
Fox News attempts to explain what Github is - libovness
http://twitter.com/Huth/status/378306063520374784/photo/1
======
mapleoin
I don't understand why some people here are defending Fox News. Their
explanations are terrible and incorrect. Here's another attempt to explain
those same terms in laymen terms:

repos __i __tory: a collection of files relating to one software project
usually containing software code and documentation

to fork: to create an exact copy of someone else's repository with the
intention of editing the files in that repository

pull request: asking for the changes in a forked repository to be incorporated
back into the original repository

Granted, these wouldn't fit the screen which makes me think of someone
actually explaining it to them in proper terms and then the journalist cutting
everything out to makeit fit.

~~~
citricsquid
Line #1: 80 chars, Line #2: 35 chars, Line #3: 78 chars. I'd go for something
like:

* Repository: Folder containing files of source code for programs, anyone can edit

* Forked: A copy of another repository

* Pull Request: Ask for included changes to be added to original file

Folders, files, programs and source code are concepts almost any computer user
would understand, although it is not entirely accurate, the constraints aren't
good. Took liberties with "anyone can edit", maybe "people can edit" would be
more accurate.

------
STRML
Referencing the video here:
[http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/2667694577001/writing-new-
dic...](http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/2667694577001/writing-new-dictionary)

I think the part that gets people most fired up about this is the complete
lack of attention to detail and the "wow this is complicated stuff for smart
people we're never going to understand this so let's not even try" attitude. I
immediately did a mental flashback to some of the educational videos I loved
growing up: documentaries by the Discovery Channel, PBS, and the like, where
learning was actually encouraged, not mocked.

The interviewer's style of rapid-firing the questions and not really paying
attention to his answers is grating as well. She spoke like she had researched
the subject for about 10 seconds, maximum.

I'm surprised nobody in the office started laughing after her opening line.

In the twitter photo, the really shameful part is not the fact that they got
the definitions wrong, although that's pretty bad. It's the spelling errors
and the THREE different ways of writing a word and definition:

* word: definition

* "word"\--definition

* "word"\-- definition (also, "e-note"?)

It's just lazy. Incredibly lazy. It's done with an attitude that shows that
nobody there cares much for their work.

~~~
RobAley
> I immediately did a mental flashback to some of the educational videos I
> loved growing up: documentaries by the Discovery Channel, PBS, and the like,
> where learning was actually encouraged, not mocked.

Those great, factual documentaries that make learning interesting still exist.
The mistake you're making is confusion most news channels for anything other
than opinion based claptrap.

~~~
STRML
News used to do that, and sometimes still does. As special segments, they
would show curious documentaries that explore interesting corners of the world
and culture. But they feel like a dying breed.

------
aegiso
Spelling errors? Check.

Bad grammar? Check.

Inconsistent formatting? Check.

Technical inaccuracies? Check.

Making up terminology (e-note)? Yep.

I've never once watched Fox News, but I've heard stories about their quality
of reporting. Now I understand.

~~~
pstack
I don't really see what this has to do with Fox News. Lack of research,
investigation, verification, education, accuracy, grammar, formatting,
spelling, and truth are all endemic to all reporting/anchoring/journalism,
these days.

~~~
skyraider
It's also not Fox News - it's Fox Business, which has a partially separate
staff.

Don't you know? If a Fox-related outlet does something funny, it's special
because we don't agree with their political leanings. cd groupthink && ./mock
&& ./ridicule.

------
terabytest
Here is the full video: [http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/2667694577001/writing-
new-dic...](http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/2667694577001/writing-new-
dictionary)

Warning: cringeworthy

------
victorhooi
I know it's popular here to bash on non-technology people.

And yes, apparently Fox News is terrible (I wouldn't know, I'm Australian).

But seriously, there are people outside our circle, for whom computers are not
their every waking moment.

Heck, I know people for whom using a featurephone is the most advanced
"computer" they touch (and to them it's a phone, not a feature-phone).

So look, I think we should cut them some slack - the reposotory typo was just
embarassing and unforgiveable, and whoever let that go to air should be
reprimanded - but the rest of it's, while not great writing, isn't terrible.

However, instead of lambasting it, people be constructive and positive share
how they might explain it to a non-technical person?

I'll start:

* Repository - the source code that we turn into a program

* Forked - where we clone a "repository", and then make amendments to the copy

* Pull Request - where we try to merge our amended "repository" and the original "repository" to produce a better program

~~~
pstack
If you are a technology/business reporter reporting on technology from within
the silicon valley, you are obligated to be knowledgeable about those things
which you report on and the same is expected of a medical correspondent or
political correspondent on an editorial staff, for their areas of coverage.

~~~
briandear
On that note would a business reporter about bioengineering firms's stock
movements be obligated to know about the specific terminology of
bioengineering? Fox got it wrong to be sure however reporting on financials
doesn't make it necessary to be an expert in the technical aspects. There are
plenty of software engineers building business software that don't know the
first thing about calls and puts, options and derivatives trading strategies
despite the fact that they build software that drives those systems.

I won't cut Fox any slack, however lets ask ourselves -- did MSNBC or CNN ever
cover this story at all? The gist of the Fox story was to talk about the value
of the company, not the details of what a 'fork' is. Besides, how many VCs
have we been in front of that don't have any clue about the tech in which they
are prepared to invest millions of dollars?

Even worse is how many engineers at startups have no clue about the business
aspects of investing, valuations, dilution, option pools and such. Many
engineers who think of themselves as 'startup people' have no idea what
convertible notes are nor even how to read a deal memo. And forget about
talking about valuations -- nobody know about that, yet many people claim
they're valued at $1 million or whatever without any clue about where those
numbers come from. I'm generalizing of course, but the exceptions really prove
the rule.

There's something in the Bible I think about casting the first stone.. It
might apply here. Pointing out the inaccuracy is certainly relevant, but using
that as a rationalization of pre-conceived notions about Fox isn't really
fair. I remember when I was in the Army in 2003 and CNN reporters embedded
with our unit had no idea about the chemical weapons about which they were
supposedly reporting. How many times have I heard "machine gun" used when
describing an M4 rifle.. Another example is when news outlets say 'CIA Agent'
when they actually mean CIA Officer. An agent is a foreign asset, no actual
CIA employee is ever an 'agent.' Yet the media gets it wrong almost
constantly. Snowden, for example wasn't an 'NSA employee' as was reported by
many outlets, but a Booz Hamilton employee. The reporting on Syria has been
questionable as well -- not just from a bias standpoint, but from a pure
ignorance of the political forces within Syria that are driving their civil
war. So excuse me if I hardly give a shit about Fox getting the definition of
"fork" wrong. I'm pretty sure a large number of us would get the definition
wrong of the financial terms "Special Purpose Vehicle" or "Trust Preferred
Security" if we suddenly switched places with a Fox Business reporter.

So sure Fox got some irrelevant details wrong, but every news outlet does that
every day. Those details didn't affect the intent of the story or the material
facts, so who cares? We could start an entire board on simply media misteps
and it would be filled with content on a daily basis.

------
petercooper
If how I feel about this as a programmer is any indicator, I dread to imagine
how worldly wise, politically experienced folks feel when reading political
discussions on sites like Reddit or HN :-) (No, I'm neither of those things!)

~~~
Amadou
Practically all news reporting does a terrible job of covering complex fields.
Ask a doctor what they think of a medical story, or scientist about a story on
their field of study. It is always the same - terrible.

A lot of that is because the reporters, not being experts themselves, just
don't have the contextual knowledge to grasp the implications of what they
come across in their investigation. Unimportant details get played up,
subtleties are completely lost, and things with similar names get conflated.

~~~
Shish2k
> Ask a doctor what they think of a medical story, or scientist about a story
> on their field of study. It is always the same - terrible

And yet, they still trust the news to be accurate with regards to everything
else :(

------
gjmulhol
Woah. This is terrible on a variety of levels, not least of which is that they
spelled repository incorrectly.

------
martin-adams
For the full video[1], one minute they say it has 400 million users, then the
sub caption says 3.4 million users.

1\. [http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/2667694577001/writing-new-
dic...](http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/2667694577001/writing-new-dictionary)

------
heeton
Rep... Reciprosity.

 _Oh my god..._

------
Major_Grooves
Seems like a fairly reasonable way to explain it to lay-people, that don't
really care for details that much. They know their audience!

~~~
pstack
I ejected after the redhead spewed her first sentence. Painful.

Here's what people need to realize: Think of all the times you notice
journalists failing with regard to topics you are an expert in. Or more than
failing - outright lying or misleading. Now, multiply that by all the things
other people are experts in and the things they catch journalists doing that
you aren't expert enough in those other things to know about.

We make a big deal about intentionally corrupt journalism, but outright
laziness is just as big of a problem.

~~~
stormcrowsx
eh the average person isn't going to be affected by not knowing exactly what a
fork or pull request is. They managed to get the gist out, github lets devs
work together on a project.

As long as they can get the basics of it correct I really don't care if they
screw up the technical details. Now not being able to pronounce or spell
repository is bad, its an English word that was around long before code.

------
mmahemoff
It's a good challenge for someone to come up with a better explainer aimed at
the same audience.

~~~
gjmulhol
Why does that audience need to know what fork and pull are? It isn't really
useful information to them. Knowing that Github is a place to store versions
of code might be useful because the name is batted around a lot, but the
average non-technical human doesn't really need to know what forking is.

Here is my try:

Repository: a library of computer codes

Forked: when you copy one of the books in the library, make changes to it, and
put it back in the library

Pull Request: asking the owner of the book in the library to combine your
forked, edited book, back into their main copy

~~~
phaemon
I'm not a big fan of analogies when they're not necessary. I'd go with
something simpler like:

* Repository: An online folder containing computer code

* Forked: When a repository is copied, so you can edit it

* Pull request: A request for the edits you've made to your copy, be "pulled" into the original

~~~
aestra
I don't know why one would define "forked" rather than "fork."

* Fork: A copy of a repository. It is copied it can be edited independently.

~~~
phaemon
I don't know why they would define any of them - it's nothing to do with the
story at all, but I thought I should stick with the ones they chose.

Well, actually, I can guess why: "repository" sounds a bit like "suppository",
and "forked" and "pull request" sound vaguely sexual. It's the kind of thing
that would appeal to some people as being a bit risqué. _sigh_

------
jc00ke
Multiple times she said Github raised money from Kleiner Perkins, right? They
raised the money from Andreesen Horowitz. I'm not crazy, right? Right?

------
sAuronas
Reposotory: rep'n positive, so you know my story(code)...

They used "hooked on phonics".

I can see how they forked that (up).

------
gjmulhol
The internet, my friends, is a series of tubes. We must not forget this.

------
nefasti
I'm not an computer engineer anymore, I'm a code writer!

------
aceperry
What the fork?

------
nefasti
Where where they? Jive's office?

------
_sabe_
Media probably explain economics just as terrible but as a non economist I
would not know..

~~~
MehdiEG
This is very much what I feel every single time I read a tech-related article
in mainstream press. The cluelessness of most mainstream "tech journalists" is
spectacular. I see no reason why reporting on other matters would be any
better, which is quite scary.

------
aceperry
"It's a commie plot!!! Just like Obamacare."

:-)

