023, 11:59:10 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 25, 2023, 11:54:20 AM
NFSW is used for people on Twitter. Something tells me it's not directions on a compass either.
I guess that's a thing too, but much more common is NSFW.
Not Safe For Work it means. Telling you not to browse there if you're at work. I guess it's adult themed material you're being warned against.
I'm aware. You typed NFSW, not NSFW. NFSW apparently means "not for showing wife", which I'm guessing, in reality, is what some guy once said when he effed up and mistyped NSFW.
Quote from: abefroman329 on January 25, 2023, 11:01:48 AM
Corporate America also loves acronyms. If you're lucky, you work for a company that maintains a glossary of common acronyms, and everyone agrees on what they mean. If you're not lucky, you work for a company where people pull new acronyms out of their rear ends every day.
I spent the large part of my career working for AT&T in one form or another. I started out with the local Bell company as an installer/repairman (one set of acronyms), moving onto the business system department (another set). When the maelstrom that was the Bell System breakup happened, I wound up as a central office tech for AT&T Communications (former Long Lines Dept.) and yes, another completely different set of acronyms. Later, I was assigned to one customer (Big 3 auto company) which of course had their own set.
And of course, the majority of them weren't codified anywhere, it was just part of the learning curve to figure most of them out.
Not showing for wife is something that guys do with pics downloaded on phones. That makes sense.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 25, 2023, 10:39:27 AMSarcasm against Crash_It aside I've found the lack of acronym awareness to be a major issue in what I do. In particular this week I've been attending a NAVOSH course so I've been getting bombarded with a bunch of military acronyms I've never seen before. Fortunately the training guides come with glossary pages. I've found that military acronyms aren't the easiest to search for online sometimes.
There is an art to reading verbiage that comes out of a military setting. I often just come up with half-plausible expansions in my head so I can keep pushing through instead of losing the thread to chase a definition. I think the lack of Googlability of military acronyms has a lot to do with training materials--even stuff that is not considered sensitive or classified, and is approved for unrestricted distribution, such as playing cards for identification of foreign equipment, the physical fitness manual, etc.--being hosted on sites that are closed off from the public Internet.
My personal favorite is
IAW for
in accordance with, usually followed by a citation to Army Regulations.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 25, 2023, 11:51:32 AMFWIW is something I've seen outside the forum in a couple places, maybe it was also the military world? The ones that got me when I started on the forum were BGS and AADT. I got the gist of what both meant, but for awhile I thought "BGS" stood for "Big Guide Sign."
I think
FWIW got its start either in IRC or Usenet.
AADT is a practitioner acronym, and I suspect it has been around since at least the 1950's.
BGS goes all the way back to the start of MTR, before the
MUTCD was online and when practitioner terminology was much less accessible.
Quote from: Takumi on January 25, 2023, 11:43:04 AMI've only seen TFTMS on this forum, and I forgot what it means.
"Thanks for the mental scar." To civilians (per Google), it also refers to
Tales from the Magician's Skull, a magazine for sword-and-sorcery fiction.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 25, 2023, 11:38:10 AMFirst time I ever saw FIFY was on this form, and I had to ask what it meant.
People were doing it on MTR--your killfile might have kept it away from your notice. (I've personally never engaged in such post fixes, as they are not compatible with the low-drama posting style I generally aim for.)
^^^
Every manual I have read this week has had IAW on almost every page containing some kind of instruction. So it's just not the Army, the whole military loves that particular acronym.
Here's a classic from the MTR days: DUAAFAFO
Also U-220: I-99?
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 25, 2023, 12:23:39 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on January 25, 2023, 11:01:48 AM
Corporate America also loves acronyms. If you're lucky, you work for a company that maintains a glossary of common acronyms, and everyone agrees on what they mean. If you're not lucky, you work for a company where people pull new acronyms out of their rear ends every day.
What I detest is how, in legal writing, most attorneys think it's acceptable just to "define" acronyms in parentheses and quotation marks whenever they so happen to use a term for the first time,* regardless of how buried in the middle of a brief it may be, and to expect the court and opposing counsel to both notice and remember it even if it first shows up in, say, a footnote on page 20 and then isn't used again until page 40. The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit has an excellent rule (Circuit Rule 28(a)(3)) that requires parties using acronyms or abbreviations–aside from things that are in everyday use like "IRS" or "NFL" or the like–to provide a glossary "defining each such abbreviation on a page immediately following the table of authorities." It frees the court and opposing counsel from the need to search an electronic copy of the brief to figure out what the random cryptic acronyms mean because it allows them to print off that one page (or to set that page aside when reviewing a hard copy) for reference.
I don't think I ever encountered anything like that, or wrote a brief that contained anything like that, for that matter. In fact, we were trained not to abbreviate anything in a
*Then there are people who "define" acronyms that they never use and who insist on "defining names" for parties when it's utterly unnecessary to do so–e.g., some attorneys seem to think the court and opposing counsel won't know that "Microsoft" refers to "Microsoft Corporation" unless the brief says "Microsoft Corporation ('Microsoft')" (or similar).
And if you ever doubted the stifling provincialism present in your average New Yorker, I once attended a Bluebooking training given by an attorney and New Yorker who instructed us not to use "NYC" as an abbreviation for "New York City" because she thought everyone might not know what that stood for.
Almost all of these cited above are initialisms, not acronyms. Acronyms are pronounceable, like SCUBA.
Then there's those initialisms that officially don't stand for anything anymore, like KFC.
Quote from: GaryV on January 25, 2023, 03:24:33 PM
Almost all of these cited above are initialisms, not acronyms. Acronyms are pronounceable, like SCUBA.
This is a distinction that's never been borne out in actual usage, though.
I can remember discussing this before, but I can't find where.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on January 25, 2023, 03:52:33 PM
Quote from: GaryV on January 25, 2023, 03:24:33 PM
Almost all of these cited above are initialisms, not acronyms. Acronyms are pronounceable, like SCUBA.
This is a distinction that's never been borne out in actual usage, though.
Worth noting, the glossaries I mentioned above define everything as acronyms even though are plenty of examples of initialisms also.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on January 25, 2023, 03:52:33 PMQuote from: GaryV on January 25, 2023, 03:24:33 PMAlmost all of these cited above are initialisms, not acronyms. Acronyms are pronounceable, like SCUBA.
This is a distinction that's never been borne out in actual usage, though.
I can remember discussing this before, but I can't find where.
We've definitely had this discussion before. Rather than dig it up, however, I'll note that the Wikipedia article on acronyms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acronym) cites the
OED, which explicitly includes initialisms in its definition of the term.
If nothing else (and sometimes one has to wonder), our government legislators are great at coming up with snappy acronyms for the names of proposed laws. A prominent example is that enabler of security theater, the Patriot Act. Which actually is the USA PATRIOT Act. Which is an acronym for the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on January 25, 2023, 11:59:10 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 25, 2023, 11:54:20 AM
NFSW is used for people on Twitter. Something tells me it's not directions on a compass either.
I guess that's a thing too, but much more common is NSFW.
Actually, if you think about it, Not For Suitable Work sort of almost means the same thing.
One benefit of this thread is I've learned some new acronyms that I didn't know before. :bigass:
Wikipedia back-end discussions are a horrific mess of acronyms and initialisms, driven mostly by the "WP:" pseudo-namespace that auto-resolves to "Wikipedia:". This WP: pseudo-namespace is filled with shorthands that redirect to various policy pages and discussion forums. As a result, the fundamental Wikipedia policy is WP:5P, which is made up of WP:5P1 (which covers the core policy WP:NOT), WP:5P2 (WP:V, WP:NPOV), WP:5P3 (WP:OWN), WP:5P4 (WP:AGF, WP:POINT, WP:CIV), and WP:5P5 (WP:IAR, WP:BOLD). Failing to comply may result in being brought to WP:AFD, WP:ANI, or, worst of all, WP:RFAR.
The really surprising thing is that there is probably someone besides me reading this, nodding their head and going "Yeah, that all makes sense". I'm surprised how much of that still makes sense despite the fact that I haven't been active there on a day-to-day basis in something like a decade, although any time I engage with the community I come across a deluge of new ones that hadn't been invented the last time I was there.
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 25, 2023, 07:53:20 PM
Wikipedia back-end discussions are a horrific mess of acronyms and initialisms, driven mostly by the "WP:" pseudo-namespace that auto-resolves to "Wikipedia:". This WP: pseudo-namespace is filled with shorthands that redirect to various policy pages and discussion forums. As a result, the fundamental Wikipedia policy is WP:5P, which is made up of WP:5P1 (which covers the core policy WP:NOT), WP:5P2 (WP:V, WP:NPOV), WP:5P3 (WP:OWN), WP:5P4 (WP:AGF, WP:POINT, WP:CIV), and WP:5P5 (WP:IAR, WP:BOLD). Failing to comply may result in being brought to WP:AFD, WP:ANI, or, worst of all, WP:RFAR.
The really surprising thing is that there is probably someone besides me reading this, nodding their head and going "Yeah, that all makes sense". I'm surprised how much of that still makes sense despite the fact that I haven't been active there on a day-to-day basis in something like a decade, although any time I engage with the community I come across a deluge of new ones that hadn't been invented the last time I was there.
You called? :bigass:
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 25, 2023, 12:23:39 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on January 25, 2023, 11:01:48 AM
Corporate America also loves acronyms. If you're lucky, you work for a company that maintains a glossary of common acronyms, and everyone agrees on what they mean. If you're not lucky, you work for a company where people pull new acronyms out of their rear ends every day.
What I detest is how, in legal writing, most attorneys think it's acceptable just to "define" acronyms in parentheses and quotation marks whenever they so happen to use a term for the first time,* regardless of how buried in the middle of a brief it may be, and to expect the court and opposing counsel to both notice and remember it even if it first shows up in, say, a footnote on page 20 and then isn't used again until page 40. The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit has an excellent rule (Circuit Rule 28(a)(3)) that requires parties using acronyms or abbreviations–aside from things that are in everyday use like "IRS" or "NFL" or the like–to provide a glossary "defining each such abbreviation on a page immediately following the table of authorities." It frees the court and opposing counsel from the need to search an electronic copy of the brief to figure out what the random cryptic acronyms mean because it allows them to print off that one page (or to set that page aside when reviewing a hard copy) for reference.
This is a thing in formal scientific writing as well. I wish journal articles had to come with a glossary for every acronym they used.
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 25, 2023, 07:53:20 PM
Failing to comply may result in being brought to WP:AFD
Most Wikipedia users don't have articles about themselves.
Quote from: 1 on January 25, 2023, 08:15:56 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 25, 2023, 07:53:20 PM
Failing to comply may result in being brought to WP:AFD
Most Wikipedia users don't have articles about themselves.
That's WP:UFD (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Users_for_Deletion)'s job, then.
Quote from: LilianaUwU on January 25, 2023, 07:59:36 PM
You called? :bigass:
Who do you think I had in mind? ;)
Quote from: 1 on January 25, 2023, 08:15:56 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 25, 2023, 07:53:20 PM
Failing to comply may result in being brought to WP:AFD
Most Wikipedia users don't have articles about themselves.
You can be coerced into participating at WP:AFD if you write an article while ignoring WP:NOT, WP:V, or WP:N. (I suppose in theory one could simply ignore an AFD discussion of an article they wrote, but in practice this is seldom a seriously-considered option.)
Quote from: US 89 on January 25, 2023, 08:04:22 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 25, 2023, 12:23:39 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on January 25, 2023, 11:01:48 AM
Corporate America also loves acronyms. If you're lucky, you work for a company that maintains a glossary of common acronyms, and everyone agrees on what they mean. If you're not lucky, you work for a company where people pull new acronyms out of their rear ends every day.
What I detest is how, in legal writing, most attorneys think it's acceptable just to "define" acronyms in parentheses and quotation marks whenever they so happen to use a term for the first time,* regardless of how buried in the middle of a brief it may be, and to expect the court and opposing counsel to both notice and remember it even if it first shows up in, say, a footnote on page 20 and then isn't used again until page 40. The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit has an excellent rule (Circuit Rule 28(a)(3)) that requires parties using acronyms or abbreviations–aside from things that are in everyday use like "IRS" or "NFL" or the like–to provide a glossary "defining each such abbreviation on a page immediately following the table of authorities." It frees the court and opposing counsel from the need to search an electronic copy of the brief to figure out what the random cryptic acronyms mean because it allows them to print off that one page (or to set that page aside when reviewing a hard copy) for reference.
This is a thing in formal scientific writing as well. I wish journal articles had to come with a glossary for every acronym they used.
Humanities as well, and it is probably the best evidence possible that acronyms suck.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on January 25, 2023, 08:47:13 PM
Quote from: US 89 on January 25, 2023, 08:04:22 PM
This is a thing in formal scientific writing as well. I wish journal articles had to come with a glossary for every acronym they used.
Humanities as well, and it is probably the best evidence possible that acronyms suck.
This is because academic articles have strict word lengths, and making lots of things acronyms is a straightforward way to cram more in the article.
Quote from: citrus on January 25, 2023, 09:09:02 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on January 25, 2023, 08:47:13 PM
Quote from: US 89 on January 25, 2023, 08:04:22 PM
This is a thing in formal scientific writing as well. I wish journal articles had to come with a glossary for every acronym they used.
Humanities as well, and it is probably the best evidence possible that acronyms suck.
This is because academic articles have strict word lengths, and making lots of things acronyms is a straightforward way to cram more in the article.
I wonder if anyone has ever tried making the article body one massive acronym, then put what it resolves to (which is the actual content of the article) in the footnotes.
Quote from: wanderer2575 on January 25, 2023, 05:33:34 PM
If nothing else (and sometimes one has to wonder), our government legislators are great at coming up with snappy acronyms for the names of proposed laws. A prominent example is that enabler of security theater, the Patriot Act. Which actually is the USA PATRIOT Act. Which is an acronym for the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act.
My two favorite examples of that were both failed legislation.
First, the Better Oversight of Secondary Sales and Accountability in Concert Ticketing Act. A congressman from New Jersey introduced the "BOSS Act."
Second, a proposed statute that would have expanded the definition of presidential records to include social media posting: the Communications Over Various Feeds Electronically For Engagement Act of 2017, also known as the "COVFEFE Act."
One reversal was the Single Point Urban Diamond (SPUD) to Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI).
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 25, 2023, 09:25:38 PM
Quote from: citrus on January 25, 2023, 09:09:02 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on January 25, 2023, 08:47:13 PM
Quote from: US 89 on January 25, 2023, 08:04:22 PM
This is a thing in formal scientific writing as well. I wish journal articles had to come with a glossary for every acronym they used.
Humanities as well, and it is probably the best evidence possible that acronyms suck.
This is because academic articles have strict word lengths, and making lots of things acronyms is a straightforward way to cram more in the article.
I wonder if anyone has ever tried making the article body one massive acronym, then put what it resolves to (which is the actual content of the article) in the footnotes.
Usually the word count includes the footnotes, so they're on to that at least.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 25, 2023, 01:48:50 PM
Here's a classic from the MTR days: DUAAFAFO
Also U-220: I-99?
I still haven't heard what this is supposed mean.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 26, 2023, 09:59:28 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 25, 2023, 01:48:50 PM
Here's a classic from the MTR days: DUAAFAFO
Also U-220: I-99?
I still haven't heard what this is supposed mean.
Do us all a favor and f...
Quote from: Takumi on January 26, 2023, 10:16:34 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 26, 2023, 09:59:28 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 25, 2023, 01:48:50 PM
Here's a classic from the MTR days: DUAAFAFO
Also U-220: I-99?
I still haven't heard what this is supposed mean.
Do us all a favor and f...
I see, kind of the long side just to tell someone to F-off.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 26, 2023, 07:45:57 AM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on January 25, 2023, 05:33:34 PM
If nothing else (and sometimes one has to wonder), our government legislators are great at coming up with snappy acronyms for the names of proposed laws. A prominent example is that enabler of security theater, the Patriot Act. Which actually is the USA PATRIOT Act. Which is an acronym for the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act.
My two favorite examples of that were both failed legislation.
First, the Better Oversight of Secondary Sales and Accountability in Concert Ticketing Act. A congressman from New Jersey introduced the "BOSS Act."
Second, a proposed statute that would have expanded the definition of presidential records to include social media posting: the Communications Over Various Feeds Electronically For Engagement Act of 2017, also known as the "COVFEFE Act."
Just recently, a bill was proposed that is known as the Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments Act, or PELOSI Act.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on January 26, 2023, 09:50:03 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 25, 2023, 09:25:38 PM
Quote from: citrus on January 25, 2023, 09:09:02 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on January 25, 2023, 08:47:13 PM
Quote from: US 89 on January 25, 2023, 08:04:22 PM
This is a thing in formal scientific writing as well. I wish journal articles had to come with a glossary for every acronym they used.
Humanities as well, and it is probably the best evidence possible that acronyms suck.
This is because academic articles have strict word lengths, and making lots of things acronyms is a straightforward way to cram more in the article.
I wonder if anyone has ever tried making the article body one massive acronym, then put what it resolves to (which is the actual content of the article) in the footnotes.
Usually the word count includes the footnotes, so they're on to that at least.
While judicial opinions aren't subject to word count limits, that reminds me of
Fisher v. Lowe, 333 N.W.2d 67 (Mich. App. 1983) (https://guides.law.sc.edu/LRAWFall/AnatomyofaCase). (The opinion is widely available, but I selected that particular link because it includes an image of the relevant page in the North Western Reporter, which shows that the West editors got into the spirit of the court's opinion when they wrote their summary and their headnotes. If you don't know how to read the legal citation "333 N.W.2d 67," that link also tells you what it means. The opinion itself begins in the image's right-hand column where it says "J.H. GILLIS, Judge.")
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 26, 2023, 10:19:14 AM
Quote from: Takumi on January 26, 2023, 10:16:34 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 26, 2023, 09:59:28 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 25, 2023, 01:48:50 PM
Here's a classic from the MTR days: DUAAFAFO
Also U-220: I-99?
I still haven't heard what this is supposed mean.
Do us all a favor and f...
I see, kind of the long side just to tell someone to F-off.
It was the classic opening line to a Tom From Ohio screed. He always opened his humorous blasts at other MTR posters with that phrase.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 26, 2023, 07:45:57 AM
First, the Better Oversight of Secondary Sales and Accountability in Concert Ticketing Act. A congressman from New Jersey introduced the "BOSS Act."
Shouldn't that be the "BOSS ACT Act?" :-D
I'd like to propose the "Complete Legislation that Ends and Always Restricts Viability of Introducing Expensive Waste Act".
AKA, the CLEARVIEW Act.
Reduce Improper On-sign Text act
Quote from: formulanone on January 26, 2023, 01:33:57 PMReduce Improper On-sign Text act
1 Geo. 1 St. 2 c. 5. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riot_Act)
Quote from: formulanone on January 26, 2023, 01:33:57 PM
Reduce Improper On-sign Text act
Who gets to read it, and to whom?
Hopefully someone who works in the financial world will explain it better: What do FDIC (of which banks like Wells Fargo belong to) and SIPC (for a firm like Edward Jones) stand for?
FDIC is the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which basically insures your money that you deposit in a bank in the event that the bank goes under.
And Wikipedia has the 411 on SIPC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securities_Investor_Protection_Corporation).
Quote from: US 89 on January 26, 2023, 08:08:05 PM
FDIC is the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which basically insures your money that you deposit in a bank in the event that the bank goes under.
The equivalent for credit unions is the NCUA, the National Credit Union Administration, although come credit unions may have other arrangements for deposit insurance.
Quote from: abefroman329 on January 26, 2023, 10:24:54 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 26, 2023, 07:45:57 AM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on January 25, 2023, 05:33:34 PM
If nothing else (and sometimes one has to wonder), our government legislators are great at coming up with snappy acronyms for the names of proposed laws. A prominent example is that enabler of security theater, the Patriot Act. Which actually is the USA PATRIOT Act. Which is an acronym for the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act.
My two favorite examples of that were both failed legislation.
First, the Better Oversight of Secondary Sales and Accountability in Concert Ticketing Act. A congressman from New Jersey introduced the "BOSS Act."
Second, a proposed statute that would have expanded the definition of presidential records to include social media posting: the Communications Over Various Feeds Electronically For Engagement Act of 2017, also known as the "COVFEFE Act."
Just recently, a bill was proposed that is known as the Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments Act, or PELOSI Act.
On the other side, there is (I swear I am not making any of these up):
- Tax Returns Uniformly Made Public (TRUMP) Act
- Standardizing Testing and Accountability Before Large Elections Giving Electors Necessary Information for Unobstructed Selection (STABLE GENIUS) Act
- Stop Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker (SANTOS) Act
A few others I came across:
- Curbing Realistic Exploitative Electronic Pedophilic Robots (CREEPER) Act
- Electronic Messaging and Individual Location (EMAIL) Privacy Act
- Bridge and Road Investment and Dedicated Fund Guaranteed Enforcement (BRIDGE) Reform Act
- Concerns Over Nations Funding University Campus Institutions in the United States (CONFUCIUS) Act
And the most ironic of all (I think this was a deliberate jab at all the ridiculousness):
- Accountability and Congressional Responsibility on Naming Your Motions (ACRONYM) Act
The interesting thing about this thread is that it's pretty hard to actively think of any acronyms I don't know the meaning of currently. If I encounter a new one and care to know what it means, I'll just look it up right then.
That said, when unfamiliar ones come up in the future, I'll try to remember to share them here.
Quote from: bulldog1979 on January 26, 2023, 10:38:58 PM
Quote from: US 89 on January 26, 2023, 08:08:05 PM
FDIC is the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which basically insures your money that you deposit in a bank in the event that the bank goes under.
The equivalent for credit unions is the NCUA, the National Credit Union Administration, although come credit unions may have other arrangements for deposit insurance.
There's also SLIC, Savings and Loan Insurance Corp.