On Tue, 11 May 2021 at 23:11, Michal Suchánek <msuchanek@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 10:09:56PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > 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? > > 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. > Otherwise it's a change just for the sake of change. > > > > > > 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". > > And that's established how, specifically? By way of dictionaries and style guides which universally agree on the meaning of "affect"/"effect", but do not on that of (and even explicitly discourage) "impact". > > Thanks > > Michal
