4 ms·
Sure if the author had said “I’m not your supplier” rather than “I’m not a supplier.” Big difference.
by D13Fd 4y ago
Sure if the author had said “I’m not your supplier” rather than “I’m not a supplier.” Big difference.
- SuperNinKenDo 4y agoNo, not really, it's basically incidental, and actually points to the fact that, pertinently, the word "supplier" has a strong connotation of referring to a business relationship.
- D13Fd 4y agoWhen a cop pulls you over, “I’m not your driver” is true, but “I’m not a driver” is false. I’d call the difference a lot more than “incidental”.
- SuperNinKenDo 4y agoYes, a completely different word, in a now conpletely divorced and radically different context, doesn't work exactly the same as the original word we are discussing. Well done. In your new example, the phrase "your driver" does not refer to a business relationship, so I guess saying "I'm not your driver" to someone because you don't want to ferry them around is now also poor use of language? Just stop dude.
- ncallaway 4y agoThe better analogy for “supplier” would be “chauffeur”, while the analogue for “driver” would be “developer”. If you use those replacements in the analogy, then the analogy will work much better.
- otikik 4y agoIt says “your” at the end of the article, actually.
- D13Fd 4y agoThe title and the HN post say "I am not a supplier," and it's repeated multiple times in the article text. That's the part I take issue with.