Why the global elite gave up on spelling and grammar

Posted by matthieu_bl 3 hours ago

Counter56Comment136OpenOriginal

https://archive.ph/wlwcA

Comments

Comment by bluepeter 2 hours ago

British aristocracy has been pronouncing their own surnames wrong for centuries on purpose. Cholmondeley is "Chumley" Featherstonehaugh is "Fanshaw." If you read it phonetically you mark yourself as an outsider. The misstake is the membership card. (Heck, even in Portland we locals hear about misprouncing Couch St probably every year in local press as some bar for membership to our own locals only vibe.)

Comment by radpanda 1 hour ago

I don't really see that as the same thing as what the article was pointing out. Those are shibboleths that only an insider would know. You have to get the pronunciation of Cholmondeley or Couch "right" to pass for an insider.

The random misspellings, missing spaces, sloppy grammar, etc in the examples in the article seem different to me. Misspelling "en route" as "enriewu" doesn't show, "look, I know the secret country club spelling for en route". It simply shows that you don't have to care about your mistakes. You write something that approximates what you mean, and you're too important to spend time revising. The mistake could be "enrout" or "n route" or on any other word. But you're not going to be a try-hard who edits and frets over their messages, you're blessing someone with 10 seconds of your attention and they're lucky to receive your correspondence, typos and all.

Comment by farisa_lives 28 minutes ago

It's absolutely a power move, but it's also what happens when people are surrounded by sycophants who never correct them and will take time to decipher what they mean.

And over years, sloppy typing (forgivable) evolves into sloppy thinking.

Comment by gabrielsroka 48 minutes ago

> misstake

I see what you did there. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law

Comment by fractallyte 19 minutes ago

A smelling pistake

Comment by gosub100 9 minutes ago

Is it the same reason as Worcestershire mapped to "wooster" ?

Comment by loloquwowndueo 1 minute ago

Plymouth -> plee-mooth not ply-mouth

Comment by AdamN 2 hours ago

Same as Texans asking where Houston Street is in NYC.

Comment by woopwoop 1 hour ago

But Houston Street is older than Sam Houston, and was always pronounced that way.

Comment by teachrdan 2 hours ago

There's also the British penchant for deliberately mispronouncing French words. I have heard "renaissance" pronounced "reh-NAY-sance", "fillet" pronounced "fill-it", "valet" as "val-it" and so on. I think it's a national point of pride to pronounce the words of their neighbor incorrectly.

Comment by jpfromlondon 2 hours ago

America is at least as guilty of mispronouncing non-english words it's just natural drift.

As to fillet and valet, they joined english before the contemporary french pronunciation, and are much closer to the middle-french.

Comment by rkomorn 1 hour ago

I'm always amused by some mispronunciations that stray farther away from the original than necessary.

My favorite is probably crepe, which Americans pronounce like an almost diphthong-y craype (or crape like grape I guess) when crep (like step) would do just fine and be closer to the original.

But as a native French and basically-native American speaker, I also couldn't really care less about it, or about things like Americans pronouncing the t in croissant, or French people being unable to say the.

Comment by djeastm 1 hour ago

>America is at least as guilty of mispronouncing non-english words it's just natural drift.

See also: Cairo, IL or Versailles, KY...

Comment by teachrdan 56 minutes ago

Is the Illinois one the same pronunciation as "KAY-ro", Georgia?

Comment by tigerlily 42 minutes ago

Notre Dame, IN

Comment by nobody9999 1 hour ago

Or Wilkes-Barre, PA

Comment by teachrdan 57 minutes ago

Or Montpelier, VT!

Comment by hnuser123456 1 hour ago

Apparently, workers on the Gemini space program pronounced it "Jeh-mih-nee" back then. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Gemini#Pronunciation

Comment by bloak 2 hours ago

"Valet" and "cadet" is an interesting pair: they rhyme in French (/va.lɛ/ and /ka.dɛ/), but rhyming them in English would be ... unusual.

If there were just French words pronounced in a French way and English words which came from French and are now pronounced in an English way that would be bad enough but in fact we have a whole spectrum of bastardisation.

Comment by OJFord 44 minutes ago

Those are the standard British pronunciations, if you meant 'I have heard' as though it might be a niche or occasional occurrence. ('fill-ay' et al. are AmE pronunciations.)

It's not always that way though, consider 'niche': it's AmE that decided it's 'nitch'!

Comment by bluepeter 2 hours ago

Yep. And try "lieutenant" or "herb" on for size. (Edit: I guess "herb" is a bit of a complex one... originally from Latin's "herba" where the H was pronounced, but from UK it came most immediately from French's "herbe" with no H sound. So UK did somehow shortcut back to a more original sound.)

Comment by fy20 2 hours ago

As a Brit, my understanding of the American pronunciation was from Italian immigrants in the US.

Comment by dfedbeef 1 hour ago

Oybs

Comment by mattmanser 1 hour ago

So this isn't the British being deliberate obtuse, foreigners pronounce English words wrong all the time and we don't accuse them of doing it on purpose. They do it because that's how they would pronounce those words in their language.

Fillet/valet are mis-pronounced because of mallet, pallet, etc. Renaissance? Nail, snail, tail, etc.

It really is that simple, we're just pronouncing them as if they were an English word.

Comment by FpUser 1 hour ago

Here in Toronto area city of Vaughan pronounced as (/vɔːn/ or /vɑːn/) like in "dawn" or "gone"

Imaging me fresh from USSR asking someone how do I get to ... and getting blank stare

Comment by loloquwowndueo 28 seconds ago

Typical in Toronto - remember there’s only one T in “Toronto”

Comment by bluepeter 1 hour ago

That's great. What's also amusing is how you felt it necessary to provide the diacritical pronunciation guide for "Vaughan"... because I think to most native English speakers we can't imagine any other pronunciation!

Comment by FpUser 52 minutes ago

I think native English speaker who had never heard of Vaughan (sure we can find some of those) would likely to pronounce it like "Vog-un" - /ˈvɒɡən/ or "Vog-han" - /ˈvɑːɡən/

Comment by b40d-48b2-979e 46 minutes ago

No, I don't think they would. I've never heard of Vaughan and assumed one syllable like the parent commenter.

Comment by SoftTalker 48 minutes ago

No, "gh" is usually silent in English spelling.

Comment by jhauris 30 minutes ago

Laugh, trough, tough, rough. Maybe it should be "Vawfan"

Comment by oblio 24 minutes ago

Ghoul.

Comment by 42 minutes ago

Comment by stackghost 2 hours ago

>Cholmondeley is "Chumley" Featherstonehaugh is "Fanshaw." If you read it phonetically you mark yourself as an outsider.

This is a monstrous crime against language.

Comment by howlingfantods 2 hours ago

Grammar at its best promotes clear communication but more often is used as a social tool of control and exclusion. When you are already talking to people within your in-group, that impulse isn’t necessary.

Comment by PaulHoule 2 hours ago

On some level. Thing is it is visible and everybody knows what the standards are, social mobility is possible under the sign of grammar.

If the game is wearing a $20k watch or understanding the covert signs of status that you might find in a particular community, that's something different.

Comment by ekjhgkejhgk 1 hour ago

[flagged]

Comment by kanbara 23 minutes ago

people aren’t saying “aks” to make a public statement against you for whatever reason. they’re saying it because that’s how they learned to speak and the dialect of speakers who they were surrounded with.

yeah, people code switch, but i have come across many many people who just say things differently from the majority pronunciation. they’re not misunderstood and they can communicate just fine (see nucular vs nuclear). that’s just how language works, right

Comment by ekjhgkejhgk 13 minutes ago

That IS how language works. However, people notice language a choose how to use language.

I hear people say "ask" and people say "aks". I hear both, and I see there's a difference. In your mind people who say "aks" can't see there's two variants. Why not? You're being patronising. I think they do and they make a choice, like I do. I COULD start saying "aks" and choose not to.

What next, are you going to argue that people who wear their pants down by their knees don't know that's now how you use pants? I think they know there's alternatives, and that's what they choose to do.

Comment by bjackman 14 minutes ago

I see this at my $megagorp job. The top brass don't do that much written communication, but when they do they are absolutely shooting from the hip. It's not as bad as Epstein but it's a strong "I've already started reading the next email while I'm typing this one" vibes.

FWIW I don't have a problem with it at all. As the article mentioned there's an aspect of power politics (I'm important enough not to have to worry about formatting). But to me instead of <I wish elites weren't so callous with text> I feel <everyone should feel empowered to write like that> (again, maybe not quite to the level of Epstein, but e.g. capitalisation is just unimportant. Signing off emails with "best wishes" is not a good use of anyone's 500 milliseconds).

Comment by 10xDev 4 minutes ago

>capitalisation is just unimportant. Signing off emails with "best wishes" is not a good use of anyone's 500 milliseconds

Yet I'm on Twitter reading "Prison for attempted murderer enablers like this clown" by the world's richest man. My guess is that it has just become a way of status signalling more than anything else.

Comment by ryandrake 2 hours ago

I think a more likely reason, that for some reason, a lot of people don't want to talk about, is that these "Global Elite" aren't really that smart, creative, or articulate. That they've gotten to where they are despite, not because of their communication skills. They're not being "typical unconventional / quirky entrepreneurs." They're simply C students who knew the right people.

Comment by AdamN 2 hours ago

There's some of that but I remember 15 years ago this investor in our startup emailed the founder and misspelled the name of the startup that they had just pumped a significant amount of money into :-)

The founders said it was very 'senior' of him and laughed about it. But it's also kind of indicative of seniority because senior people aren't wasting time looking up the correct spelling of a company name - they get the email out with the salient details with the right amount of time invested into it. You want to be dialed in but also if you're doing lots of stuff at scale it doesn't really matter what the name of the startup is. Ideally you did the right diligence before the decision to invest was made but then at that point only a few key things matter and are worth keeping in hot memory any more - things like where the founders went to college (in case it helps with a future connection), what the market is (in case it helps with a future connection), what they need help with (in case it can be brought up with a connection), etc...

Comment by snikeris 2 hours ago

Taking the time to craft a well-formed message requires a degree of empathy. The golden rule suggests that we write messages in a way that dignifies the recipient. The Global Elite may lack these traits and sensibilities.

Comment by DangitBobby 1 hour ago

Same reason we all still wear suits I guess.

Comment by 2 hours ago

Comment by RamblingCTO 2 hours ago

or efficiency is more important because you have a high load of people you need to interact with. I was a grammer nazi back in the day but stopped caring because the ROI is minimal and I've got shit to do that's more important. so maybe it's the same for them

Comment by ryandrake 1 hour ago

I've never understood the "efficiency / ROI" argument. What is the "Investment"? What's the time delta between using the shift key and not using the shift key? Does it even add up to one second per year? What's the accumulated time loss from spelling "grammar" properly?

If the delta is simply "cognitive load" then we're back to the theory I already posted.

Comment by jordanb 2 hours ago

They're willing to boil the oceans to write better emails and, alternately, not have to read emails others have sent. So I don't think it's a lack of desire. I suspect it's more atrophying of ability to put effort into anything.

Comment by RamblingCTO 2 hours ago

maybe. maybe they just stopped caring what others think or something

Comment by mihaic 2 hours ago

By your logic, you didn't put in much effort into your message. Besides not capitalizing the first letter of every sentence, everything else looks great though for me, and I'd imagine it was low effort for you. Those messages between billionaire read like the worst texts from low IQ teenagers.

Comment by mrec 1 hour ago

I dunno, misspelling "grammar" as "grammer" isn't a great look in context.

Comment by RamblingCTO 2 hours ago

you should get me on my iphone since the new auto correct fucks up my bad writing even more

Comment by hshdhdhj4444 2 hours ago

You’re right.

Gotta be really incredibly efficient while planning your time on Epstein Island doing Epstein Class things to Epstein girls.

These world changing guys clearly have no spare time on their hands at all.

Comment by cindyllm 2 hours ago

[dead]

Comment by maldev 2 hours ago

I think you're right. Only people trying to look up care about appearances, a millionaire CEO will reply with "sounds good - Sent From Outlook for Iphone", while the intern will write a full thesis level reply on why they need pto.

Comment by dathinab 1 hour ago

this isn't wrong

but spelling and grammar still isn't a good indicator for expertise, intelligence or anything like that even in an academic context

Mainly:

1. Dyslexia doesn't make you dump, just likely to misspell and a less likely to notice your misspelling.

2. When speaking about neurodivergence people mainly think about Autism or ADHD but sometimes just mean that your brain thinks in very different patters, this can make grammar hard. Especially if it's not your native language.

3. Sometimes people had shitty situations earlier in their live, leading to incorrectly learning parts of languages. This is hard to fix. But isn't really representative in any way for their expertise in any topic which isn't the given languages grammar.

4. English grammar and pronunciation to spelling mapping aren't exactly well designed. People not wanting to bother with it is not really related to intelligence, or excellence in other topics.

5. Some kinds of expertise are unrelated to general intelligence, expertise, education. So even if spelling and grammar where related to intelligence, it wouldn't be meaningful to judge expertise.

Comment by ryandrake 46 minutes ago

I think the grammar/spelling is just one (perhaps low-signal) sign. But a lot of these people really are not that intelligent. And not just the GlobalElite™. Think of the guy who owns the local car dealership or owns 20 laundromats in the surrounding 3 counties. These guys are not geniuses, either. They just happen to own things that make them rich.

I worked with a tech founder at one point in my life, and I once happened to get a glance at his undergrad college transcripts which were, for reasons unknown, just sitting out on his desk. It was all Ds and Cs. He barely graduated! Yet his networth was more than the combined net worth of all of his employees.

Comment by jedberg 2 minutes ago

Your GPA isn't necessarily a measure of your intelligence. I graduated with a 2.01 GPA from college, because I spent most of my time learning about technology and things that interested me, and doing the bare minimum to pass my classes.

But my diploma still says "UC Berkeley" on it, just like the guys with the 3.9 GPA. And when I hang out with PhD friends' PhD friends, they just assume I'm a PhD too.

So what I'm saying is that sometimes smart people don't put a lot of effort into school.

Comment by philipwhiuk 1 hour ago

Trying to decide whether the mistakes in your response are deliberate or accidental.

Comment by aduty 1 hour ago

Pretty grate either way.

Comment by hax0ron3 2 hours ago

That may be the case. Also, a man's intelligence is usually not evenly distributed among all of his different psychological facets. One can be extremely smart in some ways and extremely incompetent in other ways. So some of the global elite might actually be extremely smart when it comes to a few key things and total morons in other ways.

If your theory is correct and the global elite really isn't significantly smarter than the average population then the next question is, how are they maintaining their spots against smarter competitors?

Comment by UncleMeat 1 hour ago

> If your theory is correct and the global elite really isn't significantly smarter than the average population then the next question is, how are they maintaining their spots against smarter competitors?

This question is only difficult to answer if we believe that our system operates on merit. A system that operates on power, connections, and backroom favors happily maintains the status of mediocre people.

Comment by joe_mamba 2 hours ago

>how are they maintaining their spots against smarter competitors?

Blackmail, lying, cunning, manipulation, backstabbing, machiavellianism, etc,

You need to be intelligent at these, above all else.

Comment by hax0ron3 1 hour ago

Well, then the theory that they are stupid is false, since at the least they are very smart at blackmail, lying, cunning, manipulation, backstabbing, machiavellianism, etc.

Comment by joe_mamba 1 hour ago

Yep. They're stupid at what the general public considers intelligence, generally academic excellence. But they're smart at doing whatever it takes to get to the top.

Comment by jordanb 2 hours ago

Yeah and it's really interesting watching people try to come up with alternate explanations. The people who rule us can't be this mid, otherwise the very concept of meritocracy is bunk.

Or at the very least, the things we tell ourselves are meritorious are not what actually what causes people to rise to the top of our society.

By the way I'm also astonished by their lack of taste. The Epstein properties give off a sinister vibe as one would expect, but watching -- for instance -- Architectural Digest videos you get the impression that either the property has been professionally staged with pottery barn/cb2 esthetic or it was decorated with painting-of-dogs-playing-poker levels of sophistication.

Not surprising I guess but you'd think someone with essentially unlimited budget who has complete dominion over their own time wouldn't end up living in an enormous, expensive, alienating ugg boot.

Comment by stackghost 2 hours ago

>The people who rule us can't be this mid, otherwise the very concept of meritocracy is bunk.

It is bunk. Nobody who has even a modicum of critical thinking ability thinks that Donald Trump or Elon Musk are geniuses.

Luck and circumstance are an immense part of success.

Comment by vardalab 1 hour ago

Exactly. Look at just the most recent conflict in Middle East. You think they would have freaking gamed out potential scenarios using AI or whatnot? Looks like nobody gamed out anything. It's all just seat of the pants.

Comment by otterley 1 hour ago

The military has performed countless simulations and “what-if” exercises and thoroughly documented each one. They knew a war with Iran without boots on the ground doesn’t end with a decisive victory. Trump chose to ignore them and press ahead anyway.

You can’t really understand Trump’s decisions unless you understand that despite all evidence to the contrary, Trump himself truly believes he is the smartest person in the room, regardless of who else is in it; and he will not suffer anyone who dares to contradict him.

Comment by ryandrake 1 hour ago

I truly believe this is it. People don't want to openly admit how dumb these Global Elite actually are, because it totally shatters the illusion that there's even a tiny shred of meritocracy in the world.

Comment by 1 hour ago

Comment by mmooss 2 hours ago

I generally agree in that I don't see them as particularly brilliant, though I think the average is higher and there is a much higher minimum in some capabilities.

And corruption of power is the cause, I suspect. It has poisoned human minds in all places and times; none of us are immune (which is why we design governments that limit individual power). An early lesson in being in charge was that, having nobody to whom I reported, who would see my work and compel me to a high standard, I let things slip.

Reportees rarely help you: Often they don't know what you do; when they do see it, they assume it's acceptable - you know what you want, and you set the standard of quality and establish the norms. Generally they have obvious disincentives against disapproving of you, and not just as some political tactic but for personal comfort: days are much more pleasant if your boss is friendly. They will give positive or at least non-negative responses to most substandard boss work.

I had to learn to think of it in two ways: First, would I accept this work from someone reporting to me? Second, I internalized the medium- and long-term consequences of substandard leadership and management: once your organization has caught that disease, once that's your reputation, it's very hard to change.

Comment by rdevilla 39 minutes ago

It's more just selection for sociopathy and backstabbing. Don't even get me started on technical ability; the engineering standards at even the highest echelons are at times apppalling.

Comment by joe_mamba 2 hours ago

>That they've gotten to where they are despite, not because of their communication skills

Reminds me how I double and triple check the emails I sent out to the higher ups in the company to make sure spelling and language tone was good, while in his emails Epstein was like "wazzup retards, kiddie fiddling party at my place" and getting replies from 3 world leaders and 5 CEOs. Then him and Israel's' former PM were both struggling to spell PALANTIR over the phone. It's a big club and you're not in it.

Comment by jordanb 2 hours ago

Neither of them could pronounce "palantir" let alone spell it. And they were talking about becoming board members.

Comment by 1 hour ago

Comment by throw_rust 2 hours ago

It's a lace-curtain thing to actually spell things properly, actual upstairs people don't give a toss thereabout.

Comment by rickcarlino 2 hours ago

Nothing says “I’m not AI” like a complete disregard for capitalization and grammar. It’s the ultimate authenticity signal in 2026.

Comment by normanthreep 1 hour ago

Yeah of all my HN and reddit bots those who are prompted to produce bad grammar are the most successful

people love talking to them

Comment by blast 1 hour ago

This trend predates LLMS though.

Comment by bpodgursky 2 hours ago

yes ths is the obvvious reason

Comment by potsandpans 1 hour ago

nowadays, if you have correct spelling and grammar people accuse you of being an llm.

Comment by el_benhameen 17 minutes ago

I have used em dashes and semicolons for decades. The LLM appropriation of my writing style has been almost as devastating as their impending vaporization of my career path.

Comment by RandallBrown 1 hour ago

I end all of my sentences with periods and I was told that I have a negative attitude at work because of it. Seriously, my manager's advice was to stop ending my sentences with periods.

Comment by farisa_lives 30 minutes ago

There was a "right to be boring" lawsuit in France by an older employee who used vous instead of tu with his colleagues and subordinates, and was fired for it. He just wasn't comfortable in the informal register. If I recall correctly, he won.

Comment by 0cf8612b2e1e 50 minutes ago

In lieu of exclamation points? Or just run on chains of thought?

Comment by djeastm 1 hour ago

I don't find this at all. There's a certain style, or flourish, to LLM-ish writing that makes it noticeable. It's not just spelling and grammar.

Comment by redwood 2 hours ago

It's just that this is how everyone types when typing quickly in a text message on their phone. Not much to see here

Comment by next_xibalba 1 hour ago

Yeah, I think this is the real answer here, not the elaborate social signaling/insider conspiracy takes. These are people who are communicating non-stop and are mostly are boomers who did not grow up on keyboards.

Comment by 2 hours ago

Comment by mmooss 2 hours ago

This could be read as a condemnation of the text input interfaces we've designed; the users are busy and have little choice. Typing on a phone still is awful:

* Very time-consuming, especially for edits/corrections

* Lacks functionality (where is undo? the right/left arrow keys?) and other functionality is very poor (mouse/pointer control)

* Frustrating!

* Consumes attention: I can type on a full keyboard while looking elsewhere - including talking to someone else, though of course all actions suffer. On full keyboards I can type while reading something, to transcribe it, or I can just watch the output. Or just imagine using keyboard-based commands (e.g., Vim) on a smartphone.

I've tried alternative screen keyboards and they are a bit better, but it still sucks a lot.

Comment by rdevilla 37 minutes ago

Bingo. I have oft opined that the switch to an audiovisual culture was (bandwidth and compute gains notwithstanding) simply due to the piss poor ergonomics of the touch screen.

IRC was a literate culture, owing to its roots in the physical medium of the typewriter. It imposed technical barriers to entry selecting for a minimum of intelligence.

After kneecapping the literate media by destroying this input mechanism with touch screens, the audiovisual media flooded in to fill the vacuum - and brought with it the illiterate masses who now all see themselves as amateur videographers, unencumbered from the previous burdens of needing to "read the fucking manual."

Comment by mrob 1 hour ago

Doing anything on a phone is a miserable experience, even compared to using a laptop, which is already a lot worse than a desktop with good input devices. IMO it's shocking how many professionals are willing to tolerate such bad interfaces. Compare how picky professional musicians are about the exact components and setups of their instruments. No amount of convenience should lure you into accepting touch screens.

Comment by bluGill 1 hour ago

touch screen phones are a useful compromise. If I'm going to write a lot I want a real keyboard and large monitor with all the features thereof. However often I just need a quick note and I'm not in the office. I would not carry a desktop computer to the airport (I'm old enough to remember the IBM XT luggable computer - built in CRT monitor, not battery: it was portable, but it was a real workout). A laptop is sometimes useful, and it isn't too bad to have one in a backpack, but it is still big and so won't be with you. A phone is the correct size of have in your pocket so you can "do something" while "the refs try to figure out which rule applies to this play".

Phones will always be miserable - but they are the least miserable option in a lot of situations and so I expect people to use them a lot just because the other tools are even worse.

Comment by mmooss 1 hour ago

Phones (really, the pocket/handheld form factor) are a necessity and are limited; I agree. We could deliver better text input interfaces for them.

For heavy typers, physical keyboards in candybar phones (.e.g, old Blackberrys, etc.) and landscape-oriented clamshells fix many issues, but those are outre for some reason. Even on-screen UIs could be better. Just arrow keys to move to the cursor precisely would be a signficant improvement.

Comment by surgical_fire 48 minutes ago

I think the blackberry I had before the current trend of full touchscreen smartphones was the only cellphone I ever enjoyed using for the device itself.

Comment by everdrive 2 hours ago

>Typing on a phone still is awful

I use a bluetooth keyboard for typing on my phone unless I'm out in the world. The number of people who want to have long-form conversations through a phone interface is shocking to me since it's such an awful experience and there are so, so many available alternatives.

Comment by bluGill 1 hour ago

I do that a lot. My phone doesn't have spellcheck though - it assumes I'm using a keyboard with autocorrect.

Comment by 2 hours ago

Comment by jrks11o 2 hours ago

Comment by dang 1 hour ago

Thanks! Added above.

Comment by draw_down 38 minutes ago

[dead]

Comment by tencentshill 3 hours ago

That's just how busy people type. You see it a lot if you communicate with upper managers/Csuite regularly. They don't have anyone to impress in private emails, as long as the message is communicated well enough. Before smartphones/autocorrect/dictation it was worse.

Comment by TYPE_FASTER 2 hours ago

> Before smartphones/autocorrect/dictation it was worse.

Not sure I agree. I remember e-mails being capitalized and punctuated.

It's not so much typos and laziness as much as incomplete thoughts and distraction. Communication as a whole has devolved from an e-mail with a complete thought and some details to a text or chat message without capitalization, punctuation or context.

The lack of capitalization and punctuation are just a tell to me that the sender didn't put thought into it.

I can't tell you how many times I get a chat message asking a question. I in return ask questions about context, and explain why I'm asking. Then the original sender gets annoyed and provides context. Then I ask more questions. Then the original sender gets quiet. Then I get an invite to a meeting to discuss with a wider audience.

Comment by b40d-48b2-979e 32 minutes ago

    Then the original sender gets quiet. Then I get an invite to a meeting to discuss with a
    wider audience.
One of the most infuriating aspects of working in corporate with people where English is not the primary language.

Comment by kstrauser 2 hours ago

I think you're right. I've gone back and read some of my own posts here and winced at what the combination of one-handed typing as I hold onto a handrail on a packed subway plus autocorrect did to what I thought I was saying.

I make an effort to use correct spelling and grammar in everything I write that's longer than "ok i'll check when at office", but sometimes it slips past. People still seem to understand what I'm telling them, though, and that's the ultimate goal.

Comment by triceratops 3 hours ago

> Before smartphones/autocorrect/dictation it was worse.

Ima call bullshit on this. Read the published letters of some historical figures.

Comment by kristjansson 2 hours ago

Activation energy of a letter vs. an email. If you have to handwrite it and it takes ~days to arrive, you write fewer communiques and put more into the ones you do, but a lot goes unsaid.

You see it start to change with the telegraph on down to where we are today.

Comment by ASalazarMX 1 hour ago

> You see it start to change with the telegraph on down to where we are today.

Telegrams were paid by the word, and were all uppercase by design, they're not an evolution of language. It took more effort to adapt your message to a telegram than to write a proper sentence.

Comment by kstrauser 2 hours ago

Survivorship bias. You don't often read the notes where Thomas Jefferson jotted "hey martha riding to ftore be back later love you - Tommy".

Comment by SoftTalker 2 hours ago

Not so sure. After my father died I came across a box of old letters that were sent between he and his friends, from their early college years. Just personal, casual correspondence, which today would be done with a messaging app or email. Even on the short notes, the structure, spelling, grammar, and even the penmanship is excellent compared to what I see people of the same age doing today.

Comment by kstrauser 2 hours ago

You had to dedicate so many more resources to that, though. Mailing a letter requires gathering up paper, a pen, an envelope, a stamp, and the person's address, then physically transporting it to a mailbox. It also has a lot of inherent latency, so you have to pack a lot of content into the message because it'll take as much effort into clarifying something you left out on the first message. It's natural to put more care into something you've invested that much baseline effort into.

I wouldn't spend nearly as much effort on something ephemeral and instant. For instance, I'm not going to mail my sister in another state a letter saying "ok thanks". I very while might text her that, because 1) she knows exactly what I'm referring to — the thing we were talking about 11 seconds earlier; 2) the customs of messaging mean she doesn't expect or want a wall of text; and 3) if she has any more questions, she can ask them and I'll reply within a minute or two.

Comment by YinglingHeavy 2 hours ago

I call bullshit on you comparing what was obviously a 2000s+ phenomenon with that of closer to the 1800s.

Comment by triceratops 2 hours ago

I didn't say 1800s. But also I thought "dictation" meant via a secretary. I guess they meant by voice recognition.

Comment by overtone1000 2 hours ago

I thought the same.

"Dictated but not read."

Comment by mmooss 2 hours ago

> That's just how busy people type. You see it a lot if you communicate with upper managers/Csuite regularly. They don't have anyone to impress in private emails, as long as the message is communicated well enough.

There is a time pressure to communicate this way, but I think it's generally a management mistake:

Managment includes leadership (usually). Your messages are most of what most people in the organization see of you. You set the high bar; nobody will prioritize quality and attention to detail more than you. And that standard is global IME - you can't very effectively set the example that messages can be sloppy but nothing else.

For messages to my social inner circle, for example, I am much less careful - misspellings, abbreviations, etc. For messages to people I manage or lead, I make sure it's perfect every time.

Comment by bluGill 1 hour ago

Messages from the CEO to the whole company should be carefully checked, and in my experience they seem to be. Spelling/grammar is just a tiny part of check, there is also the whole inclusive language/not offensive to anyone set of checks, and the is this even legal check (perhaps more, that is what I can think of offhand).

Messages to a single vice president get much less care.

Comment by mmooss 1 hour ago

I agree that's the reality, but that VP will follow your example - as a leader, excellence is a performance, a superficial presentation for others, not something to do in private. Also, it's normal to not take your reportees seriously (to some degree).

Comment by moralestapia 2 hours ago

>That's just how busy people type.

Lmao. If you think these people are busy, I have news for you.

Comment by k33n 1 hour ago

Their schedules are usually quite full, but their work doesn't really resemble an average person's.

Comment by rexpop 1 hour ago

Their schedules are full of leisure, and they can't be arsed to extend even the oz of courteous effort that proper punctuation and grammar require.

And their class all recognize it. Possibly it's a class marker.

Here, I have to carefully articulate my point because I am desperately trying to convince you not to carry water for the Epstein a class.

Comment by k33n 17 minutes ago

What's your point? That everyone with a lot of wealth lives exactly the same, and is comparable to Epstein?

I'm not sure I understand.

Comment by lab14 2 hours ago

to me, the goal of written text is to put an idea or a concept in the mind of another person. _capitalization_ is one of those "arbitrary rules" that add absolutely nothing to this process unless you're using an obscure acronym. in my mind, it's one of those ancient rules that are completely obsolete in the modern world. its only purpose is to allow others to say "i am better than you because i use this ancient rule that someone came up with a thousand years ago, so i'm smart and you're dumb".

being a non-native english speaker, removing capitalization from my writing removed a ton of anxiety when writing text and didn't change at all the landing of my messages or my ideas.

Comment by RiverCrochet 1 hour ago

WELL, THE CAPITAL LETTER FORMS WERE THE ORIGINAL ONES, THEN LOWERCASE ONES WERE CREATED BECAUSE THEY WERE FASTER FOR THE MONKS TO WRITE WHO WERE COPYING BOOKS. SOURCE: ROMAN RUINS. WE'RE NOT MONKS SO DEF COMPLETELY OBSOLETE. SO IF YOU WANT TO THROW OUT THE CAPITALIZATION RULES ENTIRELY, DO IT RIGHT AND USE ALL CAPS. THIS WOULD DEFINITELY MAKE IDEAS EASIER TO TRANSMIT AND RECEIVE.

Comment by ASalazarMX 1 hour ago

Beat me to this joke by a few minutes. Today seems like non-capitalization is the fad, but there was a time when all caps was the fad, at least in Spanish. It was mistakenly believed that capitals didn't need accents in Spanish, so illiterate people wrote all caps to avoid them. All lowercase feels the same.

Comment by WhyNotHugo 1 hour ago

I read this as someone shouting, and cannot override the voice in my head to not-shout while reading it.

Comment by rkomorn 1 hour ago

I love how aggressive capitals feel to me no matter the intent or tone.

This comment is just so much, all by virtue of caps lock.

Comment by ismailmaj 1 hour ago

Oh no, cortisol spike in my text-only forum.

Comment by RandomLensman 1 hour ago

ANDNOSPACESTHENPLEASE

Comment by lab14 1 hour ago

my point wasn't about using the "original rules", on the contrary it was about discarding uneeded ones. totally missed the point, but hey thanks for your contribution.

Comment by probably_wrong 2 hours ago

It's hard to take your argument of "removing capitalization has made my writing better" seriously when your comment history shows that you do capitalize your written text. But leaving that aside:

Capitalization makes it easy for the reader to know where a concept ends and a new one begins. Without capitalization, your comment reads like a run-on sentence - a period in my display is 2px tall while a comma is 3.5px tall, the lack of capitalization makes my brain read them all as commas, and therefore your text is harder for me to parse. So I'd say yes, removing capitals did change the landing of your ideas for the worse.

Comment by netsharc 1 hour ago

That reminds me of an interaction I had with a foreign exchange intern at my uni. I was working in an organization that organized these exchanges and I was giving him the orientation on his first day, including introducing him to his employer. The employer wanted him to write an email to some other person in the company, and he 1st wrote it with no caps n txtspeak, and when he was done he went back through it so it would have proper sentences...

It was flabbergasting..

Comment by bluGill 1 hour ago

If you want something to be clear you need to take time to re-read and revise it. If you really want to be sure there needs to be a full day between writing and revision (otherwise you will read what you meant to write, not what you actually wrote). For a presumably non-native speaker I expect he needed that extra effort.

Technically I should wait a day to hey the reply button here. I don't see anything wrong with this post now, but it is a reasonable bet that there is something that someone else sees.

Comment by officeplant 1 hour ago

>wait a day to hey the reply button here.

Haha, yeah. I was face palming some obvious typos in an important email earlier. Even after reading it four times. I find this helps in writing music as well. I come back a day later and so many things stick out that my brain would just gloss over.

Comment by lab14 1 hour ago

> It's hard to take your argument of "removing capitalization has made my writing better" seriously when your comment history shows that you do capitalize your written text.

right, because i couldn't have adopted this writing style in the past few weeks.

to address your second point, i could probably make better use of punctuation, but the original message is still delivered without all the fluff IMO.

Comment by davemp 1 hour ago

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton's_...

Ignorance of why something exists is not a good enough reason to destroy it.

Comment by badgersnake 45 minutes ago

Never heard of this before, but it’s great. Pretty succinct explanation of why effective reform is hard the likes of DOGE is counterproductive.

Comment by IshKebab 1 hour ago

Yes... though I think Chesterton's fence definitely belongs in the "technically correct advice that actually does more harm than good" bucket, like "premature optimisation", "if it works don't fix it", the Unix philosophy and so on.

This doesn't apply to capitalisation, but generally especially in computing if there's something that looks useless you should remove it. If it breaks the fault lies with whomever left something useless there without a note to explain it.

The current project I'm working on has about 3 copies of every component because nobody bothers to clear up after themselves - dead code isn't doing any harm and it's better to leave it in case it's needed right?

Well sure, if you want me to work about 3x slower than I otherwise could. Not an exaggeration.

Comment by ASalazarMX 1 hour ago

THIS IS WHY WE SHOULD GO BACK TO ALL CAPS SO WE HAVE LESS SYMBOLS TO WORRY AVOUT MAYBE GO BACK TO IGNORE DIACRITICS CUZ THEY ARE WIRD

IT IS THE WAY OF OUR FOUNCERS

Comment by lab14 1 hour ago

totally missed the point, but you do you.

Comment by ASalazarMX 1 hour ago

> _capitalization_ is one of those "arbitrary rules"

If you're going to qualify capitalization as an arbitrary rule, then it wouldn't matter if it's all lowercase or all uppercase. It's not a whim of scholars, it improves readability, it emphasizes, it carries meaning.

All uppercase looks loud today, but early computers were also all uppercase and it was normal. All lowercase looks bland and sloppy, only a few steps removed from "what u doing lol?" texting shorthand.

Comment by redwood 2 hours ago

My personal take is that it's easier for me to read your sentences if you help me see where they begin and end and this is part of capitalization's value. So at least for me your goal of putting ideas in my mind may be a little less effective

Comment by squigz 1 hour ago

If you care about communicating an idea or concept effectively, things like capitalization and grammar are absolutely important.

Comment by bitroughj 2 hours ago

Wong