Hacker News Reader

Comment by mlinsey | Hacker News Reader

> when someone talks about codegen, it usually means AOP, bytecode manipulation, compiler plugins and the sorts. Not "AI tools"

I have found the opposite to be true, starting this year. You can commiserate with people who are interested in cryptography.

View on HN

Every year I commiserate harder

- "Dexter" is no longer "Dexter's Lab" (It's Darkly Dreaming Dexter)

- "Dark Descent" is no longer "Amnesia" (It's some other game)

- "Server" no longer means "server" (It means a Discord guild)

- "Serverless" now means "On a server"

- "Operating system" sometimes means "web app"

- "Powered by" has nothing to do with power

And Internet speeds are still measured in bits, in case anyone is not running the latest System/360

Oh, and clouds are now where other people's computers live, and not full of rain and lightning, both of which aren't friends to computers.

Jason isn't my friend anymore, but a data interchange format.

Neither is Kate, she's how I orchestrate my containers.

Ghosting doesn't involve poltergeists or a Halloween, Zoom isn't a function on my camera, and fishing steals my data and doesn't get me delicious salmon.

Don't forget "literally" which people have rendered useless by using it to mean "figuratively". And even the dictionary allowed that misuse of the language. :(

Literally has always meant figuratively[0]. That is not a misuse of the language, that is how the language is used and has been used since at least 1769.

[0]https://blogs.illinois.edu/view/25/96439

I don't know how you figure that. Up until the last 10 years, when someone said "I literally (did $thing)" it was a statement that they actually did whatever it was, regardless of how unlikely it might seem. That is the polar opposite of how people (especially the kids, who should get off my lawn) use it today. It is a misuse of language, plain and simple.

I've always seen it more as exaggeration/absurdity for the sake of humor than ignorant misuse of the word. Like in a cartoon when a character's eyes _literally_ pop out of their head. Of course, even if that's true, I'm sure the nuance would sometimes be lost in translation and help blur the definition in common vernacular just the same.

No, "literally" has been used to mean "figuratively" as a common English idiom for centuries, and there is plenty of documentary proof to that effect, including the specific year I mentioned (1769) being the first use of "literally" as "figuratively" attested to in print. This isn't something "the kids" came up with ten years ago, or that I just made up.

Here. Here's another article about it[0]. Like all language prescriptivists, you're simply wrong.

[0]https://www.thecut.com/2018/01/the-300-year-history-of-using...

Ok bro. I don't know why you're being so hostile. But I'll just say that I disagree that your sources persuasively back up your argument. Hell, the second one is completely irrelevant. It's just trying to come up with an excuse to complain about (non-existent) sexism, and has no good argument whatsoever. Your first source is better, but I still don't agree it substantiates your claim.

Oh, and since we're apparently trading insults about linguistic views: like all linguistic descriptivists, you don't know what words mean. ;)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com