Michal Suchánek wrote: > On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 10:09:56PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > Do **you** have any frequency data that supports the negative claim that > > the word "impact" is not obscure? > > I don't need that data. > You are proposing a change so it is your duty to support your claim > that the change is worthwhile. I am not the one proposing the change, but it has been established that at least two people find the change worthwhile, and many dictionaries find "affect" less problematic than "impact". You (and others) don't find the change worthline, fair enough. But you also can't find anything wrong with the proposed change. So let me try to explain the situation programatically: 1. ($a > $b) * 0 2. ($a = $b) * 3 3. ($a < $b) * 2 Which one should we stay with? $a or $b? -- Felipe Contreras
