Sunday, October 19, 2014

Hiatus and Why Can't The Independent Get Snoop's Name Right?

Hello! How are my loyal readers doing? It's been a damn long time since I last posted and it seems that the internet is set to collapse under the weight of all these goddamn typos.

Okay that's probably not accurate or realistic, but sometimes I wish there were greater consequences for not proofreading something other than an angry white guy (i.e. me) and a blog with 157 page views (i.e. this blog).

I won't bore you with my tales of near-unemployment. That could be another blog altogether. No, Dear Reader (e.g. Kim Jong Un), I know why you came. You want proof you're not the only person who can't seem to write a coherent sentence.

Up first! This article by Oscar Williams Grut.

Sometimes I feel like the minor typos are the worst because they made by people who understand English but who are too lazy to use it properly.

There's two things wrong with this paragraph. For now, I'm going to talk about only one of them. Normally the typos I feature in this blog don't really destroy the meaning of what is being said. They're merely annoyances that probably only bother me. However, occasionally there's gems like this.

"It's not often but you find Snoop Dogg rubbing shoulders with Silicon Valley's elite but..."

Do you see the problem? You can't use but twice in a sentence to talk about the same thing. You may be asking why that is, well it's because "but" is often used to negate or modify whatever was said before it.

What the above sentence is actually saying is more along the lines of:

"While you don't often find Snoop Dogg rubbing shoulders with Silicon Valley's elite it does happen from time to time, however the rapper joined some of the technology scene's best-known venture capitalists in funding viral news site Reddit."

So is the author saying that these venture capitalists aren't some of Silicon Valley's elite? If so why mention that first part? The whole thing is just confusing.

If only The Independent bothered to hire a copy editor then maybe they could have caught that little error and replaced the first "but" with a "that" or even rewrite the first part altogether. Perhaps it would be something more like:

"You might not expect to see Snoop Dogg rubbing shoulders with Silicon Valley's elite but the rapper..."

Boom. Simple as sliced ham.

I said there were two problems with the above and there are. Let's take a look at another snippet from the article.

No the author didn't misspell Calvin Cordozar Broadus Jr's name. Instead, what Oscar failed to do was to recognize the fact that Calvin no longer goes by "Snoop Dogg" but has taken on the name "Snoop Lion".

How long did journalists have to write out, "The artist formerly known as Prince"? But they did it. They wrote a phrase in place of a name because that's what he went by. We may be most familiar with calling Calvin "Snoop Dogg" but that's not his name anymore. Get with the times, Oscar.

Anyways, that's all for today, Dear Reader. Hope you enjoyed.


Monday, June 16, 2014

Quantum Typos - Priority: LOW

Saw a "must read" article making its way around Facebook. It was written with the hope of correcting the misuse of ten scientific terms that apparently scientists are sick of us laypeople using incorrectly. I wonder how those same scientists would feel about Annalee Newitz's apparent inability to proofread her articles?

First I want to address the fact that this is not actually Newitz speaking here. This is a quote from David Goldberg. Without knowing how Newitz conducted the interview I'm not sure if I should blame her for transcribing their conversation incorrectly or if I should blame her for not checking Goldberg's email for typos before including it in her article. Either way, I blame Newitz. Gotta be clear on that.

Now from my perspective there's two things that Newitz could do to fix the offending excerpt:

    1. Add "much" before "smart".

I'm no scientist so I have no idea if "smart" is something that can be quantified and is needed in order to collapse wave functions. If that's the case then the corrected sentence should read, "How much smart do you need to collapse a wave function?" 

I don't know, I'm guessing about 6 cups of smart.

    2. Add the verb "be" after "to".

This seems, to me, to be the obvious choice to fix this sentence. "How smart do you need to be to collapse a wave function?" Clearly one needs to be smart to collapse a wave form, but how smart? Indeed it is something we have all wondered.

Lastly, "wave form" is two words. Not one. You'd think someone writing for a website like io9 would get that right.

In all honesty, I'm sure no one noticed this minor typo. I mean, this article is intended for people who apparently don't understand things like quantum uncertainty or even what "organic" really means. I doubt any of their readers are scouring the internet looking for tiny insignificant typos to write about on their blogs. Nope, just me.

Anyways, this typo is low priority. If it's never fixed Newitz's article won't suffer (much). She'll most likely keep her sweet job writing for a website that people actually visit, even if she is just regurgitating things that made their way around the internet MONTHS AGO.

Cat desk.

Friday, June 13, 2014

Repetitions Repeat Themselves

Here's the original article over at CNN. Now you may read that article and think, "There's no typos there. What's the issue?"

Well here's the issue: CNN reporter Jill Martin got just a little cosy with a particular phrase.

"A person familiar with Sterling's legal strategy." Well that seems like a perfectly sensible person to information from and cite as a source. Sounds like crack journalism so far, what's the problem?

Okay, they cited the same thing again only now it's a source instead of a person. Again, so what?

What? Now they're back to being a person again? C'mon, Jill, make up your mind! Or is the person/source page of your thesaurus stuck to the front of your monitor and you can't think to type anything else?

Hokay, I get it. So basically you have once source and you just alternate between calling them a "source" or a "person" every other paragraph so it doesn't sound too repetitive. I get it. I really do. But maybe next time you can talk to someone who will actually give you their name. I mean honestly, who the fuck needs protection from Donald Sterling so bad they have to hide their identity? You'd think they were giving sworn testimony against Tommy DeVito or something.

Look, Jill wrote an excellent article, and honestly I have zero business critiquing a writer for, I honestly just haven't seen any glaring typos online in the past few days and needed something to gripe about. Jesus, I can't even stick to insulting people anonymously via a blog that hardly anyone reads. What's wrong with me?

I'm gonna go read some more.

Monday, June 2, 2014

It's Not A Big Deal,, But Dammit It's James Fucking Cameron! - Minor Typo

Am I nitpicky? Has this lost it's charm? I mean I get it, it's just an apostrophe. Who cares? I'm sure gets way more page views than my rinky-dink blog. Who am I to point out their faults? Should I not be more preoccupied with the wooden plank in mine own eye? Well I'm not. I fucking care. A lot.

Here's the article in question.

First, let me tell you something: James Cameron wrote and directed some of the best sci-fi films of my childhood. If he can make a glowing CGI water-serpent in the 80's, then the people at can have an intern proofread this shit before hitting "Publish" on their goddamn blog.

Do you need me to walk you through this? You take out the apostrophe and it says, "These direct to video movies that we are so sleazy." In what regional English dialect does that make any sort of remote fucking sense? Huh? Did your subconscious join the conversation for a second to tell the world how sleazy you are? Is that what happened?

Look, I get it. You're up at 3AM working on no sleep, you're on your fifth cup of coffee, and you got a 8 o'clock deadline for a boss who would fire you if the next six idiots in line for your job weren't even more illiterate than you are. I get it. 

I'm sorry, I don't want to be angry. Just, can you do me a favor? For a moment, could you pretend you're in high school all over again and read your shit out loud? It'll make the world a better place for everyone.

Cool, now get out of here and go write some more crap for me to read.

Friday, May 30, 2014

GottaBeMobile - Minor Typo

Here's yet another article that could have used even a cursory glance to check for any glaring errors. Okay maybe this isn't a "glaring" error; but dammit, someone should have caught it.

As always I want to give the benefit of the doubt to the author. Maybe they view price tags as normally being locked (unaffordable?) but this one is wide open for anyone to snatch it up. I however believe that they probably meant to insert the word "low" somewhere in there. Because for an unlocked phone the Nexus 4 was incredibly cheap in comparison.

But what the fuck do I know?

Trusted Reviews dot Com - Several Minor Corrections

Alright, I know that the article I'm pulling these from is a little dated (At least by internet terms, it's over a month old. That's like 6,000 normal years!), but I was reading about the next Android OS and I couldn't help myself noticing all these little errors.

First up!

The author has included some potential names for the upcoming update to Android 4.4 KitKat. These are (sic): lemon pie, lollipop, and Lion Bar. Now they got the last one right but for whatever reason the author didn't seem to think it necessary to capitalize Lemon Pie or Lollipop. Well I'm here to tell you something, it's fucking important. They're proper nouns, treat 'em as such.

Next up!

Now I could be wrong here, I could be, but I doubt it. The author could mean that for every cent you have you can be 50 (unknown quantity) or 100 (unknown quantity) more sure about something. What I really think is going on here is that the author got a little trigger-happy with the space-key and made two words where there should only be one. An easy fix, and not one that would confuse too many readers. I hope.

Last up!

Read that out loud and let me know if it makes any goddamn sense without the preposition there. I'm sure it did, who the hell am I kidding, no one fucking cares if "at" is present or not. Might as well leave it out of other sentences too.

Chuck will be buried Springfield Cemetery.

The meeting is 3:00pm today.

Right back ya!

It's fine, right? Great. No more 'at's that we need to be bothering ourselves with.

Saturday, May 24, 2014

Gamazoid - Minor Correction

Here's a link to the original article.

Here's the offending piece:

Given the use of the preposition "to" I'm going to assume this should read, "As you descend to the depths of the underworld...". An argument could be made for replacing "descend" with "defend" as in "As you defend the depths of the underworld..." but this feels a little awkward and so I'm inclined to go with the original correction.

I'm sure however that most readers will have understood the intended meaning even with the typo.