6 ms·

It is silly. I think part of it is simply a cultural divide between old school C programmers and young front end web developers. There used to be two spaces a

by snarfy 9y ago

It is silly. I think part of it is simply a cultural divide between old school C programmers and young front end web developers. There used to be two spaces after a period, oxford commas, and 'literally' meant 'as it was written'. Languages change (for better or worse). Kids these days.

Stratoscope 9y ago
Hey, you're welcome on my lawn any time. Some years ago I went on an editing binge on Wikipedia, finding a bunch of templates that "misused" the phrase "due to" and changed them to "because of". As we all know, you must get this right: "The flight delay was due to bad weather." vs. "The flight was delayed because of bad weather." but never: "The flight was delayed due to bad weather." The next day, someone reverted all my changes and asked, "Mike, have you looked at a dictionary lately?" Oops. In that moment I was enlightened: I realized I could care less. I even leave out the Oxford comma as often as I use it. In fact I leave out a lot of commas I used to put in. But there is one case where the Oxford comma is still necessary. If you leave it out of this joke it ruins it: "There are two hard problems in computer science: naming things, cache expiration, and off by one errors."
- gumoro 9y ago
  > I realized I could care less. I see what you did there. Well done.
  - rz2k 9y ago
    Though it could simply mean the realization that one can choose to care less about prescriptive language rules
    - gumoro 9y ago
      Yes I think that's exactly what Stratoscope meant, and it was funny because that expression is a classic language peeve, as it is an illogical deformation (of the phrase "I couldn't care less") that is becoming the norm... but in that situation it made perfect sense. So I was showing appreciation for that nice touch.
      - Stratoscope 9y ago
        Even funnier, when I wrote that I actually did just intend it in the sense of "could care less" and "couldn't care less" meaning the same thing. It was an example of how I had been too fussy about language rules. But now that you've explained it, I see it works the other way too! "Finally I learned to care less about these kinds of language rules." There is something delicious about two seemingly contradictory phrases that mean the same thing, and one phrase that can mean two opposite things.
  - e12e 9y ago
    Webster doesn't mention any change in use, simply: "care less : not to care — used positively and negatively with the same meaning <I could care less what happens> <I couldn't care less what happens>" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    - taneq 9y ago
      The first doesn't mean the same as the second, though. O.o
      - e12e 9y ago
        (On the off-chance you're not being tounge in cheek): No, "used positively and negatively with the same meaning", as in the two differently phrased idioms mean the same thing: http://www.dictionary.com/e/could-care-less/ http://www.dictionary.com/e/could-care-less/ http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/04/05/the_real_reason_people_say_i_could_care_less.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/04/05/the_rea... https://xkcd.com/1576/ https://xkcd.com/1576/ (!)
        e12e 9y ago
        I suppose, these days, for the sake of clarifying that I'm being sarcastic, I should just start saying: "I cloud care less".
        taneq 9y ago
        To be perfectly honest, I'm kind of 50/50 between a genuine vexation with "could care less" being semantically wrong, and a cheerful agreement that usage defines meaning. The world's inconsistent and so occasionally, in response, am I. :P
        Asooka 9y ago
        Just use I'd'nt careless.
        vorg 9y ago
- songshu 9y ago
  Cache invalidation. Cache expiration is easy.
  - Stratoscope 9y ago
    Thank you! That's what I get for trying to tell a joke at 2AM...
- __float 9y ago
  Can you explain why the "never" was even "wrong"? That seems totally fine to me, and I don't understand why you would think otherwise.
  - Stratoscope 9y ago
    No, I can't explain it. It was just an arbitrary rule I was taught as a kid - and that was quite some time ago! There was never a reason given for it, just one of many rules we were supposed to remember. A lot of other people were taught the same rule, but hopefully they've realized as I finally did that it just doesn't matter. Here are some interesting discussions from both sides of the fence: https://www.google.com/search?q=due+to+because+of https://www.google.com/search?q=due+to+because+of Joseph Emonds argued in the paper "Grammatically Deviant Prestige Constructions" that the underlying reason for some of these arbitrary distinctions was as a social class signifier: if you used "correct" grammar it helped indicate to others that you were a member of a more prestigious class: http://fine.me.uk/emonds http://fine.me.uk/emonds
mcphage 9y ago
> 'literally' meant 'as it was written' Literally has been used to mean figuratively for well over 100 years. (If I wasn't on my phone I'd paste in a list of usages from famous literature going back 150 years or so, that I have stored on my computer) That's one of the big issues with prescriptivism—often the person making or enforcing the prescriptions has no idea of what the truth actually is. Especially in language, but it crops up in software as well.
- tedunangst 9y ago
  People need to spend more time reading real books and less time reading made up rules.
- hanbura 9y ago
  I have prescriptivist tendencies, but I agree that "It has to be that way because it's always been that way" is a stupid argument. I'm simply of the opinion that language that leads to misunderstanding is bad. That's why I correct anyone who I suspect to use the word "literally" for the opposite of its meaning, and why I use Oxford commas. I also like when the meaning of a sentence is inferable by only knowing the words and simple grammar rules. That's why I hate "could of" or "I could care less". I will also roll my eyes if you ask me to use double spaces after a period. That rule was born from a technical limitation that's long gone. In essence I think that conserving ancient rules and meanings is just one branch of prescriptivism, and it's unfair to judge everything prescriptivist based on that one radical branch.
  - skrebbel 9y ago
    I like that you used the Oxford comma in the sentence about it.
- dhimes 9y ago
  You are correct about the word "literally," but I am in the camp that feels we should proceed cautiously in such matters. Just because a published professional got away with a mistake or made a deliberate artistic choice in 1905 doesn't mean it should become mainstream usage. When the word "literally" can mean, casually, either "literally" or "figuratively" then it ceases to have any real meaning. The figurative use is best when used with extreme obvious hyperbole. For me to say "I care enough about this post that I am literally standing up right now" when I am, indeed, sitting down, should be seen as a mis-use that weakens the word. Done frequently and it introduces avoidable entropy into language. See also: enormity. We really do need to take some care here or else we'll soon be spelling "lose" as "loose." Although that particular issue is probably coming from non-native speakers, it's being picked up and used by others and may eventually become accepted. That will not ease our ability to communicate.
GlennS 9y ago
'Transpiler' is an ugly smushword though. I hope it dies.

by snarfy 9y ago

Stratoscope 9y ago

Hey, you're welcome on my lawn any time. Some years ago I went on an editing binge on Wikipedia, finding a bunch of templates that "misused" the phrase "due to" and changed them to "because of". As we all know, you must get this right: "The flight delay was due to bad weather." vs. "The flight was delayed because of bad weather." but never: "The flight was delayed due to bad weather." The next day, someone reverted all my changes and asked, "Mike, have you looked at a dictionary lately?" Oops. In that moment I was enlightened: I realized I could care less. I even leave out the Oxford comma as often as I use it. In fact I leave out a lot of commas I used to put in. But there is one case where the Oxford comma is still necessary. If you leave it out of this joke it ruins it: "There are two hard problems in computer science: naming things, cache expiration, and off by one errors."

gumoro 9y ago
> I realized I could care less. I see what you did there. Well done.
- rz2k 9y ago
  Though it could simply mean the realization that one can choose to care less about prescriptive language rules
  - gumoro 9y ago
    Yes I think that's exactly what Stratoscope meant, and it was funny because that expression is a classic language peeve, as it is an illogical deformation (of the phrase "I couldn't care less") that is becoming the norm... but in that situation it made perfect sense. So I was showing appreciation for that nice touch.
    - Stratoscope 9y ago
      Even funnier, when I wrote that I actually did just intend it in the sense of "could care less" and "couldn't care less" meaning the same thing. It was an example of how I had been too fussy about language rules. But now that you've explained it, I see it works the other way too! "Finally I learned to care less about these kinds of language rules." There is something delicious about two seemingly contradictory phrases that mean the same thing, and one phrase that can mean two opposite things.
- e12e 9y ago
  Webster doesn't mention any change in use, simply: "care less : not to care — used positively and negatively with the same meaning <I could care less what happens> <I couldn't care less what happens>" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  - taneq 9y ago
    The first doesn't mean the same as the second, though. O.o
    - e12e 9y ago
      (On the off-chance you're not being tounge in cheek): No, "used positively and negatively with the same meaning", as in the two differently phrased idioms mean the same thing: http://www.dictionary.com/e/could-care-less/ http://www.dictionary.com/e/could-care-less/ http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/04/05/the_real_reason_people_say_i_could_care_less.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/04/05/the_rea... https://xkcd.com/1576/ https://xkcd.com/1576/ (!)
      - e12e 9y ago
        I suppose, these days, for the sake of clarifying that I'm being sarcastic, I should just start saying: "I cloud care less".
        taneq 9y ago
        To be perfectly honest, I'm kind of 50/50 between a genuine vexation with "could care less" being semantically wrong, and a cheerful agreement that usage defines meaning. The world's inconsistent and so occasionally, in response, am I. :P
        Asooka 9y ago
        Just use I'd'nt careless.
      - vorg 9y ago
songshu 9y ago
Cache invalidation. Cache expiration is easy.
- Stratoscope 9y ago
  Thank you! That's what I get for trying to tell a joke at 2AM...
__float 9y ago
Can you explain why the "never" was even "wrong"? That seems totally fine to me, and I don't understand why you would think otherwise.
- Stratoscope 9y ago
  No, I can't explain it. It was just an arbitrary rule I was taught as a kid - and that was quite some time ago! There was never a reason given for it, just one of many rules we were supposed to remember. A lot of other people were taught the same rule, but hopefully they've realized as I finally did that it just doesn't matter. Here are some interesting discussions from both sides of the fence: https://www.google.com/search?q=due+to+because+of https://www.google.com/search?q=due+to+because+of Joseph Emonds argued in the paper "Grammatically Deviant Prestige Constructions" that the underlying reason for some of these arbitrary distinctions was as a social class signifier: if you used "correct" grammar it helped indicate to others that you were a member of a more prestigious class: http://fine.me.uk/emonds http://fine.me.uk/emonds

mcphage 9y ago

> 'literally' meant 'as it was written' Literally has been used to mean figuratively for well over 100 years. (If I wasn't on my phone I'd paste in a list of usages from famous literature going back 150 years or so, that I have stored on my computer) That's one of the big issues with prescriptivism—often the person making or enforcing the prescriptions has no idea of what the truth actually is. Especially in language, but it crops up in software as well.

tedunangst 9y ago
People need to spend more time reading real books and less time reading made up rules.
hanbura 9y ago
I have prescriptivist tendencies, but I agree that "It has to be that way because it's always been that way" is a stupid argument. I'm simply of the opinion that language that leads to misunderstanding is bad. That's why I correct anyone who I suspect to use the word "literally" for the opposite of its meaning, and why I use Oxford commas. I also like when the meaning of a sentence is inferable by only knowing the words and simple grammar rules. That's why I hate "could of" or "I could care less". I will also roll my eyes if you ask me to use double spaces after a period. That rule was born from a technical limitation that's long gone. In essence I think that conserving ancient rules and meanings is just one branch of prescriptivism, and it's unfair to judge everything prescriptivist based on that one radical branch.
- skrebbel 9y ago
  I like that you used the Oxford comma in the sentence about it.
dhimes 9y ago
You are correct about the word "literally," but I am in the camp that feels we should proceed cautiously in such matters. Just because a published professional got away with a mistake or made a deliberate artistic choice in 1905 doesn't mean it should become mainstream usage. When the word "literally" can mean, casually, either "literally" or "figuratively" then it ceases to have any real meaning. The figurative use is best when used with extreme obvious hyperbole. For me to say "I care enough about this post that I am literally standing up right now" when I am, indeed, sitting down, should be seen as a mis-use that weakens the word. Done frequently and it introduces avoidable entropy into language. See also: enormity. We really do need to take some care here or else we'll soon be spelling "lose" as "loose." Although that particular issue is probably coming from non-native speakers, it's being picked up and used by others and may eventually become accepted. That will not ease our ability to communicate.

GlennS 9y ago

'Transpiler' is an ugly smushword though. I hope it dies.