Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 25th Oct 2017 21:58 UTC
Android

Today we're giving you an early look at Android 8.1. This update to Android Oreo includes a set of targeted enhancements including optimizations for Android Go (for devices with 1GB or less of memory) and a new Neural Networks API to accelerate on-device machine intelligence. We've also included a few smaller enhancements to Oreo in response to user and developer feedback.

Android 8.1 while literally nobody is even using Android 8.0 yet. OK Google, OK.

Coinciding with the Android 8.1 developer preview, Google also released Android Studio 3.0.

This release of Android Studio is packed with many new updates, but there are three major feature areas you do not want to miss, including: a new suite of app profiling tools to quickly diagnose performance issues, support for the Kotlin programming language, and a new set of tools and wizards to accelerate your development on the latest Android Oreo APIs.

Thread beginning with comment 650300
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Literally?
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 26th Oct 2017 13:29 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Literally?"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

I think you're still just refusing to admit you're wrong, and I don't see what your problem is with being wrong. We're all wrong every now and then.


...but I just explained that using "literally" in this way isn't wrong, and backed it up with a dictionary reference. Are you arguing Merriam-Webster is wrong? Languages changes - get over it.

If anything, you should be the one to admit you got it wrong. Literally.

Edited 2017-10-26 13:33 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: Literally?
by pmac on Thu 26th Oct 2017 14:07 in reply to "RE[5]: Literally?"
pmac Member since:
2009-07-08

In my previous reply I accepted that that was a valid definition of "literally", I'm not sure why you failed to comprehend that. To repeat myself: no serious journalist would use "literally" in this way: it's not acceptable in any style guide I have ever seen. It is absolutely incorrect for you to use it in this way if you aim to show any semblance of professionalism. You know it was a mistake, I know it was a mistake, and everyone reading this knows it was a mistake. I'll retract my calling of you a journalist because that title should, and to me does, require a certain degree of honestly; something you're sorely lacking. Donald Trump does exactly what you do. It's not an honourable trait, and it's not one that garners respect. When you're wrong, graciously admit it and then move on, having learned a lesson.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Literally?
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 26th Oct 2017 14:19 in reply to "RE[6]: Literally?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

It wasn't a mistake because I specifically chose to use this word for emphasis. You seem to imply I was unaware of my use of the word "literally" - I can assure you, I was not. I specifically opted to use it, and for a very specific purpose: for emphasis.

There are, in fact, countless instances of things on the front page right now that not too long ago, many people would frown upon. For instance, there are countless contractions - up until relatively recently, entirely unheard of. Had we been 30-40 years in the past, you probably would've picked my use of contractions to complain about.

Language changes. Using one arbitrary point in time - usually one's years at school, funnily enough - as the basis for the one definitive rule set for language is entirely idiotic.

You disagree with my use of the word "literally". That is totally fine, and as I said in my comments, that's an entirely reasonable point to make. However, arguing that your stylistic preference is somehow The One True Choice, whereas mine is the Devil Incarnate, is incredibly arrogant and misplaced - let alone the weird nonsense about me being unwilling to admit mistakes even though I literally did just that in these comments (i.e., stating that a number of people object to this use of "literally").

We can have a discussion about the various ways language changes or the uses of the word "literally", but you'll have to lose the arrogant, abrasive attitude of using our differing stylistic preferences as a Freudian analysis of my character, because holy fucking shit - go back to Wysteria Lane.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: Literally?
by grat on Fri 27th Oct 2017 14:01 in reply to "RE[5]: Literally?"
grat Member since:
2006-02-02

I realize I started this whole snowball rolling, and I apologize-- I was making a small joke, and never intended it as serious criticism.

However.

I personally have to disagree with the dictionary reference you gave even though Merriam-Webster has a nice little article about it:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/misuse-of-literally

My problem is that the word "literally" is being used in a way that is inconsistent with the word "literal". English has enough inconsistencies already, we don't need to create more.

Also, use of the word "irregardless" raises my systolic pressure at least 2 points.

Reply Parent Score: 3