The article explicitly calls out that kind of behavior under the subtitle "Don't Just Ban Grammarly and Expect Folks To Listen". I know, the whole article is sort of promotional, but the point still stands.

People say stuff like this all of the time. It’s just noise unless your relationship with the provider addresses whatever risks you have.

You don’t just ban it, you attach sanctions to it. Third party disclosure of legal work product is not so good for your legal career.

Would you be happy if the people administrating your health benefits, medical records or taxes were using some random free SaaS that accessed and processed your data without accountability?

How about your attorney? If you were facing criminal prosecution, would you want the information and metadata (how documents were revised) about your case to be subpoenaed and available ton the prosecutors?

The whole article doesn't gloss over those points; it is rather critical of Grammerly except for the last part. But also it, in my opinion, correctly points out that the security measure can't be separated from the social measure in that last part.

Does dq mean dequeue? Ironically, Grammarly would automatically expand your in-house abbreviations to make your writing more clear.

Sweet.

I’m sure the subject of a confidential investigation that could result in losing custody of their children would appreciate that Grammarly simplified that jargon in some attorney’s report. No problem at all that it’s stored in the cloud somewhere, monetized, or reviewed by some contractor somewhere.

DQ = Disqualification, a no go.

>Does dq mean dequeue? Ironically, Grammarly would automatically expand your in-house abbreviations to make your writing more clear.

I thought it meant "Dairy Queen[0]." Yummy[1], yummy Dairy Queen!

Using shortened/abbreviated forms without explanation is a recipe for misunderstanding.

Generally, writing out whatever will be abbreviated/shortened and noting the abbreviation/shortening is preferred, as it removes the ambiguity of just using an abbreviation.

For example, If I say that I'm going to "The Met," that could mean I'm going to the Metropolitan Museum of Art[2], the Metropolitan Opera[3] or The Metropolitan Police[4]. Which institution is implied may be clear from the context, but could be confusing.

Many years ago, I shared a taxi with a couple on my way to work at American Express. When I said I was going to "Amex," they assumed I was going to the American Stock Exchange and since their offices were quite close to that organization's offices, we decided to travel together.

Fortunately, the offices of American Express and the American Stock Exchange were both in the World Financial Center[5] (albeit at opposite ends), there wasn't an issue.

That said, clearly identifying shortened forms is extremely important, especially in writing, as you can't correct a reader's assumptions as to what you're going on about.

This applies to "dq" above, as well as many other acronyms and abbreviations. This article[6] discusses the issue at some length:

   Most abbreviations do require a definition. In
   any case where readers might be confused by TLAs 
   three letter abbreviations), it's important that 
   they be defined in the text or in a Table of 
   Abbreviations. A research proposal or article 
   with complicated and confusing abbreviations is 
   one that will quickly face rejection. The problem 
   is that authors become so familiar with 
   abbreviations that they forget to define them.

And since I (or anyone else) can't know what's in your mind unless you tell me, I may take an abbreviation[6] to mean something (like Dairy Queen) that the writer didn't intend.

[0] https://www.dairyqueen.com

[1] https://www.dairyqueen.com/en-us/menu/treats/classic-treats/

[2] https://www.metmuseum.org/

[3] https://www.metopera.org/

[4] https://www.met.police.uk/

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookfield_Place_(New_York_Cit...

[6] I'm using "abbreviations" here to mean abbreviations (e.g., Amex for American Express), acronyms (e.g. NAFTA for North Amerian Free Trade Agreement) and initialisms (e.g., TCP for Transmission Control Protocol, FBI for Federal Bureau of Investigation).

>This looks like forum sliding to me. Everybody knows what was meant by DQ, the context made it obvious.

I didn't know what "forum sliding" was either.

Apparently, it's this[0]:

"Technique #1 - 'FORUM SLIDING'

If a very sensitive posting of a critical nature has been posted on a forum - it can be quickly removed from public view by 'forum sliding.' In this technique a number of unrelated posts are quietly prepositioned on the forum and allowed to 'age.' Each of these misdirectional forum postings can then be called upon at will to trigger a 'forum slide.' The second requirement is that several fake accounts exist, which can be called upon, to ensure that this technique is not exposed to the public. To trigger a 'forum slide' and 'flush' the critical post out of public view it is simply a matter of logging into each account both real and fake and then 'replying' to prepositined postings with a simple 1 or 2 line comment. This brings the unrelated postings to the top of the forum list, and the critical posting 'slides' down the front page, and quickly out of public view. Although it is difficult or impossible to censor the posting it is now lost in a sea of unrelated and unuseful postings. By this means it becomes effective to keep the readers of the forum reading unrelated and non-issue items."

===

I'm not really sure how that applies here.

What, exactly, do you suppose I'm trying to distract others from seeing?

Please do elucidate, especially since it ought to increase the visibility of whatever it is you think I'm trying to obfuscate.

Thanks!

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21165439

>especially since it ought to increase the visibility

No, writing paragraphs of irrelevance (you didn't genuinely interpret DQ to mean Dairy Queen so the large comment you wrote about that misinterpretation was just sheer noise) doesn't increase the visibility of what you're trying to obfuscate, it shifts the signal/noise ratio downwards. It pollutes and derails the discussion.

>No, writing paragraphs of irrelevance (you didn't genuinely interpret DQ to mean Dairy Queen so the large comment you wrote about that misinterpretation was just sheer noise) doesn't increase the visibility of what you're trying to obfuscate, it shifts the signal/noise ratio downwards. It pollutes and derails the discussion.

Didn't I? How do you know what's in my mind?

Since Grammarly is a tool to improve writing, talking about improving one's writing (in this case, defining the abbreviations you're using) is certainly appropriate to the discussion.

It's unfortunate that you disagree. But I'm really not sure what you're disagreeing with me about. From what exactly do you think I'm trying to distract/deflect/obfuscate?

I'd really like to know what you think. Really.

Let's talk all about exactly what you want to highlight from this discussion. What might that be? You haven't been clear about anything except that you don't like what I have to say and, seemingly, more the way I said it.

You have claimed that I'm some sort of shill attempting to derail the conversation, but you haven't stated what you think it might be that I'm trying to derail/deflect/obfuscate.

So what's your gripe? What's your take on Grammarly? What do you think is important and should be the focus/foci of this discussion.

Obviously, you're incredibly wise and your opinion is much valued the world over, so please do tell.

And a bonus question for you: Do you have to work at being a jackass, or does it come naturally?

>How do you know what's in my mind?

I'm telepathic.

>What's your take on Grammarly?

I've commented elsewhere in the thread on that.

What's your take on Grammarly? I noticed you didn't contribute anything to the debate but the dairy queen noise.

>I've commented elsewhere in the thread on that.

Not that I've seen. Not going to go back through all those posts to find yours, either. Link to it perhaps?

>What's your take on Grammarly?

I have no "take" on Grammarly, except that as a "cloud-based" (read: someone else's servers) application, I won't ever use it.

Oh, and yes I did ignore your obnoxious blathering this time.

I'll ignore you completely moving forward, as you apparently don't have constructive stuff to say.

Toodles!

>This looks like forum sliding to me. Everybody knows what was meant by DQ, the context made it obvious.

I guess I'm not a member of the group "Everybody" then.

Does that mean I'm stupid?

Or does it mean that folks shouldn't assume that others know everything they do. IIRC, that usually comes around age four or five.