Re:Who Lusts for Certainty Lusts for Lies
by fenomas on Tuesday September 26, 2023 @10:48AM
(#37660228)
Sorry, HN previously had TFA's actual title - "Who Lusts for Certainty Lusts for Lies".
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Who Lusts for Certainty Lusts for Lies
by etrevino on Tuesday September 26, 2023 @11:17AM
(#37660609)
lol, that's pretty good, I agree with you.
Re:Who Lusts for Certainty Lusts for Lies
by djsavvy on Tuesday September 26, 2023 @05:55PM
(#37666303)
Looks like it's been changed back! What was the "bland" title in the middle?
Re:Who Lusts for Certainty Lusts for Lies
by Intralexical on Tuesday September 26, 2023 @06:26PM
(#37666614)
"Google Ngram Viewer n-grams are wrong".
Re:Who Lusts for Certainty Lusts for Lies
by brookst on Wednesday September 27, 2023 @09:30AM
(#37674395)
Ouch. Glad they reverted.
Dec 7, 1941: “200,000 tons of steel relocated to sea floor”
Re:Who Lusts for Certainty Lusts for Lies
by scubbo on Tuesday September 26, 2023 @06:04PM
(#37666393)
I, uhhhh.....I would like to know what TFA is meant to stand for, because I assume it is not "the ſucking article", but that was my first thought. Maybe "featured"? Google is only giving me "Teach For America" or "Trade Facilitation Agreement".
Re:Who Lusts for Certainty Lusts for Lies
by idrios on Tuesday September 26, 2023 @06:19PM
(#37666532)
This is the kind of question that doesnt need to be answered with certainty. "The fucking article" is definitely the most fun interpretation of "TFA".
Re:Who Lusts for Certainty Lusts for Lies
by iudqnolq on Tuesday September 26, 2023 @06:15PM
(#37666495)
it is the fucking article. or "featured" if you're feeling classy.
Re:Who Lusts for Certainty Lusts for Lies
by mjochim on Tuesday September 26, 2023 @06:50PM
(#37666907)
I like to read it as The Fine Article.
Re:Who Lusts for Certainty Lusts for Lies
by klyrs on Tuesday September 26, 2023 @06:53PM
(#37666939)
Does "fornicating" sound more polite to you?
Re:Who Lusts for Certainty Lusts for Lies
by scubbo on Wednesday September 27, 2023 @12:21AM
(#37670080)
It does - but note that I made no mention of disapproving of impoliteness!
Re:Who Lusts for Certainty Lusts for Lies
by terr-dav on Tuesday September 26, 2023 @07:41PM
(#37667467)
If TFA is derived from RTFA (itself I assume derived from RTFM), then "the fucking article" seems the most correct, official, and proper.
Re:Who Lusts for Certainty Lusts for Lies
by xp84 on Tuesday September 26, 2023 @08:18PM
(#37667877)
I feel that the presence of this term here means that HN is the successor to the venerable Slashdot. Kind of comforting that there’s a straight line from the site that I spent so much time on 20 years ago, to this one.
Re:Who Lusts for Certainty Lusts for Lies
by dredmorbius on Wednesday September 27, 2023 @01:53AM
(#37670704)
"The (Fine|Fucking) Article".
As others have noted, derived from RTFA (read TFA), which comes from RTFM (read the fine manual).
I don't know if RTFA/TFA originated at Slashdot, but both were certainly heavily used there, as noted in ... this fine Wikipedia article:
Re:Who Lusts for Certainty Lusts for Lies
by teachrdan on Wednesday September 27, 2023 @11:47AM
(#37676433)
Do we ever find out who came up with this line originally? I'd like to be able to quote it (with attribution) in the future.
It sounds like an old timey quote, but a cursory Google search turns up nothing. I can't even see who wrote the article!