6 ms·
I'm getting fed up of making the rich, richer
- kissiel 2y agoAs a non-native English speaker: why is there a comma in the title?
- SR2Z 2y agoIt's a stylistic choice and probably not strictly correct
- wahnfrieden 2y agoit's not grammatically correct but reflects a pausing speaking style to avoid confusion generated from repeating the same word twice in a row, and also to emphasize the repetition (a thing becoming more of a thing after already being that thing). (others are telling you whether it's correct per textbook rules or that it's purely stylistic but not why it's used in practice and what it conveys)
- alabastervlog 2y agoThere are “close” and “open” styles of comma usage. “Open” has been ascendant for the last few decades (it began to rise in the early 20th century, but wasn’t firmly dominant until later). It’s less precise and expressive, but “cleaner”. Source: Garner’s.
- ludicrousdispla 2y agoPersonal choice of the author. It would be grammatically correct without the comma.
- qwertox 2y agoApparently it is a stylistic choice to add a pause, acceptable in informal or rhetorical writing, though grammatically incorrect. Like: "I'm getting fed up of making the rich... well, richer".
- pclmulqdq 2y agoThe problem with using this as an analogy is that the commas attach to the interjection "well," not to the words "rich" or "richer." Remove the "well" and you should remove all the punctuation around it. "I'm getting fed up of making the rich... richer" might be grammatically ok in informal text, but a comma is definitely wrong.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- wahnfrieden 2y agoIt’s not wrong if it’s commonly used and commonly understood
- pc86 2y agoOf course it is. Doing a wrong thing a lot doesn't make it less wrong. Over time maybe its "wrongness" will change the way language naturally changes over time. But today, it's wrong.
- wahnfrieden 2y agoThat change has already occurred. What are you waiting for?
- nonethewiser 2y agoIts wrong
- EligibleDecoy 2y agoI think a lot of English speakers use commas to emphasize a pause in speech. I don’t think a comma was needed. I think the author was slightly mixing up the relative clauses and appositives rules with commas. Source: native speaker, North America EDIT: I like qwertox’s answer best
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- pclmulqdq 2y agoNative English speakers don't know how to use commas, so they throw them anywhere they want to have a pause.
- wahnfrieden 2y agosounds like they know how to use commas, then
- pclmulqdq 2y agoSecond amendment jurisprudence says otherwise. Billions of dollars spent on litigating three commas.
- palmotea 2y ago> Native English speakers don't know how to use commas, so they throw them anywhere they want to have a pause. Like with any language, there are wildly varying levels of literacy. Many native English speakers know how to use commas, and many others don't. I think that shades from using them grammatically (most literate), to using them ungrammatically as a generic pause, to not using punctuation at all.
- alabastervlog 2y agoThere aren't fixed rules, even to the degree to which there are such rules for other grammatical questions in English. Much of comma usage comes down to preference. I think part of why we've shifted so strongly against their use is because if you leave it up to taste, as had previously been common, most people make poor choices. It's funny because even as we've moved away from prescriptivism, the "rules" around comma usage have tightened and people have gotten quicker to call a given previously-common usage incorrect.
- pclmulqdq 2y agoThere are rules around comma usage that are up to taste (eg the Oxford comma), and people get very dogmatic about these rules for bad reasons. There are also times when usage of a comma is incorrect according to all the known rulesets for English grammar. This usage is in the latter category. The notion that a comma is any sort of pause fell out of favor in written English in the 1800's and thankfully hasn't been back (see the second amendment as to why "a comma is a generic pause" is a bad idea). You would have to be the loosest form of descriptivist to say that this usage is close to correct, and I would question whether you would accept any grammar rule at all at that point. Many people use run-on sentences and many don't capitalize the start of sentences in very casual text, even though these are widely (universally) accepted rules.
- oidar 2y agoBecause native English users don't follow a style book. As much as English teachers in school want pupils to be prescriptivists in academic contexts, native English communication (writing/speaking) is better understood using a descriptivist lens.
- ILeeRyan 2y ago[flagged]
- _sbrk 2y ago[flagged]
- philipallstar 2y agoProgressive movements have giant amounts of funding. Every big business in the US and mostly in the UK as well are donating to various Progressive causes. Loads of Progressive people are fairly rich tech workers. Most of Hollywood are Progressive. Kamala Harris took over the previous presidential candidacy from Joe Biden and raised $1.4bn in a very short amount of time, twice what Trump got. That's why the joke is Progressive YouTubers are sponsored by Amazon and Google, and Conservative ones are sponsored by Freedom Water and other budget right wing brands.
- srveale 2y agoIn western politics, there are various definitions of the word "progressive". The definitions that include Kamala Harris are mostly used by right-wing Americans. How much corporate funding did Bernie get? Why do you think capital supported Kamala? Especially in hindsight? And your joke about left vs right sponsorship of streamers has a very soft underbelly, which, if you don't know about it yet, kind of tells the whole story right there.
- nonethewiser 2y agoKamala Harris's voting record is extremely progressive. Nevermind the subjective approximation of her policy positions as the Democrat nominee, which was watered down as she tried to garner broader support compared to her 2020 primary run. >The Voteview project (now based at UCLA) has, since the 1980s, employed the roll-call votes cast in Congress to locate all senators and representatives on a liberal-conservative ideological map. These data and methods have been utilized by academics in thousands of peer-reviewed books, book chapters and journal articles. Although no method is perfect, there is a general consensus within the academic community that the NOMINATE methodology employed by the Voteview project and its close cousins represent the gold standard. https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4816859-kamala-harris-is-extremely-liberal-and-the-numbers-prove-it/ https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4816859-kamala-harris-i... You can look at the data yourself: https://voteview.com/data https://voteview.com/data And its not shocking right? She represented California, which is obviously one of, if not the most, liberal state in the country.
- FrankWilhoit 2y agoThe people you need to be watching are the ones who have given up on ever having anything material.
- srveale 2y ago> The obsession with AI (and other vapourware) in our industry ... fuelling the hard-right — who coincidentally are very much using AI. Is it useless or not? If it's vapourware, why would you care if the other side uses it? If the far right is using it successfully, then by definition it is not vapourware, right?
- mariusor 2y agoBecause the output from LLMs drowns everything else. So if people use it to drown actual discussions yes, it's useful for that. Everyone else though, has to suffer.
- zamadatix 2y agoI think that's aligns with what GP is saying: if one is going to say people are using it, even if for things you don't like, then choosing to call it vapourware in the same paragraph is a confusing use of the term. In a charitable reading I think the author was meaning something along the lines of "fails to be as useful as made to sound on things I think are worth valuing but very useful for things I think are slop" but chose a different meaning term by mistake.
- mariusor 2y agoLLMs are purported by their creators to have a different use (advancing of human knowledge, genuine artificial intelligence, etc) than drowning discussions online. The fact that people can find some uses for bad technology does not make it less of a failure or, those goals less hot air.
- srveale 2y agoAs someone who uses LLMs every day for general questions/brainstorming, more efficient coding, and building a product used by doctors to improve their documentation (saving them hours per week and freeing them to interact with their patients more personally), I would like more of this hot air please. Would you begrudge disabled people their new assistants? Language learners their translators? I could go on. LLMs have some very important downsides, and I fully agree that they are dangerous, but we should dispel the notion that they don't have positive use cases. That leaves the benefits on the table, while the bad actors will continue with their destruction anyways. Anyway, my original point was indeed just about the semantics of the word "vapourware", which if I'm interpreting the author correctly, would be better replaced with "malware" (not that I agree with such a stance).