Comment on Scientists suck at naming and abbreviating stuff
IonAddis@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I write sff for fun, and I hate running into neat science named something stupid.
You have to keep a balance between reality and the fantastic in scifi, and if I have to use a real but stupid name it doesn’t really give me truth points to spend, and it still uses up my “fantasy” budget even if it’s technically true , because I have to do extra work to make whatever I’m writing attractive to read and believable. Just because something is true doesn’t make it believable. And I’d rather use my fantastic budget on something actually fanciful, not fritter it away on true but poorly named things.
Basically, scientists lose out on a tiny bit of free marketing when they name their thing something stupid.
I wish astronomers in particular would name a star with earth like planets something neat. I would like to use Trappist as a setting…but that name. Bleh.
phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
I am a sci fi reader but maybe my scientist side showing but I like the Trappist name. The fact that real scientific names are sometimes “stupid” or weird I think makes out easier.
I mean like Southern blots had a name behind them, Edward Southern. Northern and Western blots were just named as a sort of joke about it. Naming doesn’t have to be serious and rarely is by those within the community. So many congressional bills have long obtuse names because someone chose an word or phrase for it and then made the title acronyms spell it.