Your ability to determine how another is feeling via words is lacking. I’m not fuming. I’m not even that angry. I just am having a discussion and you’re responding like you’re not even out of high school. Its just frustrating communication.
Except due to the new usage one now has to basically define it to give it the correct context. It’s lost its power to be used and immediately understood. If what you say is true, it cannot be used efficiently to why it was coined.
And pretending it’s not suddenly being used because of Doctorow is naive.
Except the language is weaker as we’ve lost the ability to transfer one idea easily because people like re-using the word because they think it makes them sound educated on the topic. It’s being used because of Doctorow, not because of any other reason. So I call bullshit on it just being grammatical.
So now we don’t have a word anymore to describe something that we used to have a word. And we already had words to describe what the person above was.
The language has lost use.
Except it means nothing in that usage. Some people ran with it. Others decided to not be ridiculous and just apply it without rhyme or reason. Outside the Fediverse, it’s nearly unknown. Inside the fediverse, when it’s misused, it’s usually in a very obvious and uncritical manner. It is still commonly used properly.
Don’t take the power away from words just because you literally like the word itself. It’s immature.
If you use it to apply to all unpopular corporate decisions, it’s no longer powerful and doesn’t have any meaning.
The general driving force is different though. It’s a process that involves devaluing a service by basically commoditizing two forces against each other. Simply dropping value-added features to save money is just the race to the bottom.
Dropping a feature is the equivalent of charging for extra BBQ sauce packets. It’s not the same driving force like Instagram where they play two forces against each other. Like the way Google has been going with shoving way too many ads in there. That is a different motivation because it’s valuing one customer at the expense of another. Something like dropping free service XYZ is just cutting costs.
The word is getting overplayed and it feels like everyone has the same word-a-day calendar and are now trying to use it as much as possible.
It’s more impactful and retains meaning if we keep it succinct instead of just the equivalent of “an unpopular decision that saves money to increase shareholder value”. It’s all about recognizing you are a product as well as a user. It’s that the services don’t have an incentive to serve you. Its just so much more meaningful as long as we don’t remove all of that meaning to just show we don’t like corporatism.
But their entirely different processes. One is exploiting one market vs the other. Here it wouldn’t necessarily be exploiting a market, but destroying value of a free service. If you’re worried about personal info being the exploitation, it’s going to be very limited and likely already in place. An account structure is usually more the first move toward monetizing the service directly and enabling the ability between free and premium services. That’s still shitty, but for entirely different reasons. So I just don’t like seeing the original word lose all meaning whatsoever beyond its root word. It basically guts it of all of its nuance and importance and just turns it into a noun form of taking something and making it shitty. We don’t need to do that.
Can we stop the overuse and over-generalization of “enshitification” which Doctorow had given very explicit meaning to in regards to social networks? It does not simply mean commoditization which is not quite the same but almost synonymous with 'race to the bottom’s in regards of trying to increase revenue while simultaneously decreasing costs.
Edit: I’ll admit narrowing to “social networks” is a bit too narrow, but the point still stands that it’s for two way platforms where there are “two markets.” Phillips Hue does not have a two sided market.
I find the “stricter” meaning more ambiguous though. Nerd still applies to many subclasses of people back in the day. If you read too many books, nerd. Played video games? Nerd. Did math for fun? Nerd. Chess? Nerd. So saying “classic nerd” doesn’t say much.
And in regards to being negative or not, it was more the ambiguity of their opening. They said the word “nerd” isn’t negative anymore because it’s watered down. So when they made a non-watered down version, it just seemed questionable in regards to the reason given for not being negative anymore.
Based on their response, yeah, I think it was just poor wording.
My gatekeeping was referencing a need for “classic nerd” vs “nerd”. I find no need to differentiate between what it “used” to mean and what it means today. It makes more sense to categorize the type of nerd to be honest. I don’t think anyone is “just” a nerd. They’re a nerd in a certain topic or subject.
Nerd means the same thing, just expanded to include different topics. Nerd back in the day could mean various things. You could be a nerd for liking dinosaurs “too much” but didn’t mean you knew about computers. So it’s just that saying “classic nerd” doesn’t really clarify who yorue talking about.
This is so confusing. Are you saying “classic nerd” is negative then? Your wording is kind of ambiguous. I don’t think “nerd” has been watered down, just isn’t very negative in the mainstream. I’d say it just means you’re very enthusiastic about a certain topic. I don’t think folks would call someone who just plays one video game a nerd, unless it’s only one video game and they are super into it, like a “WoW nerd” maybe.
I don’t think there’s any need to gatekeep “nerd” though and require any additional qualifiers on it like “classic”. Just seems like you’re trying to say “actual” without sounding elitist about it.
The summary uses the term “vanilla JS” in a weird way. It’s just to further denote it’s not TypeScript because TypeScript is a language that essentially extends JavaScript. It’s not a framework. This is about language choice of TS vs JS inside large complex libraries only.
Libraries tend to have a need for generic typing due to the nature of being code used by other code. So you get a lot of syntax craziness involving Type parameters.
You can still use the libraries mentioned in a TS project. They’re just not written in TS. TS and JS can be in the same project. Moreover, it even states this isn’t about developers using TS in non-library projects.
Oh, the “ride” is also photoshopped in there. Captain’s Log Flume. It’s easy to miss but on the front of the log.
Usually some form of the name “log flume”. It exists at most water parks.
Not really, it’s mostly empty space.
The first pilot literally had them talking about how weird it is to have a woman on the bridge.
No. They go through the ACH which is operated by NACHA. They don’t just have private deals between the two of them (I mean, I guess they can). I mean, you keep saying what about the rest of the standards and then naming a specific system. A system isn’t a standard. It’s possible you’re just using the wrong terminology and I’m completely misunderstanding you. But all banks in the US operate the same basic way. According to standards that are required to operate in the ACH plus to meet federal regulations. FDIC insured isn’t just all willy nily.
I am not on TikTok and it won’t play the whole video, so this does nothing. Its not a useful rebuttal. I’m fine if you want to cite your argument, but this is useless. Who goes around using TikTok as damn evidence. “Hey, look at this random stranger say something.”
Edit: transfers don’t generally fail unless there’s a lack of funds. And that isn’t the definition of standard anyway. Standards can be unreliable. And what is wrong with routing and account? Put together it contains much of the same info as an IBAN.
It doesn’t come across insulting at all. It comes across as naive.
Like, it literally has a Wikipedia page and doesn’t mention anything else.
I mean, literally isn’t used to mean just figuratively. It’s actually an exaggeration to mean that the concept is so strong that it literally triggered the figurative comparison for real. Context is key there. And context is important. That’s the great thing about that though is you rarely need extra information to show which definition you mean. If I said it’s so hot outside that I’m literally on fire, you don’t need to question the meaning.
But here? Let’s be honest. The word usage has exploded on Lemmy. They wanted so badly to use the term in the cool way. No one would have used the word that way before. No one uses its ‘literal’ definition now really. Because it’s generally not how humans in society have discussions. No one describes the enshitification of something as a clinical description. If it were used as a joke? Sure. But now it’s either someone so divorced from reality that they don’t even know how to communicate or it’s just folks who heard the word, thought it was cool, but didn’t really understand it. That’s all that is. I can’t believe folks are trying to defend the “evolution” of language on one hand by describing a loss of accuracy and clarity in language, but then on the ither hand defending it from some weird historical perspective. It’s honestly entertaining to see people come at this and argue with entirely contradictory points of view. “Words change meaning and this is it’s new meaning” vs “that’s been its meaning forever”. Like, let’s try to at least coordinate the defense of the person who wanted to sound cool. No one says “enshittified” in place of “it’ll go to shit” or “get fucked”. But instead you expect me to believe this is some ole-timey bastard saying, “sir, it will be enshittified.” Come on buddy. It’s weird you even thought all those words you spoke would sound insulting. Like you actually had a good point or something. See? That last bit there. That’s what something insulting sounds like.