new | show | ask | jobs Github

the_af 9 hours ago

I never seen this, unless "literally" really clashed with the intent of the comment (as in, it changed the meaning).

It's against the HN guidelines to focus on punctuation, spelling, etc, as long as the comment is understood.

And, in any case, it's now against the guidelines to write using an AI :)

▲

bryanlarsen 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Perhaps not for the word "literally", but you've never seen anybody make a pedantic correction about word usage?

▲

the_af 4 hours ago | parent [-]

To be clear, I've seen it in the wild, but not here where it's discouraged to pick on words instead of focusing on the substance of what's being said.

▲

bryanlarsen 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Here's a better example. Use "a few bad apples" wrong, and you'll likely get a response. A few bad apples will cause the entire barrel to spoil rapidly, so a few bad apples is a big deal. But it's often used to say the opposite, that a few bad apples isn't a big deal.

▲

bryanlarsen 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I wish I had posted a better example, but I couldn't recall anything at the moment and still can't. It's usually a more interesting complaint than the old man shaking fist at clouds of the usage of the word literally.

	▲	the_af 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		OK, but let's dig deeper. Would you prefer to be corrected on some logical fallacy/mistake you made in your argument, by another human being (and yes, maybe get slightly upset about it, we're human beings after all), or have both sides present bot-mediated iron-clad comments, like operators sparring with robots? I prefer the raw, flawed human version. Even if, yes, I make a silly, avoidable mistake, or get upset, or make you upset in the heat of the argument. Maybe when I cool down I will have learned something. I don't want flawless robotic arguments. I want human beings. (Fuck, that last bit sounded like an AI-ism, but I promise it's me, a human!).