Yeah - I not a huge fan of non-obvious acronyms in writings that are intended for a general audience. I know it's hard to predict what's obvious and what isn't but this one almost certainly isn't.
I would argue that it's not laziness on my part - it makes things jarring to read. And HN becomes less pleasant the more people that do it.
> I not a huge fan of non-obvious acronyms in writings that are intended for a general audience
Yeah, I'm also not a fan of the use of non-obvious acronyms for common phrases, but I think this case is different in that it's more of a concept. It even has a Wikipedia article[1]. Even if they provided the expansion of the acronym in their comment, one might feel that they should also explain a little about the concept before referring to it, since the general audience cannot be expected to know about it. However, that would distract from the point the comment is meant to make.
Since the comment is not about what BATNA is, it's better to focus writing on the point it's trying to get across, even if it ends up limiting the intended audience. Those that are not familiar with it are better served by looking it up, anyways.
If you're reading this thread, and you haven't read enough about negotiations to know what BATNA stands for, and you're forced by darksaints' comment to go look it up, then IMO darksaints has done you a favour.
I googled it: "Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement"
Is this widely known enough to be used without an explanation? I'd never come across it before.
reply