7 ms·

> It’s the optics that matter. Oh really? Refraction and reflection of light, the study of same - that's what matters is it? Of course not. You mean appearanc

by enko 13y ago

> It’s the optics that matter. Oh really? Refraction and reflection of light, the study of same - that's what matters is it? Of course not. You mean appearances matter. Name-dropping some physics-sounding word does not make you sound smart, it makes you sound confused and wrong. Optics means optics. It doesn't mean whatever you choose it to mean. Deliberately misusing words doesn't make you sound cool, it makes you sound like a "Sandwich Artist".

brandon272 13y ago
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/optics http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/optics "2. (used with a plural verb) the way a situation, action, event, etc., is perceived by the public or by a particular group of people: The optics on this issue are pretty good for the Democrats. Administrators worry about the bad optics of hiring new staff during a budget crisis."
- enko 13y ago
  Yeah, brought to you by the same type of people responsible for http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/literally http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/literally Since the early 20th century, literally has been widely used as an intensifier meaning “in effect, virtually,” a sense that contradicts the earlier meaning “actually, without exaggeration” I know the language is being debased. Doesn't mean I like it.
TorKlingberg 13y ago
It's an established secondary meaning of the word optics. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/optics http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/optics 2.( used with a plural verb ) the way a situation, action, event, etc., is perceived by the public or by a particular group of people: The optics on this issue are pretty good for the Democrats. Administrators worry about the bad optics of hiring new staff during a budget crisis. The English language is full of words and phrases that just make writing look more fancy.
- enko 13y ago
  Yeah well until it's in Oxford it doesn't exist. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/yolo http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/yolo
  - ceol 13y ago
    http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/spellcheck/american_english/?q=sandwich+artist http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/spellcheck/american_english... You might want to rethink some things.
    - enko 13y ago
      Don't understand what point you're trying to make.
      - ceol 13y ago
        Oxford doesn't recognize the phrase "Sandwich Artist". You aren't abiding by the rules you hold others to. That's not even touching the fact that dictionaries do not define words; they record their usage. As such, they will always be out of date. In short, everything you've said is completely wrong.
        Dylan16807 13y ago
        >Oxford doesn't recognize the phrase "Sandwich Artist". You aren't abiding by the rules you hold others to. 1. It was in scare quotes for a reason. 2. That is a stupid job title, not a word.
        ceol 13y ago
        It's a phrase, which is something the Oxford dictionary acknowledges and defines. His use of scare quotes only excuses him if someone else had used that phrase before him; instead, he's the one who brought it up. It's quite obvious he wanted to use some predetermined meaning he had for it. Arguing otherwise comes off as useless pedantry.
ceol 13y ago
You have two comma splices in your comment. It's really bothering me, because it ruins your entire argument. I mean, you might as well have wrote everything in Latin! You are stupid and wrong. I am the arbiter of the entire English language; you will abide by my rules! ...See how ridiculous that sounds? If you understood what the author was saying, there's no need to nitpick his use of a single word. Languages change, bud. No amount of bitter internet comments will stop that. And let's stop shitting on people who work at Subway, kay? Pretty sure they're doing more with their lives than someone who trolls HN to complain about nonsense.
- enko 13y ago
  This is an informal comment forum, so I prefer to structure my sentences as I would informal speech. That means comma splicing and lots of it. What would you have written? I wasn't shitting on people who work at Subway, I was shitting on their awful, condescending job titles. And I really just have to ask you to think about what you said. > Languages change, bud. No amount of bitter internet comments will stop that. Yes they do. Society changes, too. Companies change. People change. Countries change, laws change. (Oops, another comma splice). I could re-use your comment to put down any criticism of any change of any kind. Just play around with some issues you care about, replacing the word "Languages" to suit. Feel any different?
  - ceol 13y ago
    You were using their job title to evoke the image of a certain type of person in a negative way. That is very much shitting on them, whether or not you care to admit it. It's quite literally how stereotypes are created and perpetuated. > I could re-use your comment to put down any criticism of any change of any kind. Sure, if my criticism was about something that naturally changes. If I were criticizing trees for losing their leaves, or tides from moving in and out, or potato chips for going stale, you would be completely correct to tell me, "All of those things happen whether you like it or not." Just like I'm correct to tell you, "It's pointless to complain about words finding new meanings."
    - 13y ago
jamesbritt 13y ago
I was jolted by that usage as well, and dug up this: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/magazine/07FOB-onlanguage-t.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/magazine/07FOB-onlanguage-... While people can defend the use, it gives the piece a distracting buzzwordy feel.
- enko 13y ago
  Good research, thanks. Had no idea it was that old! I am actually heartened to see it appears to be a politician's fad. Hopefully in 20 years time it will be about as potent as "radical". Nonetheless, that doesn't put a damper on my nerdy inclination to point out, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

by enko 13y ago

brandon272 13y ago

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/optics http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/optics "2. (used with a plural verb) the way a situation, action, event, etc., is perceived by the public or by a particular group of people: The optics on this issue are pretty good for the Democrats. Administrators worry about the bad optics of hiring new staff during a budget crisis."

enko 13y ago
Yeah, brought to you by the same type of people responsible for http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/literally http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/literally Since the early 20th century, literally has been widely used as an intensifier meaning “in effect, virtually,” a sense that contradicts the earlier meaning “actually, without exaggeration” I know the language is being debased. Doesn't mean I like it.

TorKlingberg 13y ago

It's an established secondary meaning of the word optics. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/optics http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/optics 2.( used with a plural verb ) the way a situation, action, event, etc., is perceived by the public or by a particular group of people: The optics on this issue are pretty good for the Democrats. Administrators worry about the bad optics of hiring new staff during a budget crisis. The English language is full of words and phrases that just make writing look more fancy.

enko 13y ago
Yeah well until it's in Oxford it doesn't exist. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/yolo http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/yolo
- ceol 13y ago
  http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/spellcheck/american_english/?q=sandwich+artist http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/spellcheck/american_english... You might want to rethink some things.
  - enko 13y ago
    Don't understand what point you're trying to make.
    - ceol 13y ago
      Oxford doesn't recognize the phrase "Sandwich Artist". You aren't abiding by the rules you hold others to. That's not even touching the fact that dictionaries do not define words; they record their usage. As such, they will always be out of date. In short, everything you've said is completely wrong.
      - Dylan16807 13y ago
        >Oxford doesn't recognize the phrase "Sandwich Artist". You aren't abiding by the rules you hold others to. 1. It was in scare quotes for a reason. 2. That is a stupid job title, not a word.
        ceol 13y ago
        It's a phrase, which is something the Oxford dictionary acknowledges and defines. His use of scare quotes only excuses him if someone else had used that phrase before him; instead, he's the one who brought it up. It's quite obvious he wanted to use some predetermined meaning he had for it. Arguing otherwise comes off as useless pedantry.

ceol 13y ago

You have two comma splices in your comment. It's really bothering me, because it ruins your entire argument. I mean, you might as well have wrote everything in Latin! You are stupid and wrong. I am the arbiter of the entire English language; you will abide by my rules! ...See how ridiculous that sounds? If you understood what the author was saying, there's no need to nitpick his use of a single word. Languages change, bud. No amount of bitter internet comments will stop that. And let's stop shitting on people who work at Subway, kay? Pretty sure they're doing more with their lives than someone who trolls HN to complain about nonsense.

enko 13y ago
This is an informal comment forum, so I prefer to structure my sentences as I would informal speech. That means comma splicing and lots of it. What would you have written? I wasn't shitting on people who work at Subway, I was shitting on their awful, condescending job titles. And I really just have to ask you to think about what you said. > Languages change, bud. No amount of bitter internet comments will stop that. Yes they do. Society changes, too. Companies change. People change. Countries change, laws change. (Oops, another comma splice). I could re-use your comment to put down any criticism of any change of any kind. Just play around with some issues you care about, replacing the word "Languages" to suit. Feel any different?
- ceol 13y ago
  You were using their job title to evoke the image of a certain type of person in a negative way. That is very much shitting on them, whether or not you care to admit it. It's quite literally how stereotypes are created and perpetuated. > I could re-use your comment to put down any criticism of any change of any kind. Sure, if my criticism was about something that naturally changes. If I were criticizing trees for losing their leaves, or tides from moving in and out, or potato chips for going stale, you would be completely correct to tell me, "All of those things happen whether you like it or not." Just like I'm correct to tell you, "It's pointless to complain about words finding new meanings."
  - 13y ago

jamesbritt 13y ago

I was jolted by that usage as well, and dug up this: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/magazine/07FOB-onlanguage-t.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/magazine/07FOB-onlanguage-... While people can defend the use, it gives the piece a distracting buzzwordy feel.

enko 13y ago
Good research, thanks. Had no idea it was that old! I am actually heartened to see it appears to be a politician's fad. Hopefully in 20 years time it will be about as potent as "radical". Nonetheless, that doesn't put a damper on my nerdy inclination to point out, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."