News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:"To our surprise" by kergonath on Friday May 07, 2021 @02:56PM (#27079530)
> (Who is "we"? The author? The author and other readers who are smarter than me? It cannot possibly be "the author and I" because I don't "see that" at all.)

I would tend to prefer “we can see” (or “we can deduce”, or something to that effect) rather than “we see”. In the first case, it’s a statement that it is possible for you to see it too, if you think about it for a while. As you say, the latter is a statement of fact that is often wrong and can come across as condescending.

Re:"To our surprise" by bonoboTP on Saturday May 08, 2021 @02:54PM (#27089760)
Not everyone in science is a native speaker of English. In many languages it makes no sense to say "can see", seeing implies the ability. Similarly with "can hear". In fact, as a Hungarian native speaker it was very weird to me when my English teacher insisted I insert "can"s before hear and see in my writing.

What do you mean you "can hear" the loud music coming from the neighbor's flat? Do you in fact hear it or do you just have the ability to hear it and can also switch it off or something? It's a quirk of English that I just had to memorize.

Re:"To our surprise" by vanviegen on Friday May 14, 2021 @02:29AM (#27151361)
You can see it, if you look at it (the right way).

You can hear it, if you're otherwise silent and focus on the sound.