Comment on check it before you wreck it

• Septimaeus@infosec.pub ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I think they’re referring to the implicit exclusion, since it amounts to an “inside joke” which lends to cliquish social dynamics. Gatekeeping proper usually connotes more intentional and targeted action, but I think that’s what they mean. Personally I try to be more selective than I once was, when using references in groups, for that very reason.

  source

  • Schmoo@slrpnk.net ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Shaka, when the walls fell…

    Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra!

    source

    • Septimaeus@infosec.pub ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      OMG the perfect reference!

      For those interested, there’s an episode of Star Trek the plot of which revolves around an extreme example of this style of high context communication.

      source
    • TheBrideWoreCrimson@sopuli.xyz ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Image

      source
    • PlainSimpleGarak@lemmings.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Zinda. His face black, his eyes red.

      source
• Duamerthrax@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Not everyone watches or even can watch the same media. It assumes a lot of commonality between the writer and the reader. Is some Indian researcher going to know about some joke from The Office?

  source

  • angrystego@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Getting the joke is not necessary for understanding the article and even the title has the explanatory other half, right? The joke is just a bonus, not gatekeeping.

    source

    • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      If you dont understand the refrence you probably wont be able to tell if it’s necessary for understanding though. Sure youll underatand the second line on its own but that doesn’t necessarily mean the part you dont understand isn’t important. For all the out of the loop reader knows, that’s info is pertinent to the title too, how could they even evaluate if it is or isn’t if they don’t understand it. Less than half of English speakers had English as a first language, its still built up on needless pretense for the sake of what?

      source

      • angrystego@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        It’s just a bit of fun. Scientific papers are mostly read by people who are familiar with the way titles like this work. Also there’s no need to understand the whole title perfectly, titles are not that important. It’s more like an id number. You read the abstract to see whether you’re interested in the article.

        source