Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a mighty broad brush you're painting with
I guess it's more of a shit throwing contest than an artistic practice.
In the real world, it boils down to a game of "count the nuclear-powered aircraft carriers".
Show HN: Refine – A Local Alternative to Grammarly
141–150 of 220 posts
Re: Show HN: Refine – A Local Alternative to Grammarly
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
So apparently the tool is slanted toward American English where the non-word practise is properly treated as a spelling error like colour . If you use these words in writing for Americans and you are not a citizen of the British Commonwealth, you instantly mark yourself as arrogant.
I'm interested in this - I am from the Commonwealth and I do use those words, including when I forget with American colleagues. It never occurred to me that this could ever be perceived as arrogant (even if only when referring to someone with a different background.) And I wouldn't have thought it would mean anything more than a certain language cosmopolitanism, lah ;) (Hope that joke comes through! It's been decades…
I do not think you should ever feel that way. If any English-speaking listener has an issue with another speaking the dialect of English they were raised with, the listener has an issue with themselves they need to work through.
As an American English speaker, I have in the past used UK spellings when communicating at work with a group that I know only contains British English recipients. There is nothing wrong with that -- anything that makes communication more fluid should be welcome.
I believe the arrogance angle exists in a situation where an American English speaker with no British English education is using British spellings when communicating with other _American English_ speakers to purposefully create an air of superiority. If you do this, even if no one says anything, they definitely notice.
For other English dialects, my personal take is that most Americans (at least the ones who travel or interact with foreigners personally or at work) will assume they either are or are heavily influenced by British English due to history.
Re: Show HN: Refine – A Local Alternative to Grammarly
#143Worth to mention as another alternative: Harper[0] [0]: https://writewithharper.com/
Harper is so basic that I can't recommend it. Does not catch a singular/plural discrepancy between the subject and the verb in a sentence--a common mistake when the expressed thought applies equally to one thing or to many things. Does not catch a missed indefinite article--a common mistake for speakers of languages that don't have articles. Similarly, does not catch the use of the indefinite article for a thing alre…
Have you raised these as issues? The developer has been extremely responsive in my experience.
I use Harper in my Neovim setup and its been great. I just add things that are missing from the dictionary when I come across them in my codebase
Re: Show HN: Refine – A Local Alternative to Grammarly
#144LLM usage would immediately disqualify this from most academic writing.
Could you elaborate why?
Re: Show HN: Refine – A Local Alternative to Grammarly
#145The screenshot shows the (corrected) example sentence: > Sometimes I still make mistakes with articles and prepositions, but my grammar is getting better every day I practice. In American/Simplified English, this is grammatically correct. However, in 'full fat' English, practice is a noun, whereas practise is a verb; e.g. : > I go to my practice to practise medicine. The problem I have with this website is that it's…
Case in point: "Is there a educational discount?" I believe this should say "an educational discount". I wonder if the tool would have caught it.
Re: Show HN: Refine – A Local Alternative to Grammarly
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
Describing American English as “simplified” English is textbook bad linguistics. It’s a different dialect, not an inherently simpler or more complex one.
Could the 'Simplified Spelling Board'[1] of 1906 have anything to do with the naming? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplified_Spelling_Board
Huh, that's an interesting tidbit.
> The Simplified Spelling Board was announced on March 11, 1906, with Andrew Carnegie funding the organization, to be headquartered in New York City.
Some big names here.
> The New York Times noted that Carnegie was convinced that "English might be made the world language of the future"
He wasn't wrong.
> and an influence leading to universal peace,
That's still to be seen.
> but that this role was obstructed by its "contradictory and difficult spelling".
Well now.
It's interesting to scroll through the list of proposed changes; 100+ years later, many of them seem to be the default/correct spelling, but just as many look wrong, even when following the same transformation rules. E.g.: "brasen" -> "brazen" vs. "surprise" -> "surprize".
Thanks for linking this!
Re: Show HN: Refine – A Local Alternative to Grammarly
#147The screenshot shows the (corrected) example sentence: > Sometimes I still make mistakes with articles and prepositions, but my grammar is getting better every day I practice. In American/Simplified English, this is grammatically correct. However, in 'full fat' English, practice is a noun, whereas practise is a verb; e.g. : > I go to my practice to practise medicine. The problem I have with this website is that it's…
For what it’s worth, I’m a native British English speaker and don’t instinctively consider “practice” “grammatically incorrect”. Indeed, I would probably write “practice” myself.
That's why you need a good spellchecker.
Re: Show HN: Refine – A Local Alternative to Grammarly
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
Describing American English as “simplified” English is textbook bad linguistics. It’s a different dialect, not an inherently simpler or more complex one.
It's an old meme: https://imgur.com/thats-bit-harsh-steam-XCEdD8W In the UK, it's considered good form to be humorous when making an argument; I gather that in the US, you're supposed to sound like you're making a speech to prepare troops for war. I apologise if, in the course of describing how a product is unsuitable for use in my culture, I made that argument according to the norms of my culture.
I once saw this movie where several UK English words were compared to US English and US came of very “simplified”. Ie, pavement “Side walk” (because walk on the side). And several things like Lorry and Hauler all becoming “truck”. I guess it was very cherry picked (I can’t find it now sadly).
Ah well, I once read an argument for “EU English”. If it’s anything like my Dunglish (Dutch-English “What talk you about”) it would indeed be simplified.
Re: Show HN: Refine – A Local Alternative to Grammarly
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
The kind of organization that identifies as an "international organization" is disproportionately likely to be hyperaware of its working language choice and standardize on a particular English dialect by policy and pick en-gb. Without such a conscious choice, yes, Americanisms do seem a fair bit more globally pervasive and easy to fall into "by accident".
I'm assuming we're talking NGOs here, because if we expand "organization" to include for-profit entities, then I'd argue vast majority of them will not just be US-English speaking, but US-originating and US-headquatered . > Without such a conscious choice, yes, Americanisms do seem a fair bit more globally pervasive and easy to fall into "by accident". You'd need choice and enforcement - unless such organization is t…
Coming from the horse's mouth, my expectation is that GP works at some kind of (non-military?) treaty organization? ime while outsiders might include NGOs under the umbrella, the kind of people who work at the "international level" tend to uhhh, care about their taxonomy. Multinational corporations are almost never lumped together with these (and generally don't really care about international cooperation as a goal, except instrumentally), outside the barest sense of "yeah, I guess they're organizations and they work internationally".
Re: Show HN: Refine – A Local Alternative to Grammarly
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's fine if the tool has severe limitations at this stage. However, it's crucial to clearly state what those limitations are: not only does it prevent the flurry of complaints and chargebacks from customers who were disappointed that their specific case is unsupported, but it's also an opportunity to introduce a 'we're on this journey together' aspect that helps to make customers emotionally invested in the product.
Severe limitations? You sound like an a*hole tbf. The tool clearly provides the value, and it's a magnificent display how something like a simple LLM can be used to make your everyday life easier without compromising other minor stuff, you know, like letting other companies make profits by selling your own data? Perhaps you live under a rock, I don't really know, but it maybe just happens that you're not a target aud…
I have to go with GP here, being able to set the language to en_UK and en_US and getting the right corrections based on this setting is a minimal requirement for an English spellchecker. I can do without other English spelling variants but these two need to be supported correctly and consistently.