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

>
> 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?