From: Michal Suchánek <msuchanek@suse.de>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2021 04:11:38 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc: replace jargon word "impact" with "effect"/"affect"
Message-ID: <20210512041138.GO12700@kitsune.suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <609b47043a719_678ff208e@natae.notmuch>

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?

Thanks

Michal