Re: [PATCH] doc: replace jargon word "impact" with "effect"/"affect"

> Michal Suchánek wrote:
> > On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 12:13:08AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > > Michal Suchánek wrote:
> 
> > > > You can use 'affect' or 'impact' and it generally conveys the same
> > > > meaning.
> > > 
> > > That's clearly *your* opinion, but that's not my opinon.
> > > 
> > > I'm not arguing between blue and red; I'm arguing between water-based and
> > > lead-based paint.
> > 
> > No, you are not. There is no clear problem with 'impact', either.
> 
> There's no clear problem *to you*.
> 
> > So if somebody comes along later and says that they find 'affect'
> > confusing and impact should be used does that need to be accepted as
> > well, back and forth ad nauseam?
> 
> No. When that happens we start a new discussion, and see where that
> leads.
> 
> > > The difference may not matter to you, but it matters to me.
> > > 
> > > If it's bikeshedding to you, and it "gnerally conveys the same meaning",
> > > why are you arguing against?
> > 
> > So if 'for' loops and 'while' loops generally convey the same meaning
> > should we accept patches that replace some 'for' loops with 'while'
> > lopps or vice versa?
> 
> You are not answering my question, and you are providing an irrelevant
> example.
> 
> I don't see any general difference between 'for' loops and 'while'
> loops. But I do see a difference between 'impact' and 'affect'.
> 
> You are starting from the premise that $a is no different than $b.
> That's your opinion, and I'm not disregarding it. But other people (e.g.
> Varun and me) do have a different opinion.
> 
> Again, to make it crystal clear; you opine that $a and $b are equal, we
> opine that they are not. We don't disregard your opinion, you do
> disregard ours.
> 
> I don't know how much clearer I can make this.
> 
> > In the COCA corpus there is around 200k instances of 'effect', around
> > 100k instances of 'affect', and around 100k instances of 'impact'
> > which makes effect/affect about 3 times more frequent than 'impact'.
> > That's not even an order of magnitude - clearly not enough to claim it
> > obscure.
> 
> I don't think you understand the point.
> 
> The word "impact" is not obscure by any means.
> 
> The Chicxulub impactor (probably an asteroid) did create an impact on
> Earth that probably killed all the non-avian dinosaurs. In that context
> the word "impact" is 100% valid.
> 
> And you can find many such valid instances in those 100k COCA corpus
> instances...
> 
> But not all.
> 
> 
> The way the word "impact" is used in the git documentation is different
> than the COCA corpus. Not all the instances of the word "impact" in the
> git documentation refer to an event so drastic that it destroyed
> thousands of species.
> 
> The point is very simple; there's valid ways of using the word "impact",
> and there's invalid ways of using it. The git documentation for the most
> part uses the word "impact" in an invalid way.
> 
> How many times the COCA corpuses uses "impact" in $b manner is
> irrelevant to the number of times the git documentation uses the same
> word in $a manner; the same word can have completely (and sometimes
> opposite meanings).
> 
> The word "literally" sometimes means the exact opposite of the word
> "literally". So if you find 1 million instances of the word "instance"
> used in some way, that doesn't matter, because you might be using it in
> a different way.
> 
> 
> So... Can you answer my question?
> 
> Do you have anything against the word "affect" in *any* instance?