Project ideas from Hacker News discussions.

The architecture of “not bad”: Decoding the Chinese source code of the void

📝 Discussion Summary (Click to expand)

The three most prevalent themes in the discussion revolve around the use of negation for affirmation (litotes), the perceived difference between American English (AmE) and other English dialects, and broader linguistic observations regarding cultural expression and empathy.

Prevalent Themes and Supporting Quotes

  1. The prevalence of litotes (assertion by negation) varies significantly across English dialects, particularly between American English and others. Many users found statements in the source article—which suggested English speakers only use direct affirmation—to be inaccurate for their local dialects (British, Australian, New Zealander, etc.). Conversely, many American speakers confirmed the article's premise regarding AmE.

    • "This is like when Australians tell me they invented drinking coffee." ("tomlockwood") - Though semi-seriously referencing cultural claims, this sets the stage for dialectal claims.
    • "I think it's especially American English that doesn't use litotes as much as British English or the other Western European languages." ("seszett")
    • "Certainly nobody says brilliant as an affirmation here [in the US]." ("theresistor")
    • "As a Brit, I'm not quite sure this article is right in it's declaration it's a universal "English" thing and not more "American English"." ("kimixa")
  2. The ambiguity of negated phrases ("not bad," "not wrong") in English vs. their precise meaning in other languages (like Chinese) impacts cultural understanding and empathy. Users discussed how the lack of clearer linguistic tools for expressing degrees of negativity or satisfaction (e.g., the concept of "unwant") hinders precise communication, especially across cultural lines.

    • "The main difference may be in the range of meanings. In a scale of 0 to 10 where "bad" is 0, one side will take "not bad" as a 4~5 while the other side meant it as 7~8." ("makeitdouble")
    • "I've not been able to communicate what I mean... how language shapes how we think and therefore our realities." ("mathewsanders")
    • "We don't say "unwant," and we don't clearly differentiate between a lack of want and a repulsion or unwant or negative want." ("FloorEgg")
  3. Cultural context, especially the concept of "Face," often dictates the preference for indirect or negated language over direct affirmation. Several users argued that the use of litotes isn't about inherent linguistic capability but about cultural norms that favor indirectness, humility, or avoiding offense ("Face").

    • "...the breadth of that word itself is adapted to the context... It isn't the words, it's the interpersonal culture, face, and both communicating and showing you know where you fit in." ("scooke")
    • "Because for many Americans, leaving ambiguity implies lack of confidence in the statement or evasiveness." ("Glyptodon")
    • "Germans (and I'd say, Germanic/Nordic-origin cultures as a whole) don't like wasting time coddling around and sucking up for no reason at all. We're an efficient people, after all." ("mschuster91")

🚀 Project Ideas

Cross-Dialect Polarity Mapper (X-DPM) — Quantifying Linguistic Nuance

A tool that analyzes phrases employing litotes (e.g., "not bad," "not wrong") and translates their likely intended sentiment score based on specified dialectal context (e.g., American English vs. British English vs. Australian English).

🔍 What it does

  • Dialect Calibration Interface: Allows users to select input/output dialect profiles (e.g., Midwestern US, Scots, Kiwi, General Brit).
  • Sentiment Scoring: Rates common negated phrases on a standardized 0-10 scale, where 0 is extremely negative and 10 is extremely positive.
  • Contextual Interpretation: Provides alternative, more direct affirmations or negations that match the calibrated score for the target dialect.
  • Custom Lexicon Builder: Allows users to input known regional/cultural idiom mappings (e.g., "Yeah nah" = No).

Why HN commenters would love it

  • Addresses Dialectal Divide: Directly tackles the core confusion highlighted by multiple users: "Two countries divided by a common language" and the differing interpretation of "not bad" (user makeitdouble noted one side takes "not bad" as 4~5 while the other meant 7~8).
  • Practical Utility for Global Teams: Invaluable for distributed tech teams where subtle communication errors (like the Korean War anecdote cited by crote) can still occur in modern business contexts.
  • Fascinating Linguistic Exploration: Appeals to the technical curiosity around parsing ambiguous language, similar to how they enjoy thinking about modal logic or semiotic squares mentioned late in the thread.

Example output

Input: Phrase: "Not bad", Source Dialect: British English (BrE), Target Dialect: American English (AmE, Midwest)

Output: - BrE Assumed Score: 7.5/10 ("Pretty good/Actually good") - AmE Calibrated Interpretation: Translates to an AmE score of 6.0/10. - Recommended Direct Translation for AmE Context: "It's good," or "I'm satisfied with it."


The "Unwant/Diswant" Lexical Synthesizer — Empathy Gap Filler

A lightweight micro-service or editor plugin designed to solve the felt communication failure around ambiguous negation, specifically focusing on differentiating between "lack of want (0)" and "negative want (-N)".

🔎 What it does

  • Ambiguity Detector: Scans text for phrases like "I don't want X" or "I don't need X."
  • Forced Clarification Prompt: If ambiguity is detected, it prompts the writer to select the intended meaning using a semantic scale (e.g., "Is the feeling about X: A) Absence of Value (0 Want) or B) Active Repulsion (-5 Want)?").
  • Lexical Suggestion Engine: Suggests concise, less ambiguous alternatives based on the selection, such as "I am indifferent to X" (for absence) or suggesting neologisms like "I diswant X" or "I reject X" (for negative want).
  • Empathy Metric Overlay: For product managers/UX designers, it flags areas where stated user preference might mislead development efforts due to negation ambiguity.

Why HN commenters would love it

  • Directly Solves the "Unwant" Problem: Addresses user FloorEgg's core frustration about wasting time due to the inability to clearly encode negative preference versus simple indifference, which they argue inhibits empathy.
  • Focus on Precision in Tech/Product: Engineers appreciate tools that force precision and eliminate fuzzy inputs, especially in requirements gathering or bug reports.
  • Debate Material: The introduction of necessary neologisms (like "diswant") will generate excellent discussion about language evolution and necessity, a staple of HN meta-threads.

Example output

Input Text Snippet (from a user response): "I don't want X, but I also don't need Y."

Tool Suggestion Box:

Ambiguity Flag: "I don't want X" detected. 1. Absence of Want (0): Suggest rephrase: "I am indifferent to X." 2. Negative Want (-N): Suggest rephrase: "I actively diswant X," or "I find X objectionable."


Cultural Assertion Comparator (CAC) — Politeness vs. Directness Visualizer

A web service that visualizes the typical rhetorical style (direct assertion vs. negation/understatement) for common affirmations across different cultural/linguistic profiles, inspired by the cultural friction points discussed.

🔍 What it does

  • Style Profile Comparison: Visually maps the common methods of conveying positive affirmation between profiles like "Direct American (e.g., Linus Torvalds style)" vs. "Indirect British/Kiwi" vs. "Negation-Positive Chinese."
  • Assertion Transformation: Allows users to input a direct claim ("The product is great") and instantly see how it translates into the vernacular of other profiles (e.g., "It's not bad," or "It's not un-awful").
  • Cultural Context Explainer: Provides context notes about why a certain style is preferred (e.g., "Face," avoiding appearing "gushing" or "snake oily" as noted by Glyptodon).
  • Negativity Spectrum Tool: Offers a view on how to express disagreement, contrasting bluntness ("You are wrong") with cultural cushion phrases ("That's different," "I see your point, but...").

Why HN commenters would love it

  • Explores Cultural Collision: Directly engages with the themes raised by users like mschuster91 (efficiency vs. coddling) and popalchemist/idiotsecant (ontological roots of language).
  • Appeals to the Engineering Mindset: It structures inherently subjective cultural behavior into quantifiable, visualizable data points, treating politeness like a communicative protocol tradeoff.
  • Useful for International Communication: For the large portion of the userbase working across borders, this offers immediate, actionable context on communication style expectations.

Example output

User Input: "I strongly agree with that statement."

CAC Output Visualization:

Profile Typical Expression Mapping Core Pragmatic Goal
American Direct "I agree 100%." / "You nailed it." Positivity/Assertion ownership.
British/NZ "I wouldn't disagree with that." / "Not entirely wrong." Understatement/Avoiding over-commitment.
Chinese (High Context) 没错 (Not wrong) / 还不错 (Also not bad) Deference/Saving face for the speaker/listener.