Needs text alternative.
Images of text break much that text alternatives do not. Losses due to image of text lacking alternative:
- usability
- we can’t quote the text without pointless bullshit like retyping it or OCR
- text search is unavailable
- the system can’t
- reflow text to varied screen sizes
- vary presentation (size, contrast)
- vary modality (audio, braille)
- accessibility
- lacks semantic structure (tags for titles, heading levels, sections, paragraphs, lists, emphasis, code, links, accessibility features, etc)
- some users can’t read this due to lack of alt text
- users can’t adapt the text for dyslexia or vision impairments
- systems can’t read the text to them or send it to braille devices
- searchability: the “text” isn’t indexable by search engine in a meaningful way
- fault tolerance: no text fallback if
- image breaks
- image host is geoblocked due to insane regulations.
Contrary to age & humble appearance, text is an advanced technology that provides all these capabilities absent from images.
yes, conventions (which include natural language) work that way: the community of users set the convention
what if I told you images can have alt text?
- usability
Totalitarian newspeak propaganda.
And I’m still gonna bitch about it if they’ve reduced the usefulness of a word due to habitual misuse!
I have such a kneejerk reaction to say “lectern” when people say “podium” that when they really do mean “podium” I have to correct myself. 😅
Seems like a variant of hypercorrection.
Calling a Markov Chain Generator “Artificial Intelligence” is STILL WRONG.
This is where marketing creates special kinds of linguistic nightmares. Effectively, marketing is bullshit that becomes standard usage because it’s so pervasive and people unfamiliar with the field don’t know any better.
Hence LLMs are called AI. Two wheeled electric fire hazards are called hoverboards. 3G, 4G, 4G LTE, 5G, cell services usually aren’t up to the standards they claim.
Worth pasting the whole bit… This saved my life:
By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing…kill yourself. It’s just a little thought; I’m just trying to plant seeds. Maybe one day they’ll take root – I don’t know. You try, you do what you can.
(Kill yourself.)
Seriously though, if you are, do.
Aaah, no really. There’s no rationalisation for what you do and you are Satan’s little helpers. Okay – kill yourself.
Seriously. You are the ruiner of all things good.
Seriously.
No this is not a joke. You’re [going], “There’s going to be a joke coming.” There’s no fucking joke coming. You are Satan’s spawn filling the world with bile and garbage. You are fucked and you are fucking us. Kill yourself. It’s the only way to save your fucking soul. Kill yourself
Planting seeds.
I know all the marketing people are going, “He’s doing a joke…” There’s no joke here whatsoever. Suck a tail-pipe, fucking hang yourself, borrow a gun from a Yank friend – I don’t care how you do it. Rid the world of your evil fucking machinations. (Machi…) Whatever, you know what I mean.
I know what all the marketing people are thinking right now too: “Oh, you know what Bill’s doing? He’s going for that anti-marketing dollar. That’s a good market. He’s very smart.”
Oh man, I am not doing that, you fucking, evil scumbags!
“Ooh, you know what Bill’s doing now? He’s going for the righteous indignation dollar. That’s a big dollar. A lot of people are feeling that indignation. We’ve done research – huge market. He’s doing a good thing.”
Godammit, I’m not doing that, you scum-bags! Quit putting a goddamn dollar sign on every fucking thing on this planet. “Ooh, the anger dollar. Huge. Huge in times of recession. Giant market. Bill’s very bright to do that.”
God, I’m just caught in a fucking web.
“Ooh, the trapped dollar, big dollar, huge dollar. Good market – look at our research. We see that many people feel trapped. If we play to that and then separate them into the trapped dollar…”
How do you live like that? And I bet you sleep like fucking babies at night, don’t you?
“What didya do today, honey?”
“Oh, we made ah, we made ah arsenic a childhood food now, goodnight.” [snores] “Yeah we just said, you know, is your baby really too loud? You know?” [snores] “Yeah, you know the mums will love it.” [snores]
Sleep like fucking children, don’t ya. This is your world, isn’t it?
– Bill Hicks
…and I find that double plus good.
If it’s only morons that use it “wrong”, then it does indeed become right, but still gains the added subtext of “by the way I’m also a moron”
Languages are living things. And living things always change. Note the Great English Vowel Change. Even the Norwegian my Grandfather spoke and that I learned from him was virtually a dead language that modern Norwegians stopped using in the 1850s. And the English spoken in the UK is different than the American English I speak. Spanish spoken in Spain isn’t the same as someone from Mexico speaks.
And when conversing with someone, (in the language of your choice), the words you choose to use are defined by the context you use them in. Words can have multiple meanings, but it’s the context and tone clarifies those meanings. Consider all the meanings of the single word ‘fuck’.
But problems start with written words. And many people have poor written communication skills. It can be hard to parse meaning from poorly written words because there is little context and tone that comes through with a typed sentence.
We are all just baying at the moon like any pack. And hoping some understands us.
Written word is a facsimile of a facsimile of what we’re actually communicating. We go from nebulous thoughts, concepts not bound by language, to sounds that roughly convey those concepts, and then to squiggly lines that roughly convey those sounds, and then back up the chain in the other person. Really, it’s a miracle we understand each other at all.
I would say this is not universal. For some, the written word is the native “tongue”, conveying the actual, intended meaning. The written word allows the speaker the opportunity to evaluate and revise their language to match their intent, and the listener the opportunity to re-evaluate previously transmitted thoughts.
The oral variant is dependent on the real-time aptitude of the speaker to articulate their thoughts and message, and for the listener to extract that meaning from the same. For those of us handicapped in these traits, the spoken word is the poor facsimile for actual (written) communication.
There are those constraints around written/spoken word, for sure. I’m more referring to how close it is to the “raw” thought.
We evolved the ability to think. In order to allow our thoughts to reach others, we developed spoken word. In order to allow those spoken words to be passed through time, we developed written word. Each refers back to the previous “layer” of communication.
Even someone who has a speech impediment, for instance, is still using the same written language as someone else in the same culture. And that written language was developed specifically to try and evoke the words someone in the culture speaks.
What if it isn’t everyone who uses a word “wrong”? What if it’s say 25% of people who use it incorrectly? Should you encourage them to use it correctly?
If there are two different ways of using the word and they could be mistaken for each-other that’s bad. Once the use of a word has flipped and means something very different from the original (idiot, gay, etc.) then there’s no reason to try to return to the original usage. If the usage is still in dispute and the majority of people use the word in the original meaning, I think it’s good to discourage people from using the word incorrectly so that people are still able to understand each-other.
then it’s an unsettled contest between a split community
a language’s community isn’t bound by any rules: it’s free to change a language however it chooses
I’ve found a language policing minority on here try to pejorate female as derogatory, and I explain to them that by trying to induct sexist presuppositions into the language they’re either sexist or playing themselves
A couple things.
First, some languages do have authorities that bound their language by rules. For example, the Académie Française and the Real Academia Española, which work for French and Spanish, respectively. English is an exception, which uses common usage rather than strict “definitions.” So while English is free to change with speakers, some languages do have official groups that make rules about their use.
Second, those who dislike “female” (when used as a noun describing female humans, specifically) aren’t turning the word into a pejorative - they are merely reporting that their experience with the word, when used in that way, expresses derogatory sentiments. The critics aren’t turning it into a “bad word,” the people who use “female” to describe women and girls are already using it to “otherize” and dehumanize half the population. To ignore the way that effect makes women and girls feel, even though they’re the ones being directly affected by such usage, is quite dismissive. I don’t want to throw around the word “mansplaining” willy nilly, but if you’re a man who goes around explaining to women that they shouldn’t be offended by a term that impacts them, but which you have no personal stake in, it might be wise to step back and listen to their experiences.
First, some languages do have authorities that bound their language by rules.
Not how natural languages work. Those “authorities” merely claim to be. You can call yourself the king of Kentucky, too.
aren’t turning the word into a pejorative
Yes, they are whether they recognize it or not: their policing would have that effect. Older activists understood that and chose to reclaim words like black & queer as words of pride instead. Newer activists would be wise to follow that example: by instead trying to establish self-demeaning complexes into the language, they are playing themselves.
The rest you wrote is misguided opinion you’d ironically perpetuate.
the people who use “female” to describe women and girls are already using it to “otherize” and dehumanize half the population
Counterfactual. The language community decides the meaning of words through observed usage, and in the preponderance of the community, female is inoffensive. That includes among females themselves. Female is used self-referentially “in-group”: it shows up in feminist book titles, in dating communities (eg, “F4F/M”), classifieds (eg, “need a roommate […] females only”), etc. In conventional language, female is an acceptable word.
From an external, impartial observer, claiming there’s a problem with the word female with little regard for context communicates the problem resides in whatever the word itself denotes rather than the contextual meaning.
This analogy fits you.
Imagine online activists started condemning usage of the word dutch as a slur. It’s bizarre: there is nothing wrong with the dutch, yet they’re acting as though we should think so & resist that urge? Why are they propagating problematic presuppositions we don’t have about the dutch? Why are they trying to make this official? Are they some special breed of stupid?
Continuing this analogy, they drag you into fights by claiming you’re a racist for using the word when you’re not actually saying anything offensive about the dutch. You & the rest of society know the word dutch isn’t offensive, yet these activists insist it is by pointing to some fringe online community spewing vitriolic propaganda about dutch inferiority specifically using the word dutch. You repudiate their claim by asking why some fringe group irrelevant to wider society gets to decide the meaning of words, but they condemn your “hurtful” language and say you’re as bad as them or one of them. Don’t be an asshole & use another word like Dutchperson, Netherlander, or Hollander they say: it’s the right thing to do & shows socially conscientious, moral rectitude.
I don’t want to throw around the word “mansplaining” willy nilly
Logic has no sex. You’d be wise not to promote sexism.
I thnik Subcultures and sub-cultural contexts will always exist.
There’s always some cases where people have - and prefer- a small or specialist audience.
If you try to discourage it too hard you’ll probably end up with more slangs/ patois / creoles emerging. Try to clamp down of business consultant jargon and see what happens, a million worse terms will probably emerge.
But the disputes occur because people use the newer, less common meaning until it becomes more common. If you discourage people from using the word “incorrectly” but it eventually evolves in meaning through usage because people ignore your encouragement to return to the original meaning, then you’d just be on the losing side of the battle historically.
I feel like it should be much more nuanced as to whether you encourage or discourage change. People reclaiming or usurping derogatory terms as a big FU to bigotry? Awesome. People twisting words for the purposes of oppressive, deceptive, or marketing purposes? Nope.
The reason behind the change should be preferably be intentional, backed by goodwill, and done in order to increase ease of communication because the old meaning/usage wasn’t sufficient.
But language is a shared medium and a lot of intention falls by the wayside because of random quirks as much by intentional campaigns.
people use the newer, less common meaning until it becomes more common
And we can work to stop it from becoming more common by nipping it in the bud.
then you’d just be on the losing side of the battle historically
At least you turned up to the fight.
But language is a shared medium
Which is why change should be gradual and limited, otherwise two people who use that language are unable to clearly communicate.
Clear communication is so Ohio, I’ve got rizz.
Or something. I’m too old to make this joke.
But, you’re just one person. You won’t be present for 99.9999%+ of newer usages of terms, so you’ll be impotent to effect much change on the matter. With the level of illiteracy and the anti-intellectualism that seems rampant these days, even having a widely read column on a popular platform might be insufficient to turn such a tide. Maybe at best you’d be a screenwriter for a Hollywood blockbuster that a decent portion of the population watches and you could hope for the best, but even that seems weak considering we collectively don’t even remember movie lines accurately ten or twenty years later.
But, together we’re 2 people. And we can recruit more to the army.
Then both groups are correct and the word gets multiple meanings.
Only one individual can use a word incorrectly.
I will fight lexicon for the most petty of reasons. Idgaf
As somebody who still insists that emo means Rites of Spring and not Paramore, no.
“Everyone” meaning the social media someone and their social set get their info and cues from, not the rest of the people around them.
“Everyone” meaning folks off-line who you feel the urge to keep correcting because you got hounded by grammar nazis on the internet and now the “correct” meaning is branded into your skull.
“Everyone” is a very, very high bar.
Ain’t that the truth!
I would of made this post myself but I like literally don’t care enough.
deleted by creator
