News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Obituary: Great Barrier Reef. Parent comment

Re:Obituary: Great Barrier Reef by frederikvs on Friday October 14, 2016 @07:22AM (#12707359)
The author has some freedom to choose how to define death in this case, yes. But then he should include the definition he used. Otherwise it's just fear mongering.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Obituary: Great Barrier Reef by 1812calif on Friday October 14, 2016 @01:12PM (#12709531)
It seems like attendant readers understands what the author was doing. They didn't say the definition explicitly, which would violate pep20 (explicit is better than implicit), but, considering this is an article in Outside Online magazine... I think we can accept this violation.

I can understand that you might think other people would be misled by the rhetorical structure... but I encourage you to not get upset at imagined misunderstandings on behalf of others. (Not that it's wrong, it's just makes your life a little less happy)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Obituary: Great Barrier Reef by kodroid on Tuesday October 18, 2016 @06:00AM (#12733180)
> but I encourage you to not get upset at imagined misunderstandings on behalf of others

The problem is, global warming is largely an issue _because_ of the "misunderstandings on behalf of others", so in this case, it is a real issue.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Obituary: Great Barrier Reef by 1812calif on Sunday October 23, 2016 @02:09AM (#12772235)
We are in agreement. My comment was to the effect of "the author took literary license, most (native speakers) probably knew that, don't beat a dead horse."
[ Parent | on HN ]