3 ms·

> it suggests to me that a national program to strengthen an industry isn't guaranteed to be a failure "Isn't guaranteed to be a failure". Sorry, I struggle t

> it suggests to me that a national program to strengthen an industry isn't guaranteed to be a failure "Isn't guaranteed to be a failure". Sorry, I struggle to interpret sentences like this. English isn't my first language. Please clarify? Are you saying that "it is not definitely a failure"? I can't figure out if it's the above, or if it is this: "won't necessary fail" More specifically, I'm not sure if the implication is optimistic or pessimistic. I hope that makes sense - the nuances of English are a delightful journey of exceptions; something my programming brain struggles with at times.

ddulaney 6y ago
For me (Eastern US) “is not definitely a failure”, “won’t necessarily fail”, and “isn’t guaranteed to be a failure” all indicate that something would be expected to usually fail, but might not. To me, they can be optimistic or pessimistic based on what the baseline is. I read the GP’s post as optimistic, as they come from a perspective of these kinds of government programs always failing. However, from a baseline of these kinds of government programs often succeeding, any of the three versions would be pessimistic.
ppseafield 6y ago
Since the post
analog31 6y ago
Optimistic. I would say: Definitely not a failure. And I apologize for using unclear language. I should be thinking about a wider audience when writing in an international forum. Thanks for pointing it out!
- herodoturtle 6y ago
  I'd prefer that you continue to use nuanced English that is logically sound, because I (and I imagine others) can learn from you. The fact that you took the time to clarify my confusion is the ideal consequence I'd say.
jccooper 6y ago
It's a very programming-like phrase, actually. Just parse it from the inside out: (isn't (guaranteed to be (a failure)) An equivalent might be "has some chance of success" but that misses the sense that the presumption is failure. More verbosely, the phrase might be: "One might presume that a national program to strengthen an industry would be a guaranteed failure, but this suggests to me that it might have some chance."
cromka 6y ago
"Just because it is sponsored and coordinated by the governments, doesn't mean it must fail." The implied notion is that the governments and their agencies are usually too incompetent and anything but innovative, so programs like this are oftentimes just a way to extort the money for some and a chance to pose in front of the cameras for the politicians.

ddulaney 6y ago

For me (Eastern US) “is not definitely a failure”, “won’t necessarily fail”, and “isn’t guaranteed to be a failure” all indicate that something would be expected to usually fail, but might not. To me, they can be optimistic or pessimistic based on what the baseline is. I read the GP’s post as optimistic, as they come from a perspective of these kinds of government programs always failing. However, from a baseline of these kinds of government programs often succeeding, any of the three versions would be pessimistic.

ppseafield 6y ago

Since the post

analog31 6y ago

Optimistic. I would say: Definitely not a failure. And I apologize for using unclear language. I should be thinking about a wider audience when writing in an international forum. Thanks for pointing it out!

herodoturtle 6y ago
I'd prefer that you continue to use nuanced English that is logically sound, because I (and I imagine others) can learn from you. The fact that you took the time to clarify my confusion is the ideal consequence I'd say.

jccooper 6y ago

It's a very programming-like phrase, actually. Just parse it from the inside out: (isn't (guaranteed to be (a failure)) An equivalent might be "has some chance of success" but that misses the sense that the presumption is failure. More verbosely, the phrase might be: "One might presume that a national program to strengthen an industry would be a guaranteed failure, but this suggests to me that it might have some chance."

cromka 6y ago

"Just because it is sponsored and coordinated by the governments, doesn't mean it must fail." The implied notion is that the governments and their agencies are usually too incompetent and anything but innovative, so programs like this are oftentimes just a way to extort the money for some and a chance to pose in front of the cameras for the politicians.