
Glyphs are the hidden heroes of the typography world - Amorymeltzer
http://www.wired.com/2015/10/the-secret-history-of-the-hashtag-slash-and-interrobang/
======
mwfunk
In typography, a glyph is a visual representation of any character- the Wired
article makes it sound like the term specifically refers to punctuation, but
I've never heard the word used like that. I actively avoid being pedantic
about stuff like this but my OCD is having a hard time with this one.

------
itp
It made me wince slightly when the article listed one of the names of # as
hashtag, rather than hash. A hashtag begins with a hash, but the two aren't
the same. (Although this looks to be a distinction that will be lost with
time.)

I try to avoid calling # pound for fear of confusion with £. Although I have a
soft spot for octothorpe just for the sheer ridiculousness of it, I tend to
call it hash (not least because of the elegance of calling #! shebang
notation).

~~~
kbenson
You know, it never occurred to me the "she" part of shebang could be a
corruption of hash, I just initially thought it was something to do with
"shell" that someone had come up with (we have no lack of nonsensical names),
and it stuck in my mind that way.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
I don't think it's a corruption of "hash". I think it's a corruption of
"shriek". (The New Hacker's Dictionary lists shriek as an alias for
exclamation point at
[http://www.outpost9.com/reference/jargon/jargon_34.html](http://www.outpost9.com/reference/jargon/jargon_34.html)).
"Bang" is actually the part that refers to the hash symbol.

~~~
mwfunk
I wouldn't put much stock in the Jargon File- once ESR appropriated it, it
slowly mutated into a platform for ESR's personal views if not a straight up
wish-fulfillment fantasy for him.

The most egregious examples were how the political leanings of what the book
describes as "hackers" would get updated to reflect ESR's own views, and not
in a subtle way either. At some point in the '90s he just gave up and started
trying to invent an elite peer group for himself, in which he was (his
terminology) an "elder of the tribe". If there's anything that bugs me more
than tribalism, it's people actively trying to amplify it or (even worse)
create it.

Not that that has any bearing on the veracity of his shebang etymology. I've
just seen enough over the years that I literally don't trust a single thing
with ESR's fingerprints on it.

~~~
philh
"Shriek" has been in the jargon file since pre-ESR. See [http://jargon-
file.org/archive/jargon-1.5.0.dos.txt](http://jargon-
file.org/archive/jargon-1.5.0.dos.txt) (Also, AnimalMuppet wasn't attributing
that shebang etymology to ESR or the jargon file, just the word "shriek".)

> the political leanings of what the book describes as "hackers" would get
> updated to reflect ESR's own views, and not in a subtle way either.

ESR identifies as a libertarian. I don't think the jargon file has ever said
that hackers are typically libertarian; what it currently says, and as far as
I can tell has always said since the politics entry was added, is that there's
a strong libertarian contingent. I see that we've argued this before:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6997211](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6997211)

(It also seems relevant that there was no politics entry before ESR.)

~~~
philh
Against my better judgment, I went through the archives to check for changes
to the politics entry. As far as I can tell, this is the complete list of
entries:

First entry, 1991-01-03: [http://jargon-
file.org/archive/jargon-2.3.1.dos.txt](http://jargon-
file.org/archive/jargon-2.3.1.dos.txt)

> Vaguely left of center, except for the strong libertarian contingent which
> rejects conventional left-right politics entirely. The only safe
> generalization is that almost all hackers are anti-authoritarian, thus both
> conventional conservatism and "hard" leftism are rare. Hackers are far more
> likely than most non-hackers to either a) be aggressively apolitical, or b)
> entertain peculiar or idiosyncratic political ideas and actually try to live
> by them day-to-day.

1991-08-16: [http://jargon-
file.org/archive/jargon-2.9.6.dos.txt](http://jargon-
file.org/archive/jargon-2.9.6.dos.txt)

> Vaguely left of center, except for the strong libertarian contingent which
> rejects conventional left-right politics entirely. The only safe
> generalization is that hackers tend to be rather anti-authoritarian; thus,
> both conventional conservatism and `hard' leftism are rare. Hackers are far
> more likely than most non-hackers to either (a) be aggressively apolitical
> or (b) entertain peculiar or idiosyncratic political ideas and actually try
> to live by them day-to-day.

(almost all -> tend to be)

1996-01-20: [http://jargon-
file.org/archive/jargon-3.3.0.dos.txt](http://jargon-
file.org/archive/jargon-3.3.0.dos.txt)

> Vaguely liberal-moderate, except for the strong libertarian contingent which
> rejects conventional left-right politics entirely. The only safe
> generalization is that hackers tend to be rather anti-authoritarian; thus,
> both conventional conservatism and `hard' leftism are rare. Hackers are far
> more likely than most non-hackers to either (a) be aggressively apolitical
> or (b) entertain peculiar or idiosyncratic political ideas and actually try
> to live by them day-to-day.

(left of center -> liberal-moderate)

2003-05-10: [http://jargon-
file.org/archive/jargon-4.4.0.dos.txt](http://jargon-
file.org/archive/jargon-4.4.0.dos.txt)

> Formerly vaguely liberal-moderate, more recently moderate-to-neoconservative
> (hackers too were affected by the collapse of socialism). There is a strong
> libertarian contingent which rejects conventional left-right politics
> entirely. The only safe generalization is that hackers tend to be rather
> anti-authoritarian; thus, both paleoconservatism and `hard' leftism are
> rare. Hackers are far more likely than most non-hackers to either (a) be
> aggressively apolitical or (b) entertain peculiar or idiosyncratic political
> ideas and actually try to live by them day-to-day.

(liberal-moderate -> moderate-to-neoconservative)

In twelve years, he changed "vaguely left of center" to "liberal-moderate" to
"recently moderate-to-neoconservative", none of which are positions that ESR
identifies with. If this is the most egregious example of the problem you're
describing, color me unconvinced.

~~~
kbenson
While not having an opinion on this, I think it would be entirely believable
that if there was a shift in political views, it possible it may be more
strongly expressed in examples and wordings of tangentially related topics
rather than the specific description of political affiliation. For example,
whether the change was intentional or not, the author noticing and self
censuring their views in that entry (for whatever purpose) would be more
likely than in others.

In other words, that may be the least likely entry to see a specific change
that follows the author's point of view because of it's very nature.

~~~
philh
I somewhat agree, but

* There aren't many politically-related definitions (fisking and anti-idiotarianism are two), and the ones there are don't necessarily describe _the political leanings of what the book describes as "hackers"_.

* mwfunk said the process was not subtle. What you describe seems pretty subtle.

* It's a meme I've heard several times, that ESR did this by updating the politics entry. See for example mwfunk's comment in the linked thread.

So, I decline to give mwfunk the benefit of the doubt here. If it wasn't a
subtle process, it should be easy to point at the problematic changes.

When it comes to ESR, my advice is not to believe a word you hear about him
unless you can verify it.

~~~
kbenson
> If it wasn't a subtle process, it should be easy to point at the problematic
> changes.

Fair enough.

> When it comes to ESR, my advice is not to believe a word you hear about him
> unless you can verify it.

Probably sane advice for any polarizing public figure.

