The median is more relevant than the mean simply because it's less sensitive to outliers. 9/11 was an outlier; 85% of all U.S. terrorist deaths in the last 50 years happened on that one day.
So if TikTok was not earning any profit from US (for example, if it was sponsored by the govt), there would be no commerce and it would not be banned? I do not believe that.
Profit is not the standard for the regulation of commerce in the United States though.
When the federal government set limits on crop production with the Constitution's Interstate Commerce Clause as its justification, Roscoe Filburn was simply growing wheat over the limit to feed his farm animals. That wheat was never sold, and it never crossed the property line to leave his farm, much less crossed state lines. The government still fined him and he lost his case in SCOTUS establishing precedent in Wickard v. Filburn, because it affected the market prices of wheat, despite the miniscule impact.
The same could be said of TikTok even if it doesn't earn a penny in profit.
What is the nature of that commerce? I don't think you can ablate the 1A concerns this easily.
(Note that I am sympathetic to the idea that TikTok is a source of foreign influence. But it's not clear to me what precedent allows the US congress to control their ownership without doing the same to every "US" corporation that's incorporated in Ireland.)
You should google Wickard v. Filburn. The US Supreme Court ruled that the US government can regulate what you grow on your own land for your own consumption, because it affects inter-state trade.
I think the right way is, don't. This kind of "mistake" can not really result in any misunderstanding so there is not really any benefit gained from a correction. Correcting serves only to disrupt the flow of the conversation.
This is a tech forum for discussing technology. This isn't the place for that, and honestly I'd prefer not to have to sift through a bunch of pedantic grammar nitpicking on here.
I'm a native English speaker. I don't personally like corrections like this, and I would never criticise anyone for using the 'wrong' term. There is too much convention in English which isn't useful because it bleeds into pedantry and I think this is such a case. Using either word gets the job done cleanly, and at the bottom that's all that counts.
Well I was about to say correction but I think I got caught by a false cognate so it was indeed a critique but you weren't criticizing the previous post if my understanding of those words is correct.
Yes but I think a soft resistance is still necessary in a society towards language errors otherwise the language becomes too fluid to be usable and understandable. Where to draw the line between information and rudeness is the difficult part.
You don't need to jail or slap someone in the face for using less instead of fewer but you don't want gynecologist to mean oncologist and cancer to mean gonorrhea from one week to another otherwise nobody knows what we are talking about.
An odd thing, for a native English speaker to be given advice on the language by someone who is learning it, no?
In English there is both essential plumbing and pointless ornament, and I wish for that distinction to be recognised because confusing the two is damaging.
I am not the one who corrected the comment. I am only someone who said that this correction had a value and I am not telling you how you have to speak english.
My point was thatin my opinion I did not believe the correction had value. I was categorising it as a pointless ornament rather than something actually useful. But I emphasise, that's just my view.
All the "incorrect" uses of those words are fine and are a part of the language. Outside of prescriptivism, that's just the use of the language, not misuse.
Even "literally"? While my original comment was just a Stannis joke, I really think you need to rethink how useless it is to have a word that means both "not figuratively" and "figuratively" (by common usage) at the same time. If it means both, we literally have no further use for it in the English language because it modifies nothing.
Why not have the word "no" mean "yes" and "no" while we're at it?
The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.
- James Nicoll
"Literally" has meant figuratively for centuries[0]. It's a language construct known as a contronym[1,2].
Yes, English is not strictly typed, and doesn't conform to a formal spec or mathematical proof. A word can have multiple definitions. A word can have contradictory definitions. The definition of a word can change over time without needing to submit to an approval process. A word can mean something different the next town over. Dialects and creoles and slang exist in wild, flagrant abandon and disregard for your rules. And all of it is valid.
Despite all of this, people manage to be able to comprehend one another, even when using literally to not literally mean literally.
Even the user who used "less" instead of "fewer" upthread that started this. Everyone understood exactly what they meant. The two words mean literally the same thing. But some people insist on maintaining a meaningless formality and insisting upon rules that don't matter, or rather insisting that even in casual conversations, their rules must take precedence over everyone else's.
You're literally doing what you still think I was doing and are literally not realizing the hypocrisy. The "fewer" line was a Stannis Baratheon reference.
Yes it is correct. “Standard” English took one dialect and attempted it enforce it on hundreds of others. It’s authoritarian and not how language works
