• fibojoly@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    21 hours ago

    What I hate even more, is that the morons who can’t read more than two syllables decided to shorten “application” to “app”, but now I only ever hear people reading that as “ay pee pee”! What was the fucking point?

    • piranhaconda@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      39
      ·
      edit-2
      15 hours ago

      I’ve literally never heard anyone call it A.P.P. (and I mean that literally literally, not figuratively literally)

      Is this a specific cultural thing? A generational thing? Geography based slang? Why would anyone do this.

    • houseofleft@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      13 hours ago

      This, 100% It’s like how people started saying “PC” because personal computer was too long for them, but now I exclusively hear people taking up to a minute on each letter! (peeeeeeee-seeeeeeee)

    • adminofoz@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      17 hours ago

      I mean, I’m pretty sure this is extremely widespread in China, so I’d say it’s more cultural than anything else. In fact, since there are so many Chinese, that probably means more people call it A.P.P. than app. But I honestly have no clue, and it doesn’t matter to me either way. Words change. It’s nothing to get bent out of shape about.

    • Capsicones@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      21 hours ago

      Chinese phonology doesn’t allow for the pronunciation of “app”, for example. I see a lot of Chinese people spelling it as “APP”, and pronouncing it accordingly. It’s kinda funny to me, since the Mandarin word “yingyong” is only two syllables. “APP” just seems more cumbersome by all account, yet it has become inexplicably popular.

  • frezik@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    154
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 day ago

    I also hate the way “algorithm” has taken over the public consciousness. You can find people unironically saying “I don’t want any algorithm in my social media feed”, which is a nonsensical statement.

    • Fabian@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      43
      ·
      edit-2
      24 hours ago

      I think it’s the same concept as when people say that they don’t want any chemicals in their food. You know what they mean, but in a technical sense the statement is nonsensical.

    • kamen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      62
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      People are onto something though - there’s been a noticeable shift from social media just showing you your feed in a chronological manner to it showing you personally tailored content that shuffles on each refresh and aims to hook you into endless doomscrolling. I understand perfectly well what’s an algorithm, but good luck explaining to people that it’s not that specific thing.

      • andioop@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        1 day ago

        Some people actively desire this kind of algorithm because they find it easier to find content they like this way. I’m not sure if they are immune to doomscrolling and actually have gotten it to work in a way that serves them and doesn’t involve doomscrolling, or if they are doomscrolling and okay with it. But for me, I really wish I could go back to the chronological feed era.

        • GamingChairModel@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          27
          ·
          1 day ago

          Some people actively desire this kind of algorithm because they find it easier to find content they like this way.

          Raw chronological order tends to overweight the frequent posters. If you follow someone who posts 10 times a day, and 99 people who post once a week, your feed will be dominated by 1% of the users representing 40% of the posts you see.

          One simple algorithm that is almost always better for user experiences is to retrieve the most recent X posts from each of the followed accounts and then sort that by chronological order. Once you’re doing that, though, you’re probably thinking about ways to optimize the experience in other ways. What should the value of X be? Do you want to hide posts the user has already seen, unless there’s been a lot of comment/followup activity? Do you want to prioritize posts in which the user was specifically tagged in a comment? Or the post itself? If so, how much?

          It’s a non-trivial problem that would require thoughtful design, even for a zero advertising, zero profit motive service.

          • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            24 hours ago

            Letting the user decide? If the user decided that they liked fly fishing 8 stars and mother-in-law 0 stars, then the algorithm would show mother-in-law once a week at best and fly fishing 8x out of 10 posts.

            • GamingChairModel@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 hours ago

              Yeah, you’re describing an algorithm that incorporates data about the user’s previous likes. I’m saying that any decent user experience will include prioritization and weight of different posts, on a user by user basis, so the provider has no choice but to put together a ranking/recommendation algorithm that does more than simply sorts all available elements in chronological order.

            • LeninOnAPrayer@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              17 hours ago

              If we had one public social media platform that would be the best way. It would force people to filter and learn how to interact with technology. But in our world people are lazy and a platform that picks the best value of X automatically for the most people will win. Even if it’s not actually how people want to see things.

          • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 day ago

            Losing content of one poster and getting double content of others isn’t a solution though.

        • ulterno@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          It tends to be hit or miss.

          When I started using Odysee instead of YouTube, my page was full of “women vs men”, woke culture and onlyfans-esque videos.
          I realised, subscribing to a creator actually made a big difference in this case, to get them on you page, because it’s not a feed (controlled by an algo), but a simple, categorised list, with the “Following” on top.

          In contrast to that, the YouTube’s algorithm tended to create relations between videos (using who knows how many criteria) and showed them along with videos from the subscribed and more-often-viewed channels. It used to show some pretty useful results and it would be a crime for me to downplay its usefulness.

          Sadly, by the time I left YouTube, it had started putting the doomscroll content on my page, which is probably another reason for why I stopped using it.

          I would call it: Another great mechanism, ruined by capitalism.

      • piccolo@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 day ago

        Other day me and my mom was talking about how TV has all shifted to be nothing but reality TV… and then she said even youtube is becoming the same way… im like uh… thats because thats because you are watching it thus it is giving you more…

    • warbond@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      So what should we call the thing that we don’t want in our social media feeds that controls what we see?

    • Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      19 hours ago

      Depends how broad your definition of algorithm is. Is sort by upvotes an algorithm? I say no but sort by hot is.

      So it is possible by this definition to have a feed without any algorithm.

  • someacnt@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    edit-2
    21 hours ago

    The script is compiled to a program which is then executed by the OS.

    ->

    The app is appified to an app which is then apped by the app.

    Damnit.

    • Zagorath@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      47
      ·
      1 day ago

      This is ridiculous. There’s no way a client calls a dolly a “pan”.

      That’s obviously zooming.

    • ulterno@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      Interesting.

      The word ‘pan’, came to me from using 3D CAD software and I considered the Jib and Truck actions as ‘pan’ and the original Pan would be camera rotation, which might be ‘turn’ (didn’t use it as much so don’t remember) which was less favourable than using ‘orbit’.
      Good to know the word origin.

      Oh and btw, Dolly would not be zoom, but ‘walk’.

  • bier@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    1 day ago

    In the Netherlands basically everyone uses whatsapp. In the beginning people would say send me a whatsapp or something like that. But pretty quickly people started to shorten it to just app. So people will say stuff like I just got an app (instead of message), it drives me nuts. Like my family chat group is called “app group”.

  • Initiateofthevoid@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    1 day ago

    On the flipside, “Bot” is the backend for almost everything that I’ve dealt with recently.

    “We need the data moved from X to Y, can someone make a bot for that?”

    Internal suffering

    “… Yes. We can setup an API between X and Y.”

    “Great! We also want a bot to generate daily reports from Y”

    Suffering intensifies

    “… Ok.”

    I don’t even try to fight it anymore.

    • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      14 hours ago

      I had a (non-technical) manager come to me one day and say he wanted us to start using this hot new technology he had just read about called an API. This was in 2010. He showed me the article, which somehow never even attempted to explain what an API actually was. I just laughed and said I would make it an action item.

    • dufkm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      In similar cases I’ve passive-aggressively intentionally misunderstood and/or acted confused. E.g. “Yes, we can set ut up an API between X and Y, but what exactly do you want the bot to do?” Then let them elaborate until it’s clear they’re not asking for a bot.

  • Sculptus Poe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    ·
    1 day ago

    I fought hard against that for years. I still only use ‘app’ for phone programs, but I stopped correcting people every time they used the term for anything else. It isn’t technically wrong, but it grates on my nerves for some reason.

    • GamingChairModel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      Windows is the first thing I can think of that used the word “application” in that way, I think even back before Windows could be considered an OS (and had a dependency on MS-DOS). Back then, the Windows API referred to the Application Programming Interface.

      Here’s a Windows 3.1 programming guide from 1992 that freely refers to programs as applications:

      Common dialog boxes make it easier for you to develop applications for the Microsoft Windows operating system. A common dialog box is a dialog box that an application displays by calling a single function rather than by creating a dialog box procedure and a resource file containing a dialog box template.

      • 0x0@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        to develop applications for the Microsoft Windows operating system.

        Could they have meat “uses for the MS…”?

      • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        A lot of times, the literal definition varies from what people think of when they hear a thing. We call a lot of similar things words that don’t fully make sense but since other people will know what it means, it’s useful. When everything is an app, piles of specifics are glossed over. That probably doesn’t matter when talking to a non-developer, but sometimes it might. Those of us in software like the specificity because it tells us many things we might otherwise have to ask several questions to learn about. So yeah, sometimes it matters, other times it won’t.

  • notarobot@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    The other day I realized they did that because its APPle. I have no evidence but I’m sticking with it

  • JimVanDeventer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 hours ago

    The word app has been around forever, first appearing in the 1970s (according to some dictionaries I just googled). Pendulum swung towards “programs” and we have since swung back to the correct term.