Actually I wrote something similar yesterday as a reply to the (since flagged) comment below. Glad to see that more people have this association. But apparently the founders of Hugging Face didn't have it, or else they probably would have chosen some other "friendly" emoji for their startup (which initially developed a chatbot for teenagers - that makes the choice of name feel even creepier if you ask me).
It's the machine learning platform that started with "developing a chatbot app targeted at teenagers" (according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugging_Face), which helps explain the weird name (which still makes me think more of one of the development stages of the xenomorphs from Alien than of the emoji, but that's probably just me).
I am familiar, yet used this comment to confirm my initial assumption.
Abbreviations carry unnecessary cost on the side of the readers. There is always the chance that there is another shorthand for something else that is important and so there is a need to double check interpretations.
So thanks for the comment and no, a 101 wouldn't even help with this problem.
Lol! Does it matter? Using an unclear acronym in the first reference to an object, besides adding energy waste (for the execution of unnecessary searches by users unfamiliar with the subject), may only give the author of the comment the thrill of "being well informed, an insider".
>Abbreviations carry unnecessary cost on the side of the readers.
They do, but the parent's question wasn't about the abbrebation (for which I'd cut them some slack) but extended to:
"Is that supposed to help? WTF is a HuggingFace?".
>So thanks for the comment and no, a 101 wouldn't even help with this problem.
Wasn't addressed to you though (don't even see any other comment of you in this subthread), but to @markdown, whose issue wasn't with the abbreviation alone.
