3 ms·

You can choose to use the wrong words all you want. Doing so intentionally is an interesting choice.

• ben_w 2mo ago
  Communication is not a one-player game. For example, if I was being pedantic: > nobody seems to care about using the right words in only this context. "nobody" would include you. And then I might complain about we use the word "weight" for something massless, or how "bugs me" is *ento*mologically incorrect: https://xkcd.com/1012/ https://xkcd.com/1012/ This is of course not a good use of time. I wonder if illustrating the point about how language is dynamic and meanings are descriptive not proscriptive, was a good use?
  • s0ss 2mo ago
    yeah, I'm not sure what your goal is pedantically picking apart my argument when the subject at hand is clearly not "open source". love xkcd though. :P
    • ben_w 2mo ago
      The point is to give you empathy for those you disagree with here.
  • throw0101d 2mo ago
    > And then I might complain about we use the word "weight" for something massless, or how "bugs me" is entomologically incorrect: https://xkcd.com/1012/ https://xkcd.com/1012/ "Communicating": https://xkcd.com/1860/ https://xkcd.com/1860/
    • ben_w 2mo ago
      Not sure how the quoted examples fits with your link, TBH. https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/descriptive-vs-prescriptive-defining-lexicography https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/descriptive-vs-presc... Prescriptively, a "model weight" weighs nothing. Descriptively, this is stupid: a new meaning was created by common use. *Common* use says the weights you can download and run locally are "open source". May not like it, but it's not one person acting alone; and neither are the objectors to the shifting language, it's just the former is more "common" than the latter.
• tripleee 2mo ago
  We're not talking about standard code here. It's totally reasonable to change the meaning depending on context.
  • s0ss 2mo ago
    I vehemently disagree. There's no source and it's not open, the licenses are often abysmal too.