In Unix and many Unixlike operating systems, “terminating” a process and “killing” a process are two different things. When you terminate a process, you give it a chance to close down and perform any necessary cleanup such as releasing file handles and saving state data. When you kill a process, it is immediately stopped without mercy, leaving any unsaved data unsaved.
In law, “larceny” is a specific common-law crime that has been discussed and analyzed hundreds of ways in the past several hundred years. It encompasses many, but not all, of the things that we commonly refer to as “stealing” or “theft”. It would be wrong for a lawyer (in most jurisdictions, at least) to use his leet legal-talking skillz to speak about committing “larceny” of Cable TV unless he is speaking about physically taking and walking off with physical cables, converters, or routers. Similarly, violating copyright, taking someone’s idea, committing cultural appropriation, or committing other acts are often considered “stealing” in a moral sense but are not larceny and would not normally fall under larceny-related statues or case law.
This is a wonderful thread! I think everyone who has been involved in this one, especially the self-identified descriptivists, must absolutely read it!
Priceless! And when they’ve opened their apertures, they can stick their language abuses right up them!
Drill down and surface a solution.
Exactly my point in the other thread I noted – when people use words in ways that are incorrect, it impedes communication, plain and simple. The fact that in some distant future so many people may (or may not) be repeating the same mistake that it becomes entrenched usage doesn’t change that fact.
Although I don’t really think that “velocity” is wrong in “escape velocity”. Escape velocity is a vector whose direction is away from the planet. If you’re moving at “escape speed” towards the ground you’re not going to go anywhere. You’re going to end up “drilling down”!
They were in the loop going forward nicely, but then the loop got caught in all the stakes the stakeholders were carrying and it got all tangled up, and now they have to go backward to try to surface a deknotting solution, and they’d better do it quick because the drillers are coming tomorrow to drill for new paradigms.
In a nutshell, they spent so much time verifying and validating that the mountain was scalable that they were unable to touch base with the team that had the ballpark figures. At the end of the day, it was too dark to see even the low hanging fruit, so everyone ended up eating their own dogfood while pushing the envelope toward a local farmer who may be able to reach out with some best practices on organic growth. They agreed to support the farmer with respect to his core competencies in cat herding if he would spin up our helicopter into the cloud so it wouldn’t impact our brick-and-mortar business.
In the other thread, you failed to support your assertion that the use of literally as an intensifier is any more ambiguous than the analogous metaphorical use of incredibly, really, truly, or in fact. You showed no humility or respect for evidence. Following the prescriptivist archetype, you misrepresented your arbitrary stylistic opinion as objective fact, and described speakers who use the expression as stupid and ignorant.
It does not logically follow that you are a heroic advocate of linguistic accuracy, clarity or elegance. And, despite clear explanations of what descriptivist linguistics really is, you continue to willfully misrepresent it as linguistic anarchy, where any string of words is as good as any other.
[/hijack]
Please continue. I fully endorse this mocking of incoherent corporate jargon.
(I struggle with physics, so excuse me if I’m wrong…)
Velocity means speed plus direction, correct?
A spaceship trying to travel into space needs to be facing away from the Earth - would that mean ‘escape velocity’ was correct?
There’s a corollary to this with numbers. There is an almost universal trope on tv and film that super-smart science types will state numbers to a ridiculously inappropriate number of significant figures.
Spock to Kirk: “Captain, I calculate a 41.327% probability of surviving the next attack from the alien weapon that we have just encountered for the first time and know almost nothing about.”
In reality, scientists pay constant attention to the quantity and nature of the uncertainty in their data and the limitations and approximations in their models. Only those without scientific training will mindlessly read off all the decimal places from the result of a calculation.
Glad you liked it! Thanks for the “suggestion.” I used Frog and Toad frequently when I was teaching early elementary grades, as well as when my own kids were learning to read, and have a real soft spot for the books.
Thanks very much for the link to the New Yorker article on Lobel. “Sweet and wistful” is exactly right. I sent the link on to my son, now grown, but as mentioned a Lobel fan from way back.
I had an assistant-division-leader (basically, boss’s boss’s #2 guy) who did all our annual evaluations like this. He had the shift supervisors fill out a questionnaire for each person on their shifts, evaluating us on a scale of 1 to 5 (whole numbers only) on several attributes. Then the computed the average of each employee’s scores on those scales, which he kept to two or three decimal places. He used these results to rank all the employees in order, which had the potential to create various anomalies. I explained this to him once, but I didn’t get the sense that he understood.
