From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS53758 23.128.96.0/24 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4D981F9E5 for ; Wed, 26 May 2021 23:50:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233843AbhEZXvn (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 May 2021 19:51:43 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:47318 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232270AbhEZXvn (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 May 2021 19:51:43 -0400 Received: from mail-oi1-x234.google.com (mail-oi1-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::234]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41862C061574 for ; Wed, 26 May 2021 16:50:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oi1-x234.google.com with SMTP id v22so3317650oic.2 for ; Wed, 26 May 2021 16:50:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=0+GYZ+gW+dNY512LfeY0e+TU/4l9MG2GFl+rFliIjnk=; b=p5WWXnCFf+UJScOW5I7u2Spu5dOQR4fmHARViGL8qbEkxdNQZhpI/Y+m610fiJXbEz lO8oDeH4v51g4wWeszKBYpd6CMldxFa3M/ebhq9EmcCtTaUtuSvId6OL0kKQlizvkrxH 8W+qUAcbP8cJS0ktK8G/w4Tg5SMxX8iLX2pLOG7QrO/QhadsKGt53Vn89hg/d8tddUE6 chwbknm4jlnf5Ye3d5VAct0Fgq8+pIgSRPCGHH7i2RNODDNARw/yGPQyHfmkY8qJy5nR Ow15W2Z9b27Qzwo62DSV5u8BGTj5BNpLCz1X/PooNiOho6OYyPfB76TRKvL/0CyxmvAI LTYQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=0+GYZ+gW+dNY512LfeY0e+TU/4l9MG2GFl+rFliIjnk=; b=G5e1eSiy2UXb+HPZXDu+C6ETFNZqTtxVWiBuwgCG3d3po6NbLDAn3c/6Qhvco3SKLI tEBG0NKCA8m6FiSjlIpTFbriuWGZPcskLUaQ3bs1huzlcPPT2XOblz3Naz2lambPeakG VleuN8rV3jqntgOEy7Uo/c88IsKzx6lvVDkAlUMSp3p/Ae/nqkXj3ZigYLizo2uNYDYk o/Z/7k74W0hB2ISfs60Y50kpDX9dBK55Uj7HNiCvJQAIp8IYa4YAvAiGAsAmgqwuqfuJ fJ765lgr+d4iuaybqzZpUvyvW133uZrW1uuTphTUM2vZPh2RPkeSi7xOxMc0ymdCerBT n2Bg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531pp/CBaXJqvlZcB1jOVKDUwIrHV3J0VZ+4agHr+tGSxUe3s4ko LvNbE4TnkwjQtlNLldBVjnUxF35ExIEy2JlQSH2ioGzr98s= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJylOL/cr4qhFkg8bl0kscHvvaFLxcc6cv7f5bAUa2sNgfKCkCm7LyG0avcos7fxlGhvAkpD+ShFTS9Zw0bqQps= X-Received: by 2002:aca:3e06:: with SMTP id l6mr474787oia.147.1622073009530; Wed, 26 May 2021 16:50:09 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210512040926.GN12700@kitsune.suse.cz> <609b63e48fd49_6d7da2086@natae.notmuch> <20210512064733.GP12700@kitsune.suse.cz> <20210512170153.GE8544@kitsune.suse.cz> <609c112066acd_71bd1208aa@natae.notmuch> <20210512180418.GF8544@kitsune.suse.cz> <609c2f98932f3_71bd120840@natae.notmuch> <20210513074622.GG8544@kitsune.suse.cz> <20210513094818.GH8544@kitsune.suse.cz> In-Reply-To: <20210513094818.GH8544@kitsune.suse.cz> From: Varun Varada Date: Wed, 26 May 2021 18:49:58 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc: replace jargon word "impact" with "effect"/"affect" To: =?UTF-8?Q?Michal_Such=C3=A1nek?= Cc: Robert Coup , Felipe Contreras , git@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 13 May 2021 at 04:48, Michal Such=C3=A1nek wrot= e: > Yet Felipe insists that 'impact' is somehow generally bad word to use or > that it should be abolished solely because he finds it bad and nobody > objected to the alternative wording. > > Opinions on use of 'impact' differ both among the participants of this > discussion and authorities like authors well-known dictionaries. > > It looks like this is generally matter of stylistic preferences and > opinions. That is even if there is some slight stylistic preference for > not using the word 'impact' it is very hard to prove such and then it is > very hard to request change based only on writing style preferences. The argument is not that it is generally a bad word to use, but that it is generally bad to use words when they don't mean what one thinks they mean, especially when all evidence says otherwise. All major dictionaries define "impact" as "a strong effect" or "to affect strongly". This is not style, but semantics. In the same way that "per se" being used to mean "necessarily" is not a style issue, using "impact" to mean "an effect" or "to affect" is not a style issue. As has been stated already, the clear and substantial argument for this change is that it reduces the confusion that arises from improperly using the word "impact" in the instances without any loss or compromise in meaning. That is a clear win.