Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views :

Quickies: Fighting sexism in science, the origin of dogs, and why fall smells like fall

/
/
/
136 Views
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest

3 Comments

  1. One slight nitpick: Those aren’t actual emoji. An emoji has a specific Unicode value. Those are emoticons, which can basically be anything.

    Someone really needs to standardize the terms in internet grammar. (That is to say, standardize what nouns and adjectives are, not whether adjectives come before or after the noun they modify or how they’re declined.)

    • This will be a problem forever dominated by a “who cares?” response. No standardization body will ever make people care about not using “literally” as the exact opposite of its intention, much less be cognizant of highly technical distinctions between standardized UI elements and custom ones.

      • I agree with this statement partially. When we are talking about the average person who doesn’t care about the technical definitions of terms, then yeah, totally, who cares. BUT, if we are discussing this in a technical way, I would expect the writer of an article about Emojis/Emoticons to know the technical difference and use the correct term in the same way I would expect a writer of an article on science to know the scientific definition of a theory.

Leave a Comment

This div height required for enabling the sticky sidebar