merc comments on Shoe company Allbirds pivots to AI compute in sign of a totally normal and healthy economy

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 months ago* (4 children)

Before OP edited the comment it used "precedence". They mean different things.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/usage-of-precedent-vs-precedence

https://www.grammar-monster.com/easily_confused/precedence_precedent.htm

https://languagetool.org/insights/post/precedence-or-precedent/

https://www.thoughtco.com/precedence-precedents-and-presidents-1689468

What's next, are you going to claim "presidents" is another alternative spelling that means the same thing?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] khannie@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

I understand that. You used plural when you should have used singular.

They said "there is precedence" which you corrected to "prescedents" but the correct form in the example is "there is precedent".

Edit:

What's next, are you going to claim "presidents" is another alternative spelling that means the same thing?

There was fuck all need for that. I actually mostly backed you up in another comment.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

The original version of the comment said, I believe "So there is precedence". That could be fixed as "there is a precedent" or "there are precedents". I suggested "precedents" because it seems like OP used the homophone for that one. So, "precedents" is correct, "precedence" is not.