Talk:3003: Sandwich Helix

Sandwich presumably refers to compliment sandwich, but I don’t know what the helix is. --Galaktos (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Maybe Models of communication#Dance? --Galaktos (talk) 14:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The word "Helix" may be a reference to the previous comic. CategoryGeneral (talk) 14:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

That title text makes me reasonably upset. What nitwit decided "smart quotes" AND incompatible default encodings was a good idea? 172.70.174.203 16:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems that something like this could happen over time naturally if it's a saying that "everyone knows" so that real meaning stops being said, and then eventually that bit of information disappears. For instance KISS "Keep it simple, stupid" has a negative connotation, but the idea is very sound. So people keep saying the abbreviation but stop saying the full version, and new people hearing it the first time might get the basic idea without knowing why. Eventually even the meaning could be lost, and it could just become something that people say without knowing why. Maybe the assume the ancient designers and engineers liked to make out when they saw complex things. Andyd273 (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Frums - Options 162.158.91.14 04:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

KISS Keep it simple, stupid was originally keep it stupid simple. An emphasis, not an insult. --PRR (talk) 05:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Grammar

Minor grammatical point; please feel free to skip this. I just tweaked "a communication technique [...] which meaning has not been lost." to "a communication technique [...] whose meaning has not been lost.". "Of which the meaning" or "whose meaning" both work, but the latter is less contrived. People keep forgetting that "whose" can refer to objects, as well as to people. <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/whose#Determiner>

The first rule of communication is "Always talk about communication." RegularSizedGuy (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Helix

I don't think the "helix" refers to software development. It could be about the helical model of communication, which conveys communication as a non-linear process.

This is perhaps a joke with these simplistic "rules" of communication (like the compliment sandwich), which portray communication as something much simpler.

If we assume that communication is complex and non-linear (as the helical model of communication portrays), we might conclude that there is no such thing as "#1 rule of communication"; something that could be observed by the misuse of the "compliment sandwich". 172.70.47.87 (talk) 15:38+, 25 October 2024 (please sign your comments with ~~~~) (Assuming all the above is the same IP editor, tweaking their comment.)

Ah, thank you. I added the Spiral (for development) because I couldn't find the Helix one (for communication), and I thought this was the best linkable item out there. Now I know it's Helical, I've found it and I can put a link on your addendum and perhaps remove my original 'placeholder'. That's collaborative communication! ;) 172.70.91.77 15:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC) (PS, please sign Talk contributions, and wikilinks are a good idea if you can add them. ;p )

I took the opposite point from that in the explanation so far, especially with the title text: Even if the encoding is wrongly specified, it's possible to figure out what was meant by some sequence of bytes. I imagine the teacher using a different nonce every time to make the point about the #1 rule of communication: Words don't have inherent meaning, it is acquired through use. (Though if I'm the only one with this interpretation it kind of sinks my idea I guess). Hcs (talk) 10:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)