Exactly. Every time I see someone post that “akshully, chronological order is also an algorithm” (which I see a lot), it makes me think of the old “what you are calling Linux is akshully GNU/Linux” thing. Please people, let that go.
Because you know perfectly well that when we talk about “algorithms” we’re specifically referring to corporate social media manipulative algorithms designed to increase engagement, NOT a simple sort of posts by date or number of upvotes. mkay?
It’s a “domain expert who interprets ‘algorithm’ as a technical term from their domain of expertise” vs “non-expert who interprets ‘algorithm’ with the meaning popularised by the Media in the last couple of years”.
Sorta, since those from the other side don’t really know if that person is a non-expert or a domain expert from just a post, which is even more so here in Lemmy when it comes to Technical subjects because there is a much higher proportion of Techies around than most other Social Media.
Also, for a domain expert used to using the term “algorithm” for far longer than the common population has even heard it and started using it, it just feels wrong when people misuse it, so it’s pretty natural to want to correct the way others use it.
Also it makes sense for the domain experts who have been using that word from well before it was coopted by the Media, to be the ones with the strictly correct definition of the word.,
Personally and from personal experience I think it’s a thankless fight one is bound to lose - spoken languages are what the masses make it be, not what a few individuals are used to - but that doesn’t make people trying to correct the use of the word wrong.
“No algorithm” would load nothing at all. Everything is an “algorithm,” including listing all posts in chronological order.
Wanting “no algorithm” is like wanting food with “no chemicals” in it and not realizing that carbs, fats, proteins, etc. are “chemicals.”
But when someone says they want no chemicals in their food, you know exactly what they mean. This is just being a bit pedantic, I think.
Did someone call for me???
Exactly. Every time I see someone post that “akshully, chronological order is also an algorithm” (which I see a lot), it makes me think of the old “what you are calling Linux is akshully GNU/Linux” thing. Please people, let that go.
Because you know perfectly well that when we talk about “algorithms” we’re specifically referring to corporate social media manipulative algorithms designed to increase engagement, NOT a simple sort of posts by date or number of upvotes. mkay?
It’s a “domain expert who interprets ‘algorithm’ as a technical term from their domain of expertise” vs “non-expert who interprets ‘algorithm’ with the meaning popularised by the Media in the last couple of years”.
Both are right.
But when a non-expert uses the term, its quite clear what they mean by it.
Sorta, since those from the other side don’t really know if that person is a non-expert or a domain expert from just a post, which is even more so here in Lemmy when it comes to Technical subjects because there is a much higher proportion of Techies around than most other Social Media.
Also, for a domain expert used to using the term “algorithm” for far longer than the common population has even heard it and started using it, it just feels wrong when people misuse it, so it’s pretty natural to want to correct the way others use it.
Also it makes sense for the domain experts who have been using that word from well before it was coopted by the Media, to be the ones with the strictly correct definition of the word.,
Personally and from personal experience I think it’s a thankless fight one is bound to lose - spoken languages are what the masses make it be, not what a few individuals are used to - but that doesn’t make people trying to correct the use of the word wrong.
Only eating noble gases.
Noble gases are chemicals too, damn it!
The only thing that isn’t “chemicals” is literally just vacuum.
Only a dehydrogen monoxide addict will say shit like that!
I would say freedom, fallacies, and magic are not chemicals.
They have at least little tendency to participate in chemical reactions.