|
Dogfish posted:"As of" usually refers to a condition beginning in the present and extending indefinitely into the future: "Dr. MacDonald will be Head of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology as of 1 January 2017." If talking about something like data, you'll also hear "As of X, blah blah blah" to mean "the (latest) information I have dates to X and says...". Since and from/to don't cover that at all.
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 04:01 |
|
|
Good point! That usage had slipped my mind but it's very common.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
dupersaurus posted:If talking about something like data, you'll also hear "As of X, blah blah blah" to mean "the (latest) information I have dates to X and says...". Since and from/to don't cover that at all. "He was the company's CFO as of 15 January." All this means is that you know he was the CFO on 15 January. If you knew more, you'd say that. For example if you knew he has continued in that position, you'd say: "He has been the company's CFO since 15 January." Dogfish posted:"As of" usually refers to a condition beginning in the present and extending indefinitely into the future: "Dr. MacDonald will be Head of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology as of 1 January 2017." As you say, "from" can be perfectly subtituted in your usage of "as of." So why use "as of"? The term is confusing because, as you guys point out, it can mean several things -- and often the reader has to parse the context at least twice to figure out exactly what's going on. What's wrong with "on," "from," and "since"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:The term is confusing because, as you guys point out, it can mean several things -- and often the reader has to parse the context at least twice to figure out exactly what's going on. What exactly is ambiguous about "Dr. MacDonald will be Head of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology as of 1 January 2017."? If you wanted to use "from" or "on" in that case it would be a bit awkward, unless you added more and changed it to "starting from 1 January" or "starting on 1 January". but "as of" gets exactly the same point and is more concise and, unless I'm missing something, I don't see any other potential meaning in the above example.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:Doesn't "on" cover that? Take this example: - "He has been the company's CFO since 15 Jan" if you're talking about known information after Jan 15 - "He was the company's CFO on 15 Jan" if you're speaking of Jan 15 in particular, or if you're not implying his current status as the CFO - "He was the company's CFO as of 15 Jan" if you knew he was the CFO on Jan 15, but don't know if he still is - "He is the company's CFO as of 15 Jan" if you're announcing that he has become, or is becoming, the CFO on Jan 15 In the later two cases, you can distinguish the meaning from the context of the conversation I was specifically referring to sets of data, such as "My information on this topic is correct as of Jan 15", in which you're saying that you are speaking correctly with the data you have, but are allowing that since that date the data may have changed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
What's your first language? English is a language with lots of essentially synonymous words and phrases that have slight nuances in meaning that are mostly contextual/by convention, and that's often confusing for speakers of other languages where that's not the case. For example, in German, "I have been living here since 2011" and "I have been living here for the last five years" would have the same construction, but that's incorrect (though intelligible) in English. That's because in German "Ich wohne hier seit..." doesn't have the same specificity that "I have been living here since" does in English. What dupersaurus is talking about with "as of" would be something more like "She was working at Google as of last month," meaning that the information was current last month but the person speaking doesn't know if it's still correct. There's an implied assumption that nothing has changed, but not enough information to make that assumption explicit. Again, this is one of those English nuances that's often hard for non-native speakers to get because it's so strongly subtextual. "From...onward" is indeed a near-perfect substitution for "as of;" the answer to your question re: selecting one over the other is that the choice is usually stylistic or by convention. I tend to say "as of," but I wouldn't think "from...onward" was incorrect. If you don't like "as of," you can feel free to substitute it with "from...onward" if you prefer, and everyone will know what you mean. edit: Dupersaurus, you beat me to it! Dogfish fucked around with this message at 17:09 on Dec 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
Dogfish posted:What's your first language? English is a language with lots of essentially synonymous words and phrases that have slight nuances in meaning that are mostly contextual/by convention, and that's often confusing for speakers of other languages where that's not the case. That's the case for every single language in the world.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
My first language is English. I don't dispute at all that as of has perfectly grammatical uses. My question is why ever choose it over the alternatives, which are shorter and more specific. It's been brought up here that from is somehow awkard or inadequate as a susbtitute for as of. I'm not sure where you guys are getting that reading; the dictionary definitions speak for themselves, and several professional style guides (such as The Economist's) even prefer from/on/at to as of. The common complaint I've read online is that as of represents the kind of jargon and legalese that good writing can do without. Re: the issue of data being current... Dogfish posted:What dupersaurus is talking about with "as of" would be something more like "She was working at Google as of last month," meaning that the information was current last month but the person speaking doesn't know if it's still correct. There's an implied assumption that nothing has changed, but not enough information to make that assumption explicit. Again, this is one of those English nuances that's often hard for non-native speakers to get because it's so strongly subtextual. But to me, that just makes it an even more inferior term to use. It's a weasel word; it's people trying to get away with saying things without actually saying them. If you can prove she's been working at Google since last month, then say it. If you can't, then you can only say she worked at Google on that date. If you want to convey that you have mixed information, then you should also just do that. For instance, corporate filings definitively show she worked there on 15 January. But she's also been seen in the vicinity of the company's campus since then. In which case, you should just outline this complex set of evidence outright. Saying as of is completely inadequate for the purpose. Again, I'm genuinely trying to find cases where as of is clearly superior to the alternatives. But the more I think about it, the less compelling I find its uses.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:But to me, that just makes it an even more inferior term to use. It's a weasel word; it's people trying to get away with saying things without actually saying them. If you can prove she's been working at Google since last month, then say it. If you can't, then you can only say she worked at Google on that date. Yeah, that's like the purpose? It's explicitly to be used for lower-confidence discussion of a state of things that may have changed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
Does anybody know the name of the movie critic who is notorious because he often gives popular films bad reviews and unpopular films good reviews? He's a professional critic, not a comedian or an amateur, and his reviews for new movies appear on sites like Rotten Tomatoes. I remember that he's African American.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:If you want to convey that you have mixed information, then you should also just do that. For instance, corporate filings definitively show she worked there on 15 January. But she's also been seen in the vicinity of the company's campus since then. In which case, you should just outline this complex set of evidence outright. Saying as of is completely inadequate for the purpose. It isn't for conveying mixed information. The as of phrasing is used in a situation in which you just don't know. "She was working at Google as of two months ago" has a meaning like "I know she was working there two months ago. I don't have any real reason to think that has changed, but I haven't spoken to her since then and wouldn't know if things have changed, so I can't swear to you that she is still working there."
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:Again, I'm genuinely trying to find cases where as of is clearly superior to the alternatives. But the more I think about it, the less compelling I find its uses. What you're mostly doing is complaining that other people are using language in a way that you think is less than ideal, which is fine, but it's not really a question. (When you argue with the people who answer your question, it often makes it seem that you are more interested in making a point than in understanding the answers.) Ras Het posted:That's the case for every single language in the world. Some more than others. I speak several languages, and English is my second language. Learning English was miles more difficult than learning, say, German or Tagalog because it has an especially huge vocabulary that is especially nuanced. Le Grand Robert (probably the biggest dictionary in French, my native language) has about 80 000 words. The Oxford English Dictionary has over 170 000, more than twice the number. I found English particularly difficult to learn in part because of the huge vocabulary and the enormous number of synonyms that have slightly different shades of meaning. I'm sure there are other languages that are still more difficult, but I don't speak them. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
Truck Stop Stall posted:Does anybody know the name of the movie critic who is notorious because he often gives popular films bad reviews and unpopular films good reviews? He's a professional critic, not a comedian or an amateur, and his reviews for new movies appear on sites like Rotten Tomatoes. I remember that he's African American. Armond White
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
Haha I didn't know his name but knew exactly who you were talking about from scrolling through RT reviews. He hates everything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 06:22
|
|
|
One business-speak term I see a lot is "per" or "as per" used in a way that feels jarring to me. Tell me if this is right: I figure "per" is synonymous with "according to" but briefer. Ex: "Per Bob, TPS reports should be sent to Nancy in Administration." "Per TPS report #23A, food is no longer allowed in the break room." But I often see it used in a way that seems superfluous, like, "As per usual, send your TPS reports to Nancy in Administration." Why not just say, "As usual..."? Is "as per" ever grammatically correct?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
I'm not sure if there's a more specific name for these things: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ae964HT1dnw Than an industrial grinder? Anyway, my question is: if someone was suspended in some sort of harness and lowered slowly down feet first, would they be gradually minced up or would the machine be pulling them down so hard it would pull of their legs at the knee or the hip or something? Would it just end up amputating the foot? If it was a flimsy sort of harness, could it break and they'd be pulled in entirely as soon as enough of their legs were caught up? What if it was an incredibly secure harness?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
an overdue owl posted:I'm not sure if there's a more specific name for these things: Seek help.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
It looks like that type of grinder does more crushing than pulling. Likely your feet would be torn to shreds instead of being pulled in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
Why do some websites still restrict access/content based on your location?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
Dogfish posted:Some more than others. I speak several languages, and English is my second language. Learning English was miles more difficult than learning, say, German or Tagalog because it has an especially huge vocabulary that is especially nuanced. Le Grand Robert (probably the biggest dictionary in French, my native language) has about 80 000 words. The Oxford English Dictionary has over 170 000, more than twice the number. I found English particularly difficult to learn in part because of the huge vocabulary and the enormous number of synonyms that have slightly different shades of meaning. I'm sure there are other languages that are still more difficult, but I don't speak them. I understand the point with Latinate & Germanic vocabulary overlapping, but I think it's a meaningless observation when you're talking about a preposition like "as of". It's grammar. Rabbit Hill posted:One business-speak term I see a lot is "per" or "as per" used in a way that feels jarring to me. Tell me if this is right: "As per usual" is a set phrase. I think "as per" and "per" are identical meaning, but for the phrase to have become widespread, there is obviously some psychological reason for people to choose it. If I had to guess, I'd say people dislike "per" on its own at the beginning of an utterance. "Per yesterday's results" seems maybe half an inch more formal or stodgy than "as per yesterday's results". But then again, I'm not a native speaker, so take this with a whole of salt.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
I donate platelets pretty often, and with bad weather locally this week, got an email from the Red Cross stating: "you can help prevent a shortage of type 32 platelets!" I did some googling, but no obvious info about what that means. I asked the phlebotomy tech, but she didn't know either. Any medical goons know?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:"As per usual" is a set phrase. I think "as per" and "per" are identical meaning, but for the phrase to have become widespread, there is obviously some psychological reason for people to choose it. If I had to guess, I'd say people dislike "per" on its own at the beginning of an utterance. "Per yesterday's results" seems maybe half an inch more formal or stodgy than "as per yesterday's results". in my experience the "as per" usage is most commonly seen in emails in a corporate setting and I think the most common psychological reasoning behind it is that it is part of a larger pattern of using language in a way that minimizes the amount of decision making and responsibility attached to the communication and/or the person who sent it. for example see the phrase "please advise" and the increasingly common usage of "advise" as a substitute for more direct verbs (if I "advised" you to do something instead of "told" you to do it, it's less my fault if something gets hosed up). "as per" is less directly part of this but I often see it as a way of citing something/someone in a way that sounds formal and makes it really clear that you had nothing to do with whatever it is you were saying; like instead of saying "that's how we do things here" it's "as per usual" which sounds like it's less likely to be anyone's fault, as there's no "we" doing anything anymore, it's just the usual. Earwicker fucked around with this message at 16:42 on Dec 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
8 Ball posted:Why do some websites still restrict access/content based on your location? Because various copyright/trademark owners still have ridiculous licensing terms. And the websites that provide the content under those terms have to abide by them or fight expensive legal cases. It's dumb, but there's not much the sites can do about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
"As per" is as correct as "irregardless:" that is to say, it's technically not preferable (the phrase "as per" is a weird Latin/English hybrid that doesn't add information or intelligibility vs. either "as" or "per" alone) but is in common usage and easily intelligible. Per essentially means "through," sometimes in the literal sense of "passing physically through" and sometimes in the sense of "by virtue of." So "per se" means "through the quality of being itself," "per os" means "through the mouth," and "per your instructions" means "through [by virtue of] your instructions." Ras Het posted:I understand the point with Latinate & Germanic vocabulary overlapping, but I think it's a meaningless observation when you're talking about a preposition like "as of". It's grammar. OK, well, thanks for telling me you disagree with me. Your opinion is noted.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
Guys why do people use one word when they could use this synonym instead? Why do we even have synonyms? Or so many words anyway? I think word are dumb. I'm just going to use the word "blah" from now on whenever I blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 06:29
|
|
|
Is there some program I can use to go through my MP3s and create a playlist consisting only of songs that I have more than one version of? Like, find identical song titles and exclude anything that doesn't have at least one match?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 08:35
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:Is there some program I can use to go through my MP3s and create a playlist consisting only of songs that I have more than one version of? Like, find identical song titles and exclude anything that doesn't have at least one match? Advanced Duplicate Find & Fix Tagging Inconsitencies Particularly the latter has an option that does exactly what you describe (list songs with titles that occur more than once). This is a deeper rabbithole than what you are looking for though, probably.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 09:56
|
|
|
Flipperwaldt posted:MediaMonkey with some user scripts, like Yeah, that seems like it might be a bit more complicated than I was hoping for. I'll give it a look and see if I can figure it out though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 11:28
|
|
|
On a scale from 1 to Dead how dangerous would it be to make weak peracetic acid at home in order to clean a steel Moka Pot? I'm likely just going to clean it with white vinegar but I was just curious
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 14:34
|
|
|
Spanish Manlove posted:On a scale from 1 to Dead how dangerous would it be to make weak peracetic acid at home in order to clean a steel Moka Pot? I guess it could be done. I'm guessing it's real mouldy or something? Make sure it's not just aluminium oxide, which is harmless and pretty much inevitable. Don't get any on the outside as it probably would strip the coating and make it lose its nice shiny finish.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
This was brought up in another thread, but why do baby boomers use so many ellipses in texts and social media posts?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
Sebadoh Gigante posted:This was brought up in another thread, but why do baby boomers use so many ellipses in texts and social media posts? That's not really a boomer thing, you saw it all the time with like teens on myspace 10 years ago too, and those certainly weren't baby boomers. It's just a thing some people who aren't good at writing think you need to do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
I used to use ellipsis all the time in online chats. I felt it accurately denoted moments where I was taking time to think. I thought it enhanced the communication and complemented the time and space of a live online chat. Then I saw backlash about it like the poster above has expressed and so I stopped doing it. Thanks a lot, turdmonger.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
DavidAlltheTime posted:I used to use ellipsis all the time in online chats. I felt it accurately denoted moments where I was taking time to think. I kind of suspect this usage of ellipses comes from certain video games, as the only place I've ever seen that usage outside of online chats is in rpg dialogue's from the 90's
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
fishmech posted:It's just a thing some people who aren't good at Exhibit A
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
Our second story gets a lot warmer over the night/in the morning than downstairs. Particularly, our daughter's room gets quite warm - the monitor (which to be fair is mounted up near the ceiling) often reads temperatures in the upper 70s (F). Is there anything I can check or change to get the system to heat more evenly? I know that heat rises, but this seems a little ridiculous, and doesn't comport with what I remember growing up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
hooah posted:Our second story gets a lot warmer over the night/in the morning than downstairs. Particularly, our daughter's room gets quite warm - the monitor (which to be fair is mounted up near the ceiling) often reads temperatures in the upper 70s (F). Is there anything I can check or change to get the system to heat more evenly? I know that heat rises, but this seems a little ridiculous, and doesn't comport with what I remember growing up. We put a floor fan at the top of the stair to blow the hot air downstairs. It works.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
Titus Vespasian posted:We put a floor fan at the top of the stair to blow the hot air downstairs. It works. Like a box fan? One of those things square jobs?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 05:23
|
|
|
My bedroom upstairs in my house has the same problem. Over here it is because the upstairs bedroom is fairly small and the door is closed. The heater is trying to heat the entire house up to X degrees, including the big open bottom floor. However, the heater is not very smart so it's blowing hot air through all the vents in the house pretty much equally. By the time the thermostat on the bottom floor thinks the temperature is right, the bedrooms are a loving oven. If you sleep with your door open you get some air circulation and it's not that bad. If you close the door, though, it gets pretty loving uncomfortable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 07:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 04:01 |
|
|
Okay, I'm kinda fed up. One of my flatmates is paranoid schizophrenic, or so he claims. He also claims that the doctor diagnosed him with restless leg syndrome that has nothing to do with the ten cups of tea with four sugars that he has daily. Since I moved into this flat in March, he's been screaming at his legs at odd hours of the night and it's pissing everyone the hell off because we all lose about 4 hours of sleep to him each and every night he does this poo poo. He refuses to take a walk outside and just stamps around the room screaming at the (thin) walls. He is currently screaming the house down for the third day in a row. Now, I could use earplugs, but then I don't hear the alarm in the mornings. I could shout at him to shut the gently caress up and otherwise intimidate him into screaming down the streets, but if he's an actual nutcase there could be legal action involved if I do so. I could point this out to the landlady, but I suspect she already knows given that the rent hasn't increased all year (And is probably the lowest I've seen in the area). How do I silence this guy. Legally. Without my rent going up. edit: Okay and humanely I guess - but whatever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 09:48
|
|
