Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc: replace jargon word "impact" with "effect"/"affect"

From: Felipe Contreras <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 22:09:56 -0500

Michal Suchánek wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 02:21:43PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > Michal Suchánek wrote:

> > > If you are concerned about correctness and clarity of the documentation please
> > > avoid spreading misinformation.
> > 
> > Under certain definition of "jaron" Varun's statement would be
> > incorrect, but not under all definitions. If you use the definition
> > I stated above, "impact" can be considered jargon, because it's a bit
> > obscure language.
> 
> Do you have any frequency data that supports your claim that the word
> 'impact' is obscure?

This is not how logic works.

If I don't have frequency data that supports $x, but you have no
frequency data that supports !$x, then we return to the default position;
we don't know if $x is true or not.

Do **you** have any frequency data that supports the negative claim that
the word "impact" is not obscure?

> The bar for change should be that the word as used is very unfitting or
> unintelligible.

No. The bar is that **nobody** have any problem with "affect", and some
people have a problem with "impact".

Do you have any problem with "affect"?

-- 
Felipe Contreras