Not The Onion

21266 readers

1530 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

kescusay@lemmy.world

311

Shoe company Allbirds pivots to AI compute in sign of a totally normal and healthy economy (www.engadget.com)

submitted 5 days ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world

51 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] khannie@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

There are precedents. There is precedent.

Edit: changed i to e.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Before OP edited the comment it used "precedence". They mean different things.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/usage-of-precedent-vs-precedence

https://www.grammar-monster.com/easily_confused/precedence_precedent.htm

https://languagetool.org/insights/post/precedence-or-precedent/

https://www.thoughtco.com/precedence-precedents-and-presidents-1689468

What's next, are you going to claim "presidents" is another alternative spelling that means the same thing?

[–] khannie@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

I understand that. You used plural when you should have used singular.

They said "there is precedence" which you corrected to "prescedents" but the correct form in the example is "there is precedent".

Edit:

What's next, are you going to claim "presidents" is another alternative spelling that means the same thing?

There was fuck all need for that. I actually mostly backed you up in another comment.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

The original version of the comment said, I believe "So there is precedence". That could be fixed as "there is a precedent" or "there are precedents". I suggested "precedents" because it seems like OP used the homophone for that one. So, "precedents" is correct, "precedence" is not.

There was fuck all need for that. I actually mostly backed you up in another comment.

Bruh, you said "Bruh. If you're going to correct, be sure you're correct.", when I was correct and OP was incorrect.

[–] khannie@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Precedents is not correct. Precedent is.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago

That depends on the wording.