3 ms·
The Economist writing is not what it used to be. I've noticed many more grammatical errors and bad writing in the last 4 years. Perhaps they have fewer editors
by RachelF 4y ago
The Economist writing is not what it used to be. I've noticed many more grammatical errors and bad writing in the last 4 years.
Perhaps they have fewer editors?
- yoyopa 4y ago
- sosull 4y agoI’ll believe it when I see study after study after study.
- fractallyte 4y agoCapital 'P' and 'T' and period after 'study'... ;-)
- dekken_ 4y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry's_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry's_law
- mdp2021 4y agoI have seen articles about increases of dementia, and probably submitted them here. Some say it is the phosphates. Nonetheless, it is far from being a "oh well" situation (I just posted earlier, it is doom), and yes, more references would be in order. My impression is that "«people»" are typically "trying less and less", and taking more and more bad (regressive) compromises. If there is an acquired physiological issue I am not sure, and it certainly calls for getting more details: I clearly see a cultural issue.
- mdp2021 4y agoPS: I see a few members wanted to confirm this. There was no need, really.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]