[flagged]
> The center of rapid or intense development or change. noun
> The starting point or most basic level.
The author used it correctly even though you got triggered by the word.
And I think that the meaning "most basic level" is wrong- the dictionaries might be simply recording a rare and wrong usage of the expression.
The primary semantic connection is the misuse of the phrase "from the ground up" and conflating it with "ground zero." There's no direct or indirect semantic relationship between something explosive or chaotic or destructive, and deliberately and methodically building a language model, in a calm and rational process. The meaning doesn't map to the phrase in the context of this article's title.
If you were building an etymology website from the ground up, you'd hope it would be ground zero for an explosion of awareness about how different words, phrases, and sayings could be used correctly in different contexts.
Something like that - I was trying to be considerate about the Ground Zero memorial, and the many ways in which "ground zero" can refer to things that people are deeply invested in. My personal stake is just an observation that it's not quite the right turn of phrase for the use to which it was put.
It seems likely that "from the ground up" was the intended phrase, and it might have gotten awkwardly revised, since the word startup is also in the title?
I checked a few dictionaries and the second or third sense for all was "the very beginning or most elementary level" or "starting from scratch".
I do agree Ground Zero is a loaded term, but it has an existing meaning and it is the above one I think of first when hearing the term.
Its like the word holocaust. We use it in phases like "a nuclear holocaust" while at the same time it refers to a specific horrible incident.
The historical and still sometimes contemporary meaning of "holocaust" is a burnt offering at an altar. But, if you're using that term now in a general context to mean merely a burnt offering it is so overcome by historical events that you will confuse your audience, cloud out your message, and probably cause widespread offense. Well if there were similar more recent examples of that in english it would be key vocabulary surrounding September 11 2001, like "Ground Zero." Therefore, while the OP is technically incorrect about the dictionary definition of the phrase, they aren't wrong about the meaning of the phrase to contemporary english speakers.
I really don't think so. I think almost every US president has used that exact phrase ("nuclear holocaust") in the last 20 years. Trump, Biden, Obama, Bush, have all casually used the phase "nuclear holocaust" while speaking to the American public.
> they aren't wrong about the meaning of the phrase to contemporary english speakers.
I am a contemporary English speaker, I grew up during 9/11. "Ground Zero" as a noun means a reference to 9/11. Using it normally like "starting from ground zero" is completely understandable and non-controversial to me. My opinion of course.
The point I was aiming at was the general semantic meaning of the phrase. It seemed mismatched from the meaning intended by the sentence. With startups, there are various phrases, like "get in on the ground floor/level" or "build it from the ground up" where the full semantic metaphorical meaning of the phrase maps to the meaning intended. If you said you wanted to get in at ground zero, there's a semantic mismatch, so the meaning doesn't fully apply in the context in which it's used.
I don't think it's necessarily controversial, either. Comedians use the term "bombing" for performances gone bad. If a night went particularly bad, they could call it a holocaust. They also refer to "murdering" a crowd, when sets go really well - "my bit last night was a nuclear holocaust" might work to convey great success.
I gauge the level of correctness to the various levels of meaning and metaphor, so if multiple levels don't track, or if a singular level is mismatched to the context, then I don't consider it as a very correct use of the word or phrase. It's not totally wrong, but of the many ways in which that phrase is used correctly, it's not very right, either.
Anyway - My mistake for highlighting an admittedly minor issue among language model enthusiasts. We seem to enjoy delving into language's technicalities, and LLMs are great for exploring how meanings align with a sentence's intended message. I get caught up in these things easily.
I didn't read the complete article so I missed the phrase originally, it might have given me a slight pause but I would understand the meaning.
My apologies too for the nitpicking, I enjoy language and yes, interesting were on an LLM thread discussing this.
Perhaps dramatically ironic, but this is precisely the kind of thing that a LLM would help with. The opening paragraph uses "from scratch" which is a more appropriate choice also.