In The X-Files, and many other things as well, the writers have an irksome tendency to have the characters just define things to each other in front of the reader/viewer, who might not know what they’re talking about. It makes me think of The X-Files because in college we had a professor who was really into Darin Morgan, and we studied some of the episodes he’d written in class, as well as a couple he hadn’t.
Naturally this led to watching all the rest of The X-Files during downtime, since we had the DVD’s from the library anyway.
The show made a habit of this. The example I like to use is roughly this.
SCULLY: Do you think this could be an example of telekinesis, Mulder?
MULDER: Telekinesis? You mean the ability to manipulate objects with nothing but the power of one’s mind?
SCULLY: Yes, Mulder.
MULDER: No, Scully, I don’t think this is an example of telekinesis.
I forget if it was actually telekinesis or not in that episode. Anyway, that’s the general formula.
Recently enough somebody reminded me of this scene from Superman, which features a particularly egregious example.
LEX LUTHOR: The San Andreas fault, maybe you’ve heard of it?
SUPERMAN: Yes… it’s the joining together of two land masses. The fault line is unstable and shifting, which is why you get earthquakes in California from time to time.
LEX LUTHOR: Wonderful. Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Not only do the authors know that they’re doing it, they’re trying to act cagey by making sure you know they know they’re doing it (“couldn’t have said it better myself!”). Now, there’s nothing wrong with this, necessarily. Tropes are tools, after all. But this particular execution just sucks.
(Going by the TVTropes nomenclature, when done well, this is more appropriately lampshade hanging, and when done especially poorly it’s an as you know, Bob…. My examples above are of the ‘reading the dictionary to the viewer’ variety, which makes me think of The X-Files.)
Anyway, I ran into a sort of reverse X-Files today at work. We’re setting up a new data pipeline using Google Cloud Pub/Sub, which uses a bleedingly obscure word in the documentation, and whoever wrote this is savvy enough to know that you probably don’t know the word, and actually goes out of his way to make sure you know he knows you don’t know the word by linking to the wikipedia article without comment.
For the most part Pub/Sub delivers each message once, and in the order in which it was published. However, once-only and in-order delivery are not guaranteed: it may happen that a message is delivered more than once, and out of order. Therefore, your subscriber should be idempotent when processing messages, and, if necessary, able to handle messages received out of order…
As if he couldn’t be bothered to do any explanation for the handful of idiots who don’t know what ‘idempotent’ means off the top of their heads. Bravo, sir or madame.