4 ms·
Why is it lazy? Should I have used a paper dictionary? Would that be hard work as opposed to lazy? I didn't bother to include the third definition as I'm not s
by EchoChamberMan 3y ago
Why is it lazy? Should I have used a paper dictionary? Would that be hard work as opposed to lazy?
I didn't bother to include the third definition as I'm not sure how it is different than either of the first two.
So what if it passes the third?
- Kim_Bruning 3y agoBecause the third definition is the strongest plausible interpretation of the original statement (that can be found in that particular dictionary at least). [1] And: selectively leaving out part of a quote that appears to (partially) contradict your thesis might be seen by some as an attempt to mislead. Best to err on the side of caution! Though -like I said- dictionaries are possibly the weakest source of definitions you can find. Dictionaries need to keep things extremely short, so they're unlikely to have much nuance. Even Encyclopedias (including Wikipedia) are more accurate and reliable, simply because they have more space to expand on a concept in detail. Books or papers are best. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. "
- EchoChamberMan 3y agoAh, yes, I found it ridiculous the first definition formally excluded everything but sounds, and in my mind interpreted it to include text. That is an error. [Edit] i.e. "To produce words by means of sounds or text." Whoops.