Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

You would like the article on how they made it

http://acko.net/blog/zero-to-sixty-in-one-second/

All of their MathBox-powered articles are wonderfull really.



nitpick: He not they. [0] Steven is also the person who developed MathBox. [1]

[0] http://acko.net/about/

[1] http://acko.net/blog/making-mathbox/


Thanks for adding more information, but that's a perfectly cromulent use of the word they.


Actually I think the correctness of using a singular they is disputed but I am not a grammaticist, however the word cromulent which you used is not even a real word but I didn't mention the correction to do all that nitpicking, I just thought since the person's information is accessible, it'd be nice to refer to him correctly that's all.


> the word cromulent ... is not even a real word

Only to a prescriptivist[1] trying to keep the language static. "Cromulent" is slowly making its way into descriptivist[1] dictionaries and is recognized about as often as any other new word, so it just as much a "real" word as other new words ("email", "google" (transitive verb), "truthiness").

> the correctness of using a singular they

The alternative is gendered pronouns which have several problems[2].

/* I'm not trying to nitpick your post; I just thought these two Tom Scott clips were fun and relevant to these grammar issues. */

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qT8ZYewYEY

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46ehrFk-gLk


That was kinda my point, I was not nitpicking -relative OP's- grammatical usage, I just thought it was convenient to refer to the author in a more specific manner since his details were obvious. I had no idea whether their -relative OP- :) intention was to use "their" in a singular or plural manner. Heck, one of my favorite Stephen Fry videos [0] talks exactly about this!

Also, the videos you referenced are great :)

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7E-aoXLZGY


"Correctness" of word choice is determined by usage. I prefer a consensus where "they" is accepted as being possibly singular, so when I have no reason not to, I choose to treat it as being a correct usage.

I also tend to use it sometimes despite knowing the gender of the person I am referring to. This seems reasonable to me, because I don't see any reason why it is important to always specify the person's gender, when I don't need to specify who the person is, and doing so allows me to refer to someone without specifying a gender, should any situation occur where that would be useful, without anyone commenting on my word choice, because I would already be in the habit of sometimes leaving it out.


It is also happens to be consistent with the way most academics refer to work, right? A single author will use "we" and others will use "they" to refer their work.


It's become a real word by virtue of its use.


If singular they was good enough for Shakespeare, it ought to be good enough for us.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2026 batch! Applications are open till July 27.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: