writing

Redefining “equity” 1

This entry was posted in Commentary Writing and tagged usage vocabulary writing on by

In a previous post, I quoted a statement by Hamline president Fayneese Miller referring to “a purported stand-off between academic freedom and equity.” This got me thinking about the way some have tried to change the meaning of the word “equity.” It’s hard to tell what Miller meant, since she’s the only one doing the purporting. Others, though, have tried to shift the meaning of “equity” from its traditional one.

The Merriam-Webster definition of “equity” gives several technical meanings in law and finance, as well as “justice according to natural law or right; specifically: freedom from bias or favoritism.” Equity means applying the same standards to everyone; it rejects, for example, laws giving special privileges to the nobility or denying rights to people on the basis of their appearance, sex, or religion.
(more…)

Content generation with AI

This entry was posted in Tools Writing and tagged AI computers writing on by

Software is getting steadily better at passing the Turing test. This doesn’t mean computers are people and should have their civil rights recognized, but it raises some problems. Students use computer-generated output to generate essays and answer exam questions. A bot called ChatGPT has gotten a lot of attention for its ability to generate coherent answers to questions.

The issue of using AI to generate what’s euphemistically called “content writing” — low-quality filler for business pages and blogs — hasn’t gotten as much attention. The people who work in that field need to worry, though. If a customer wants some generic text to give the impression of having something useful to say, can a machine do it well enough? Computer-generated output is cheaper than paying content mill rates. It will probably have fewer errors in spelling and grammar.
(more…)

It’s not what you say…

This entry was posted in Commentary Techniques and tagged writing on by

“It’s not what you say, it’s how you say it.” A book I picked up today in the library reminded me of that saying. It’s The Reformation, a part of the “Turning Points in World History” series. The book consists of essays by different authors. One of them, “The History and Premises of Protestantism” by Hans J. Hillerbrand, includes a half-hearted apology for John Calvin. Other parts of the book are more straightforward about his career of persecuting heretics, but Hillerbrand’s careful phrasing struck me. I’m thinking of these two quotes, found in the same paragraph:
(more…)

Algorithms don’t need defending 2

This entry was posted in Commentary Writing and tagged language software usage writing on by

I’m constantly annoyed by the statements that people ignorant of software development make about “algorithms.” They don’t have the least idea what one is, yet they think they’re competent to declare how evil an algorithm is.

Let me focus on one article, because it’s from Reason, which I expect better things of. The piece is “In Defense of Algorithms,” by Elizabeth Nolan Brown. A look at her bio shows that she’s got the background to write about many things, among which she claims “tech,” but she doesn’t mention any experience with the computer industry or software development. She should have known better than to pick up this topic and put a dent in a record of excellent articles.
(more…)

Fly, my bird! 5

This entry was posted in My writing Writing and tagged fantasy fiction magic battery writing on by

Here’s Chapter 40 of The Magic Battery. It’s a little Christmas story by itself.
 
 
 
The Christmas guests at Thomas’s house were the mages Lucas Schneider, Jacob Kessler, and their families. The dinner, everyone agreed, was excellent. The fire made the room pleasantly warm. Everyone was in good spirits.

Kessler stood on a chair and raised his cup. “To Thomas Lorenz, for bringing in a new age of magic!” All joined in enthusiastically.
(more…)

Stanford’s laughable “Elimination of Harmful Language” document 1

This entry was posted in Commentary Writing and tagged language Stanford writing on by

Some things are sillier than any parody you could make of them. An example is Stanford University’s recent “Elimination of Harmful Language” document. It was greeted with so much laughter that Stanford has hidden it behind a login screen. Fortunately, the Internet Archive still lets you see the document, so we can still make fun of it. Try to imagine writing an article adhering to its demands. It would have no color (oops, can’t say that — racist!), and the effort would leave you gasping (belittles people with asthma!) and drive you insane (insults people with psychiatric issues!).

It starts with a self-own: “Content Warning: This website contains language that is offensive or harmful. Please engage with this website at your own pace.” Further on, it self-owns the self-own by telling you that a “trigger warning” “can cause stress about what’s to follow. Additionally, one can never know what may or may not trigger a particular person.”

That last is actually the one piece of sensible advice in the whole clown act. Psychological experts have found that warning someone that scary stuff is coming only makes the reader more anxious. So naturally they don’t follow their own advice.

For the rest, I can’t do better than pick out some gems:
(more…)

Misusing scientific terms in writing

This entry was posted in Commentary Writing and tagged science usage writing on by

The direct inspiration for this article was a piece (by a friend I won’t name) that complained about a “quantum increase” in something. The idea of a “quantum increase” or “quantum leap” is that at a sub-microscopic level, changes in the state of particles are discrete, not continuous. A particle’s energy goes from one level to another without going through intermediate levels. In other words, a quantum leap is the smallest amount of change possible. A lot of writers must think it means something else.

That’s just one of many scientific terms that get mangled in popular writing. Let’s look at a few more.
(more…)

Is PayPal a danger to writers?

This entry was posted in Commentary News Writing Writing as business and tagged business PayPal writing on by

A change in PayPal’s policies has blown up in its face. PayPal claimed the right to debit accounts $2,500 for “misinformation.” It would be the sole judge of what constitutes misinformation. In the face of widespread user fury, PayPal backed down, claiming “the language was never intended to be inserted into our policy.” Even with the removal of that language, it still has language financially penalizing some forms of expression.

People often disagree on facts. Some people make claims which others say are false. Non-fiction writers are in the business of asserting facts, and sometimes they claim that what’s “common knowledge” is wrong. Many writers get paid through PayPal, and sometimes it’s the only option the customer offers. If PayPal decides your article is wrong, it could take away a large fraction of a month’s income.
(more…)

Six blunders to avoid when writing about computers 1

This entry was posted in Commentary Techniques Writing and tagged computers research writing on by

Computers are everywhere, yet writers of scripts for movies and TV constantly get them wrong. Ludicrously wrong. Good written fiction, especially science fiction, does better, but writers of all kinds need to be careful. You can depart from the real world if you like, but you have to know what you’re doing. Make sure the reader knows it’s intentional.

Here are six ways writers can mess up. Not all of them are completely impossible, but if you use any of them, you at least need to make the scenario plausible.
(more…)