Oh really? Refraction and reflection of light, the study of same - that's what matters is it?
Of course not. You mean appearances matter. Name-dropping some physics-sounding word does not make you sound smart, it makes you sound confused and wrong. Optics means optics. It doesn't mean whatever you choose it to mean.
Deliberately misusing words doesn't make you sound cool, it makes you sound like a "Sandwich Artist".
"2. (used with a plural verb) the way a situation, action, event, etc., is perceived by the public or by a particular group of people: The optics on this issue are pretty good for the Democrats. Administrators worry about the bad optics of hiring new staff during a budget crisis."
Since the early 20th century, literally has been widely used as an intensifier meaning “in effect, virtually,” a sense that contradicts the earlier meaning “actually, without exaggeration”
I know the language is being debased. Doesn't mean I like it.
The English language is full of words and phrases that just make writing look more fancy.
You might want to rethink some things.
In short, everything you've said is completely wrong.
1. It was in scare quotes for a reason.
2. That is a stupid job title, not a word.
Someone giving an example of something they don't like said doesn't make them a hypocrite for saying it, especially if they quote it. God sakes.
While people can defend the use, it gives the piece a distracting buzzwordy feel.
I am actually heartened to see it appears to be a politician's fad. Hopefully in 20 years time it will be about as potent as "radical".
Nonetheless, that doesn't put a damper on my nerdy inclination to point out, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
...See how ridiculous that sounds? If you understood what the author was saying, there's no need to nitpick his use of a single word. Languages change, bud. No amount of bitter internet comments will stop that.
And let's stop shitting on people who work at Subway, kay? Pretty sure they're doing more with their lives than someone who trolls HN to complain about nonsense.
I wasn't shitting on people who work at Subway, I was shitting on their awful, condescending job titles.
And I really just have to ask you to think about what you said.
> Languages change, bud. No amount of bitter internet comments will stop that.
Yes they do. Society changes, too. Companies change. People change. Countries change, laws change. (Oops, another comma splice).
I could re-use your comment to put down any criticism of any change of any kind. Just play around with some issues you care about, replacing the word "Languages" to suit. Feel any different?
> I could re-use your comment to put down any criticism of any change of any kind.
Sure, if my criticism was about something that naturally changes. If I were criticizing trees for losing their leaves, or tides from moving in and out, or potato chips for going stale, you would be completely correct to tell me, "All of those things happen whether you like it or not." Just like I'm correct to tell you, "It's pointless to complain about words finding new meanings."
Yes. The person that came up with the "awful, condescending" job title. You mistake the target of the shitting.
2. A person who, in real terms, is unskilled, and cant
see it, despite thinking they have a 'talent'. The
person often makes inappropriate, obtuse, or
simplistic comments, to everyone elses amusement.
It does not take a degree in linguistics to understand that using someone else's job title in a derogatory manner is shitting on the person with the job title. This is something you should have learned in grade school.
This point has been belaboured far more than it deserves, but for the record I had in mind both the cynical management with their ludicrous, condescending job titles, and any employee naive enough to believe it.
The blogger in question didn't make up the phrase, it's been handed down to him, but he's taken it up with gusto. He's sort of an enthusiastic consumer of the management BS. I hadn't thought of the angle of criticising the poor hard-working minimum wage Subway employees; wasn't my intention. Think Gareth/Dwight from The Office though, wearing his Sandwich Artist badge with obnoxious pride, and that's sort of close.
Anyway, more words have been wasted on this matter than ever it deserved...
How do you distinguish a comma-splice from the grammatically-correct independent-clauses-connected-by-semicolons in speech?
> What would you have written?
Well, assuming I wanted to say what you said, I would replace the commas with semicolons, making it grammatically correct without changing the wording or the implied spoken phrasing.