Phonologically, it makes sense that it would gain traction as it's a means of avoiding the effort of the 'ere are' vowel combination. It's an addition rather than an elision, but the underlying motivation of saving effort is the same.

>1. Contraction of here is.

>2. (nonstandard) Contraction of here are.

Note this has been listed since at least 2006, based on the history.

Written contractions are meant to faithfully represent spoken English, in which people indeed say “there’s” for both the singular and the plural.

But doesn't con-traction mean "pulling together"? You pull the last letter over towards the first ones, squishing out the ones between. Only there is no 's' at the end of "there are" to pull over next to "there".

So "there's" can't really be a contraction of "there are", AFAICS.

> Written contractions are meant to faithfully represent spoken English, in which people indeed say “there’s” for both the singular and the plural.

Sure, it may be a perfectly valid usage, so it's something... But as matter of terminology, whatever that something is, I don't think it's a contraction.

The word "literally" has been commonly used for hyperbole in English for hundreds of years. There is nothing grammatically wrong here.

> : in effect : VIRTUALLY —used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible will literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or injustice — Norman Cousins

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally

They justify this in a few places, including

> The "in effect; virtually" meaning of literally is not a new sense. It has been in regular use since the 18th century and may be found in the writings of Mark Twain, Charlotte Brontë, James Joyce, and many others.

edit: HN was loading really weird for me, I didn't see the sibling comment make this point already!

Kelsey?

Not that it matters anyway, since "have got" is a weird double-barrelled construct: It means exactly the same as just "have" or "got" on their own, so take your pick.

If you've got something, you have it. Sure, you could, logically, have got rid of it in the meantime -- but that's ridiculous pedantry; in the GP's context, it's the same question. All that was, though, a side note.

> so no, that answer is wrong (and not obvious)

The actual question, OTOH, was which of the (implied) original questions "Did you get them?" or "Do you have them?" the reply "I do" was in answer to. And as an unambiguous matter of grammar, "I do" is correct in reply to the latter and nonsensical in rey to the former; there, the reply would have been "I did".

So my answer was correct. And that should have been obvious to anyone who knows even the rudiments of English (wich may not include you).

Here, BTW, have some capitals and a full stop: D, S, .

unsure how this little solipsism bolsters your argument or who you're trying to convince. I still contest that it is not the same question. "I do" can follow "do you have?", but not "have you got?". it's not being asked if you have, rather if you have got. of course you could have something without getting it, and other playground grammar, but that just detracts

>The actual question, OTOH, was which of the (implied) original questions "Did you get them?" or "Do you have them?" the reply "I do" was in answer to. And as an unambiguous matter of grammar, "I do" is correct in reply to the latter and nonsensical in rey to the former; there, the reply would have been "I did".

why bother mixing tenses and rephrasing? you're trying to complicate something simple so you can cleverly unravel it, which is just pointless. the point being: "I do" is an unacceptable response to "have you got them?", and if anything is implied it's "do have got" in the first answer, which again is the point of being nonsense

>So my answer was correct. And that should have been obvious to anyone who knows even the rudiments of English (wich may not include you).

of course it was, for you. obviously

>Here, BTW, have some capitals and a full stop: D, S, .

I made the decision to use those more sparingly when I became a scholar of latin - so that little dig came back to bite you and I relish in your embarrassment. since you muddied the waters, you can help yourself to some spelling corrections for 'rey' and 'wich', plus some extra acronyms and commas as you seem, amongst other things, full of them LMAO GTFO ,,,,,,,,

Let me direct your attention to:

>>> that's almost as annoying as "have you got them?" - "I do" - "do what.. do have? do got??"

Where you yourself originally acknowledged that the question had been apparently interpreted as "do you have?". So...

> "Have", obviously. That's the only one that goes with "do", being in the present tense.

...still stands.

> why bother mixing tenses and rephrasing?

To illustrate what was actually being answered; do try to keep up. And, hey... Who introduced the mixed tenses?

> you're trying to complicate something simple so you can cleverly unravel it, which is just pointless.

Sure, if one is determined not to get the point. Actually what I said was pretty simple: Of the two alternatives "do what.. do have? do got??", "do have" is obviously the intended one, because it has the same tense throughout; "do got" is ungrammatical and never used. What's "complicated" about that?

> the point being: "I do" is an unacceptable response to "have you got them?", and if anything is implied it's "do have got" in the first answer, which again is the point of being nonsense

If anything is nonsense, I would have thought it's "which again is the point of being nonsense".

> I made the decision to use those more sparingly when I became a scholar of latin

Oh? I thought your previous posts were in English. Damn, I must be better at Latin [sic] than I thought.

> - so that little dig came back to bite you and I relish in your embarrassment.

Not at all. Swim in your own in stead.

> you can help yourself to some spelling corrections for 'rey'

Fucking backspace next to 'l' on the phone KB... Ate the 'p' and of course never entered the 'l' in 'reply'. When will I learn not to post to HN on that fucking contraption?

> and 'wich',

My bad.

> plus some extra acronyms and commas as you seem, amongst other things, full of them LMAO GTFO ,,,,,,,,

Why would I need those if I'm so full of them already?!? Get off your high horse, "latin" boi. The Romans valued clear logic, and you're embarrassing them.

>>>>it's not being asked if you have, rather if you have got

apparently? no, but from where you falsely quote the 'original questions "Did you get them?" or "Do you have them?"'

again, having and getting are not the same thing

>...still stands

having tripped up so many times you'll be lucky if anything stands again

>To illustrate what was actually being answered

so, to provide a false foundation for your phoney answer. got it

>Who introduced the mixed tenses?

you did with "Did you get them?". keep up laddy!

>Sure, if one is determined not to get the point. Actually what I said was pretty simple: Of the two alternatives "do what.. do have? do got??", "do have" is obviously the intended one, because it has the same tense throughout; "do got" is ungrammatical and never used. What's "complicated" about that?

if anything it's a contraction of "do have got", if it was interpreted as just "do have", then we come back to the point of having not being the same as getting. you're complicating it by changing the verb, which in turn invalidates your answer. throwing the oneage around to try and sound sophisticated doesn't change this fact

>If anything is nonsense, I would have thought it's "which again is the point of being nonsense".

I can't account for your inability to process simple information. swerve noted

>Oh? I thought your previous posts were in English. Damn, I must be better at Latin [sic] than I thought.

sarcasm from a dimwit, how befitting. punctuation and capitalisation are independent from or at best optional in language. you didn't lose any context and were able (albeit limitedly) to read it, so..

that's also a misuse of sic, but never mind, it's expected at this point

>Not at all. Swim in your own in stead.

remind us one more time

>Fucking backspace next to 'l' on the phone KB... ..

yeeeah, you sure are something special

>Why would I need those if I'm so full of them already?!?

to satisfy your own gluttony? funny how you've refrained though

>Get off your high horse, "latin" boi. The Romans valued clear logic, and you're embarrassing them.

whoosh get off your inferior plodding ass and have a nice day

> you did with "Did you get them?". keep up laddy!

Again, for the umpteenth time:

>>> that's almost as annoying as "have you got them?" - "I do" - "do what.. do have? do got??"

"Have got": past participle or whatever; "do have": present tense. That's yours, the original introduction of mixed tenses.

> >Oh? I thought your previous posts were in English. Damn, I must be better at Latin [sic] than I thought.

> that's also a misuse of sic, but never mind, it's expected at this point

No, it's a perfectly valid use of "sic" in the sense of "this is exactly how that word is supposed to be written". (Given how it's a proper name, and all.) What, you were only familiar with the other sense, that of "this is exactly how you wrote it, you numbskull "? Better piss off back to middle school and get some Bildung then.

You're boring me. See ya when you've grown up.

"have got" is present tense, "had got" is the past tense

>it's a perfectly valid use

also expected

>"this is exactly how that word is supposed to be written"

you're meant to leave the supposed error in situ, not replace it with your supposed correction YAWN

>"this is exactly how you wrote it, you numbskull "

I don't understand this, but couldn't care less now

>Better piss off back to middle school

it's been like teaching a backwards child - you belong there more than I

>You're boring me. See ya when you've grown up.

your life is boring. I accept your concession

This:

>>>> Oh? I thought your previous posts were in English. Damn, I must be better at Latin [sic] than I thought.

Was my own usage of it in the correct form, hence the second sense of sic, "this is how it's supposed to be written" -- not the first sense, pointing out an error. Sheesh, your reading comprehension really is below-third-grade, isn't it? Or is it just that you have the attention span of a gnat on crack? Probably both.

> your life is boring.

Only to the extent that you persist in crashing into it. Please stop that.

> I accept your concession

So, no, you lost again. Now grow up PDQ, or POAD.

>your reading comprehension really is below-third-grade, isn't it?

wow, your desperation has no limits it seems

thank goodness I never suffered an American "education"

>Only to the extent that you persist in crashing into it

so I'm to blame for you biting off more than you can chew

>So, no, you lost again. Now grow up PDQ, or POAD

stubborn little madam aren't we? no thank you

> wow, your desperation has no limits it seems

My exasperation has no limits.

> thank goodness I never suffered an American "education"

So you think I did?

GOTO https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30789267 , the bit about reading comprehension.

There, let's hope the bot stays stuck in that loop.

clearly the former

>So you think I did?

that's quite philosophical - do simpletons suffer..?

>There, let's hope the bot stays stuck in that loop

o-kay..

Nor did I have one I was indifferent to.

Maybe that's why I'm better at English than you.

I'm sure you think you're good at a lot of things and are better than everybody else, but the facts will tell a different story

back to your hovel, Diplodocus Rex

"She's raining" - "Who is?" - "Mother Nature"

there are a lot

Also, your example is ambiguous because "lot" is a singular noun (you wouldn't use "are" if the object is a parking lot, for example) but if you're truncating a longer phrase like "a lot of widgets" then "a lot" is modifying a plural noun (you'd definitely use "are" for that, or the informal apostrophe+s we're discussing).

If he doesn't even proofread his headline, how sloppy will the rest of the site be?

Since it is informal, it can be read as "Hey I'm Chris Sev. Here's My [Collection/Set/List of] Courses", which is grammatically correct.

He starts with "Hey I'm Chris Sev" because it's a better headline, which is defined as something that is more likely to make people read the rest of the page. (Defined specifically because I see lots of complaints here that headlines should be descriptive of the actual content, which isn't really what matters, functionally. (I get the impulse though, really.))

It's the difference between written English and spoken English.

In conversation, it's not unusual for someone to use "here's" in this context. To be correct, especially for display in print or on a screen, the correct words are "here are."

I think that people use "here's" instead of "here are" because "here are" can be difficult to say quickly in conversation, and can sound like "herere," which is indistinct and unpleasant-sounding.

The internet has popularized the use of spoken English online because most English speakers speak English well enough, but fewer English speakers write English well.

i'm not really sure what they bought to be honest

And then eventually was redirected to DigitalOcean.

Also, just to add my own thought to this - CSS-Tricks is of course very loved by people who learned things there, and people who respect Chris Coyer as a designer. But, these acquisitions do have an effect on how people perceive a project, and skepticism is very high on that list.

They seem to be keeping the "Write for Us" option open, with 300$+ a pop per guest post + promotion to your project. If anything, it will become a haven for those kind of posts. If not, they might by some miracle find a really good person (dev or designer) who is willing to take on the reigns for a while. Unlikely, though.

I found out about it by doing keyword research for a piece I was doing. Better.dev was one of the sites that ranked extremely well for it and I hadn't heard of the name before. Upon closer inspection, I learned that the post is an old Scotch.io article which is being redirected to his new project.

You can see that Scotch.io was dying off in traffic [1] - I would assume it wasn't getting new content regularly enough. The domain is pretty powerful, so even pushing some traffic to Better.dev [2] via 301's would have helped both sites out.

I imagine better.dev would have agreed to promote DO and put some links on their top pages to give the DigitalOcean domain even more SEO power.

[1] - https://imgur.com/a/ashZPDa [2] - https://imgur.com/a/Wd9kzJt