When I write, I typically DO spell these things out.

> We accepted a pull request ("PR") for our continuous integration ("CI") server. As a result, CI will now automatically trigger a canary release instead of the old blue-green deployment process, except on AWS where canary releases are not supported.

Note that there's no real interruption to the flow of the writing, as I only spell it out the first time it is mentioned. Nor do I stop to explain what "pull-request" means -- the full name (unlike the acronym) is enough to perform a search on the topic and read about it if needed. And I don't do this universally: everyone I know uses "AWS" instead of "Amazon Web Services" and even pronounces it that way in conversation, so I don't bother explaining that one.

You also don’t bother explaining what canary releases are. Which is weird. Who is your intended audience with that example? Is this some imaginary audience who knows and cares about canary releases and blue-green deployment but somehow missed out on PRs and CI?

You can at least easily Google "canary release" I suppose, in a way that's going to give a clear answer vs googling "PR" or "CI" (which will likely tell you PR means public relations and CI is the symbol for a "curie"/unit of radiation).

but it would be impossible to google FOMO...

Not sure what your point is, I'm defending not spelling out things that are easy to google. FOMO and "canary release" both are, while CI/PR, not so much. In principle if you were writing something for an audience that may or may not have heard of continuous integration or pull requests, at least spelling them out makes it easier for them to look up their meanings. I don't actually think it's a big deal either way, though it's surprising how often people use abbreviations and just (incorrectly) assume others know what they mean. If you're writing on any sort of interactive platform, being around to explain them if asked is probably sufficient though.

> everyone I know uses "AWS" instead of "Amazon Web Services" and even pronounces it that way in conversation, so I don't bother explaining that one

Maybe that’s how this author’s bubble feels about FOMO.

I for one don’t think I’ve ever heard the full version of “FOMO” in conversation. Similarly to how everyone I know says “pee-arr” and may not even remember it’s short for something.

I just wanted you to know: You are completely correct and everybody arguing with you is wrong.

>Constantly explaining acronyms

Writing out an acronym one time in your paper/article/blog is not "constantly".

>Sometimes you're not the intended audience

Often times I run into this issue when I am the intended audience, but may not be familiar with the trendiest acronym to describe something. Or I'm familiar with 2-3 uses of the same acronym and am not sure which one is applicable.

>Writing out an acronym one time in your paper/article/blog is not "constantly".

Exactly, and neither is it explaining.

I don't get what the big deal is, "fear of missing out (FOMO)" is just four words extra, once, and you don't need to write an essay on the etymology of the term or something. It just ensures we're all on the same page and when it's not clear to someone they can google it. Do people not know how many overlapping abbreviations there are? It's almost like the acronyms are shortening the words somehow to a smaller representation that is not necessarily unique.

> Writing out an acronym one time in your paper/article/blog is not "constantly".

I think you mean "your paper/article/weblog (blog)"

You really got me there!

But clipping isn't the same as acronyms, mainly because a clipped word is (generally) easily searchable whereas acronyms are shared across several domains and will sometimes overlap inside a single domain, which is the source of the frustration for me.