Michal Suchánek wrote: > On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 02:21:43PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > Michal Suchánek wrote: > > > If you are concerned about correctness and clarity of the documentation please > > > avoid spreading misinformation. > > > > Under certain definition of "jaron" Varun's statement would be > > incorrect, but not under all definitions. If you use the definition > > I stated above, "impact" can be considered jargon, because it's a bit > > obscure language. > > Do you have any frequency data that supports your claim that the word > 'impact' is obscure? This is not how logic works. If I don't have frequency data that supports $x, but you have no frequency data that supports !$x, then we return to the default position; we don't know if $x is true or not. Do **you** have any frequency data that supports the negative claim that the word "impact" is not obscure? > The bar for change should be that the word as used is very unfitting or > unintelligible. No. The bar is that **nobody** have any problem with "affect", and some people have a problem with "impact". Do you have any problem with "affect"? -- Felipe Contreras
