The 'you' this article--and other articles like this--mentions, doesn't definitely include you, nor me, nor people like us.
Recently, Jensen Huang reportedly said he doesn't know where he lives (the address) with a straight face. This 'you' situation here is kind of like the Jensen situation: neither party understands what it's like to be the other party.
This is actually useful. I didn’t know that generic “you” meant “one”. I always interpreted it as “you the reader” and felt desperate once a week when reading articles like these.
As a native English speaker, I interpret it as “you the reader”. Or maybe I should say, I don’t intuit any material difference between “you the reader” and “any given reader” or “one”. I think your original comment is a good critique of the headline.
Doesn't have to be the reader, in general "you" would not know who it refers to specifically because it really mean anyone sharing the same experience. (see what I tried to do here?)
One would probably have encountered those constructions while reading though ;).
Never heard 'One' in colloquial English.
It is an abstraction: "you" immediately, but not just you specifically, hence any abstract "objected" person (even the first person taken reflectively as a mental instance).
>This is actually useful. I didn’t know that generic “you” meant “one”. I always interpreted it as “you the reader” and felt desperate once a week when reading articles like these.
It does mean "you, the reader" or "you, any random reader from my intended audience" (e.g. fellow PhDs) in articles like these.
Using it to mean "one" is a different use, in more formal talk.
Interesting. Are you a native English speaker? You in the general case is used quite a lot and I wouldn't be able to handle every single article or reference using that to mean to refer to me specifically.
But it does? It's generic, meaning you the reader are fully interchangeable with other possible subjects. At least that's the connotation it carries for me, and for what it's worth I'm a native speaker. If the reader (ie the target audience from the author's perspective) isn't interchangeable then I'd expect some other article to be used (ex they, the relevant professional, an interested party, etc).
I'm not exactly disagreeing with that statement though. I'm claiming that it additionally carries the implication of the reader being a member of that set while alternative turns of phrase don't.
Where it gets tricky is that the reader might not be part of the audience intended by the writer.
Am not. Recently I started reading more classic literature and realized just how much my comprehension is lacking, even after working in English exclusively for years.
My guess is comment meant that in the context of the headline "you" normally would refer to the average Joe on the street; in this case, it means the average Joe who has a PhD in math, CS, or whatever. It all certainly went over my head and probably 95% (or slightly less than that given this is HN) of the people who clicked the link. But I would take the headline as a compliment that I don't deserve.
You can use math AND spend a few lines explaining the non-trivial syntax. It wouldn't be hard to do in this case and since the article is clearly meant for a large audience, it's a mistake from the author to gloss over various relevant definitions.
The 'you' this article--and other articles like this--mentions, doesn't definitely include you, nor me, nor people like us.
Recently, Jensen Huang reportedly said he doesn't know where he lives (the address) with a straight face. This 'you' situation here is kind of like the Jensen situation: neither party understands what it's like to be the other party.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you
This is actually useful. I didn’t know that generic “you” meant “one”. I always interpreted it as “you the reader” and felt desperate once a week when reading articles like these.
As a native English speaker, I interpret it as “you the reader”. Or maybe I should say, I don’t intuit any material difference between “you the reader” and “any given reader” or “one”. I think your original comment is a good critique of the headline.
Doesn't have to be the reader, in general "you" would not know who it refers to specifically because it really mean anyone sharing the same experience. (see what I tried to do here?) One would probably have encountered those constructions while reading though ;). Never heard 'One' in colloquial English.
One could think that 'one' is a bit more like a general 'I' than a general 'you'
It is an abstraction: "you" immediately, but not just you specifically, hence any abstract "objected" person (even the first person taken reflectively as a mental instance).
>This is actually useful. I didn’t know that generic “you” meant “one”. I always interpreted it as “you the reader” and felt desperate once a week when reading articles like these.
It does mean "you, the reader" or "you, any random reader from my intended audience" (e.g. fellow PhDs) in articles like these.
Using it to mean "one" is a different use, in more formal talk.
Interesting. Are you a native English speaker? You in the general case is used quite a lot and I wouldn't be able to handle every single article or reference using that to mean to refer to me specifically.
But it does? It's generic, meaning you the reader are fully interchangeable with other possible subjects. At least that's the connotation it carries for me, and for what it's worth I'm a native speaker. If the reader (ie the target audience from the author's perspective) isn't interchangeable then I'd expect some other article to be used (ex they, the relevant professional, an interested party, etc).
I'm not sure it ever meant you the reader specifically, always have seen it meant to be generic or some hypothetical "one".
I'm not exactly disagreeing with that statement though. I'm claiming that it additionally carries the implication of the reader being a member of that set while alternative turns of phrase don't.
Where it gets tricky is that the reader might not be part of the audience intended by the writer.
Am not. Recently I started reading more classic literature and realized just how much my comprehension is lacking, even after working in English exclusively for years.
I love seeing helpful people create this moment :)
https://xkcd.com/1053/
That said, the audience for this is still pretty niche.
(Even the audience for, say, 3b1b's explanation of what a transformer is, is niche.)
[dead]
My guess is comment meant that in the context of the headline "you" normally would refer to the average Joe on the street; in this case, it means the average Joe who has a PhD in math, CS, or whatever. It all certainly went over my head and probably 95% (or slightly less than that given this is HN) of the people who clicked the link. But I would take the headline as a compliment that I don't deserve.
I read it as “it’s possible for (some)one”, not as “it’s possible for (every)one”.
They're asking what prerequisites would be needed to understand the article.
They seemed to be criticizing the use of “you” without qualification.
"You could have invented..."
Oh you know there is gonna be maths in this one. (clicks link)
"Here are the terms we will use throughout: a 'memory store' is a function f..."
Yes. Ha ha! Yes!
Were you hoping they would explain what is essentially a rather sophisticated math structure without using any... math?
You can use math AND spend a few lines explaining the non-trivial syntax. It wouldn't be hard to do in this case and since the article is clearly meant for a large audience, it's a mistake from the author to gloss over various relevant definitions.
why?
Because I'm an idiot.
Yeah I was lost by the second tweet