Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> Taco Bell won the franchise war and is the only restaurant remaining.

When I saw that movie when I was small, I thought that was literally Taco Bell, McDonald's, and Burger King, et al fighting with tanks, etc. Taco Bell emerged victorious after a bloody struggle.



For those that need more context

From the movie Demolition Man https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlcDHlK_RoY


Could be.

In SnowCrash, I think there were some subplots talking about the fighting was somewhat real between franchises.

And you could become a citizen of a franchise state.


I could see being a citizen of CosaNostra Pizza.


I’d make a pretty good deliverator.


This is the first time I have considered that it wasn’t them blowing up each other’s franchises.


I will believe ehat i want to believe


This is where headcanon [1] can be a lot of fun. Just accept that they really did fight a war. It's not like it doesn't particularly fit the milieu...

[1]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/words-were-watching...


I'm pretty sure my idea was literally a mash-up of Phantom 2040 "resource wars" with Demolition man "franchise wars."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_2040

> It is the year 2040, all environmental disasters and the economic Resource Wars from the early 21st century have decimated the fragile ecosystem balance of an Earth once teeming with life.

The first part of this episode is near identical to my mental picture of the "franchise wars:"

https://youtu.be/Kg8bPDGmhnU?si=MhzsBy83h8yTi6Ux&t=59

I'm surprised how easy it was for me to figure this out and find confirmation.


[flagged]


Imagination is an umbrella term that includes headcanon, but headcanon has a much more narrow and communicative meaning to do specifically with interpreting missing or ambiguous details in established fictional universes by fans or other people who aren't part of the creative team for that universe. Using the word that best fits the idea you're trying to communicate is good, actually. Also, while English does have real words what makes a word real is nothing more than whether when one English speaker uses is can they reasonably expect other English speakers to understand it. Given that everyone who read this thread had no problem understanding the word "headcanon" (including you, despite your protestations, as you were able to define a synonym) that means it's a Real English Word(tm)(c)(r).


Nonsense.

English is a beautiful language and adding junk words to it is unnecessary.

Keep your headcannon and use your imagination.


No, what I'm saying is not only sensible, it's the agreed-upon view by people who actually study how language works. Did you think the idiomatic English you speak is unchanged from the very first language that ever referred to itself as English or are you falling prey to the idea that the things you're familiar and comfortable with are 'correct' and everything that came before you or will come after you is somehow 'incorrect'?


'headcanon' is jargon within general fandom. The term refers to the application of imagination against the established canon of a body of fiction, to expand upon that body of work.

Example:

- Superman being from Krypton is canon.

- Superman not truly being the son of Jor-El, because his mom slept around, might be one fan's headcanon.


Imagination is not an English word. It’s a borrow word from Old French, because there was no existing English word for that meaning.

Your move.


It's from Old French all right, but probably not because there was no existing word. Old English Translator[1] suggests geþanc (a bit similar to the modern German Gedanke) or the verb wénan, both of which can be confirmed by Bosworth & Toller's Anglo-Saxon Dictionary[2].

The Normans introduced French as the prestige language of England when they invaded, but Anglo-Saxons would have wanted to express the concept of imagination way earlier. If they had wanted to, they could have borrowed the word from Classical Latin imāginor without the 'help' of the Normans.

[1]: https://www.oldenglishtranslator.co.uk/index.htm

[2]: https://bosworthtoller.com/


Imagination is an English word, because it obviously is. Common man's definition. The sky is blue, I don't need to prove it or define blue.

My bacon came from a pig. It doesn't mean the bacon is a pig. It's breakfast. An English breakfast. And the French are pigs. See?


Devil’s advocate: all words are made up and languages evolve over time


Devils advocate devils advocate: don't waste your time arguing nonsense.


Unlike (say) French, English has no central authority determining correct or incorrect usage.

Anything literally goes.


Including, unfortunately, this usage of "literally."


You're literally being a like, linguistic pervert rn


I read this in a Moon Unit Zappa voice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valley_Girl_(song)


What other use of literally is there?


Were you not aware what hapoened to the word several years ago?


Malort implied butlersean’s use of literally is incorrect, which it doesn’t appear to be.

I am aware that groaning about incorrect usage of literally is a meme but that seems to also require being wrong about the usage being incorrect.


People can use whatever words they please. Never mistake yourself to be the arbiter of language, which is ever evolving.


We all got a$$holes and opinions and most of them stink.

You give me your stinky opinion saying mine stinks.

Well, you're wrong of course.

A claim to "evolution" meaning "change" is simply an excuse for anything. Evolution is about selection and I'm the big bad wolf eating your baby children: you go extinct. That's evolution, not some cheesy anything goes resignation.


"Other people can do what they want" is not an opinion, it's a fact of life. You can deal with it, or you can get so upset that you try to physically stop them. Is that something you want to do over the use of language?

Evolution is not about "selection", you're referring to a biological concept known as natural selection. I'm sorry to tell you, the evolution of a system simply means the development of the system over time. Feel free to check a dictionary. You should look up "homonym" while you're at it.

For someone so bent on controlling the English language, you should put more time into understanding it.


People cant do what they want. What planet are you on?

Laws, social norms, peer pressure, karma moderators are ALL telling you what to do.

The only reason "evolution" is thrown around is bc of natural selection. To use evolution as a term is to imply it.

And natural selection applies to cultures, behavior (see reinforcement learning, selection of responses by consequences) etc.

There is no freedom anywhere.


> People cant do what they want. What planet are you on?

A planet where I can try to do anything I want, only stopped if what I am doing is being prevented by someone physically stopping me, such as an officer or concerned citizen. As per my post.

> The only reason "evolution" is thrown around is bc of natural selection. To use evolution as a term is to imply it.

https://ncse.ngo/defining-evolution

> Initially, the Latin word evolutio meant the unrolling of a scroll

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolution

> 2a: a process of change in a certain direction (unfolding)

Your claims are easily falsifiable. The modern use of "evolution" in biology evolved after the word was already in use to mean change. You have no authority to police the use of the word.


Your actions are controlled by their consequences, not cops.

You go to work, like everyone else. You are civil to people - because you choose - and keep your job.

Your freedom is a false illusion and can be boiled down to statistics, your zip code, age, IQ, etc.

Even your advocacy of uncaused agency is, itself, fully caused, reinforced, shaped and controlled.

And I never said evolution is exclusively a reference to natural selection- it's cache is due to the prestige of such ideas. Your sloppy usage and weak defense of such use doesn't prove anything.

I can police English if I am as free as you say I am. That's "my choice".


All of that is so wildly off base and off-topic from the argument at hand: People can do what they want unless you or someone else physically stops them.

> I can police English if I am as free as you say I am.

You can try. How is that working out for you? Your original comment attempting to police language was flagged and died, looks to me like you were politely shown the door.


People gaming the comment system concerns me not at all.

Flag away.

The comment police are stopping me from "doing what I want"?

Gosh.


It's not being gamed, the community just doesn't care for what you have to say when it's policing other people. "You can't tell me not to tell people no because then you'd be telling me no" is not a good take. You need to step back and learn from this.


Never mistake yourself to be the arbiter of language

Isn't that exactly what you just did?


"you're not the boss of me" does not mean "i am the boss"!


If I am not the boss of you, and you aren't the boss, then someone else is the boss of you.

Did I miss something?


yeah - the need for a boss in the first place. there simply isn't one.


Bosses exist because they will themselves into it. Bosses aren't invented by rational necessity.

Bosses make themselves boss.

There's no need for anarchism either.


If zem and I were in a room by ourselves, I don't think either of us would try to be "boss". Only once someone who supports such power structures, such as yourself, enters the picture, do we have to start protecting ourselves against such people. Have you read Lord of the Flies?


You may be right. You and Zem can live on an island in your anarchist utopia.

Back to reality there are more bosses everywhere your philosophical position won't wish out of existence.

You have a job, don't you?


I'm self-employed, and the existence of a top-down hierarchical power structure is not evidence that one is necessary. We're also now several straw mans away from the original argument.


I assert that necessity is self created.

The Romans made themselves your boss. There was no "rational" necessity.

Bosses come into existence by will, not logic.

The world is irrational. Strawman are legitimate forms of persuasive argument, logic is for Spock.


There is nothing legitimate or persuasive about the flawed argument you're presenting.


nope


The only thing worse than being a pedantic asshole is being a wrong pedantic asshole.


There are two kinds of people in the world, and you're one of them.


I am okay with this timeline. At least it has better conversation topics than most of our current timeline.


I would much rather live in Sir Humphrey Appleby's dystopia than whatever this is.


Talk to trust and safety teams, should never run out of topics that make you question reality.


That's the thing, the fake reality makes more sense than even the real unreal things.

Life imitates art, but it sucks at it.


Taco Bell and Johnny Silverhand won after nuking ~~Arasaka~~ KFC Tower.


It's been along time since I read it, but IIRC Jennifer Government has that. Fast food chains lobbing missiles at each other.


Because it was




Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: