639 Matching Annotations
  1. Sep 2018

    Tags

    Annotators

  2. Aug 2018
  3. Jul 2018
  4. Jun 2018
    1. Writedzeforthe smallest natural number greater thanz2R, and writebzcfor the largest naturalnumber smaller thanz2R, e

      I think both of these definitions should include "or equal to", especially given the immediate following example of x <= 3y if and only if ...

  5. May 2018
  6. Apr 2018
  7. Mar 2018
  8. Jan 2018
  9. Dec 2017
  10. Nov 2017
  11. Oct 2017
  12. Sep 2017
  13. Aug 2017
  14. Jul 2017
  15. May 2017
  16. Apr 2017
  17. Mar 2017
    1. That said, it just so happens that many political forces that do question many parts of the neoliberal agenda to have some influence in c

      That said, many political forces that do question many parts of the neoliberal agenda happen to have some influence in c

  18. Feb 2017
  19. Jan 2017
  20. Dec 2016
  21. Nov 2016
  22. Oct 2016
  23. Sep 2016
  24. Aug 2016
  25. Jul 2016
  26. Jun 2016
  27. May 2016
  28. Apr 2016
  29. Feb 2016
    1. (especially the well-off) are able to stay afloat more easily then poor population
      1. Typo in "... more easily then..." change "then" to "than"

      2. The parentheses in the first part "(especially the well-off)" doesn't match the next lack of parentheses around "poor populations" -- they're both referencing the same subject, and so the logical connection doesn't make sense to me.

      TL;DR: The sentence should still make sense with parentheses removed.

      Test: "Humans are able to stay afloat more easily then poor populations..."

      Does it make sense? Not to my mind (unless you're ironically implying that poor populations are inhuman! maybe a sarcastic remark on those who seem to think/feel that way?).

      Consider changing this to: "Well-off populations of humans are able to stay afloat more easily than poor populations..."

      ... or something else that leaves the connections consistent.

  30. Jan 2016
  31. Dec 2015
    1. I guess we’ll see if that’s something other people want too.” At press time, it was to early to tell

      1) TYPO: 'it was to early to tell.': change the first instance of 'to' -> 'too'

      It will then read: 'it was too early to tell.'


      2) Given the close proximity of two instances of 'too' (the first being the last word in the speaker's quotation, the second being our now-corrected typo)... consider replacing one of those instances with some other equivalent.

      The first instance would be easier, but less casual-sounding, to replace; options include:

      • 'also'
      • 'as well'

      The second instance would be a bit trickier; options include:

      • '{As of this writing | At press time}, that's still an open question.'
      • ', it was yet unclear.'
      • ', it was yet unclear what the outcome would be.'
      • ', it wasn't yet clear.'

      .... This said, my immediate thought is that 'it was too early to tell' is an open, receptive/neutral, and -- importantly -- potentially optimistic phrasing. I.e., "We don't know yet! The future could hold anything!"

      That's a much more optimistic outlook, compared to terms like 'unclear' -- that seems murky and potentially doubtful to my mind.

      So I like the way you phrased it initially.

    2. The goal of “Making the world work for everyone” is vague and can be in-terpreted in many ways. I believe that is it’s power.
      • consider whether or not to lower-case the M in "Making." (I should probably ask an experienced copywriter or professional editor, actually... There is probably a "one right answer" in this instance, although I'm not certain.)

      • Change it's to its (that is, remove the apostrophe)

      The possessive form of "it" is an irregular form of possessive in lacking an apostrophe, probably to avoid confusion with the contraction of "it is."

      (This is yet another grammar rule I memorized in public schools. :p)

    3. It is a question; a challenge.

      Strictly speaking, semi-colons are only used to separate clauses which could, on their own (as they stand), each be a grammatically complete sentence. The test? [You'll notice that last remark wasn't a grammatically complete sentence, by the way.]

      Replace the semi-colon with a period; see if it works.

      Replace the semi-colon with a period. See if it works.

      "A challenge" isn't a grammatically complete sentence. Of course, stylistic licenses are sometimes taken to defy the rule of "every clause between two periods must be a complete sentence."

      In this case, though, I'd suggest:

      • adding a repetition of "it is" after the semi-colon (to make it complete-sentence-worthy): 'It is a question; it is a challenge.', OR
      • replacing the semi-colon and substituting a colon in its place. (This also has the advantage, in my mind, of making it a 'stronger' statement: throwing down a challenge.): 'It is a question: a challenge.', OR
      • both: 'It is a question: it is a challenge.'

      Either or both should work. (Personally, I like the second option best: 'It is a question: a challenge.' ) That said, if you prefer it the way it is for style, go for it. It just stuck out in my mind, but I am a fiend for proper (or obsessive) semi-colon usage.

    4. letters,“Those who love peace must learn

      insert a space between the comma and the open-quote.

      NOTE: On the website (html version), the lack of a space is clearly visible.

      (Although visually, in this pdf, it looks like there is a space -- but there actually isn't!! ... It's just how the pdf is rendering on my screen that gives the illusion of a space-character being present. If you try to highlight it, you'll notice there's no extra character between the comma and the quote-mark.)

    5. fuelling volunteers

      change to "fueling" (one L).


      • "fuelling": turns out, this is the UK / Commonwealth spelling (with two L's).
      • "fueling": this is the US spelling (with one L). In the US, the word "fuel" -- regardless of any word-form it takes -- always has only one (1) "L."

      side note: I am all in favour of using British or Commonwealth spelling! If so, then it should be consistent across the entire published work (but I didn't think that it was your intent to use British spelling here ;p).

    6. underwear.

      Consider removing the period at the end of this list.

      It's a stylistic or slight syntax concern: maintain the existing conventions already in place (no periods at the end of list-items). NB: Other editors might disagree with me in this instance.... IMO, it appears a little more awkward than if it were left out, but that's pretty subjective.

    7. (or if you would be if you knew that at least 1000 people would be out there with you)

      needs a period, AFTER the closing of the parenthesis, like so:

      (or if you would be if you knew that at least 1000 people would be out there with you).

    8. waste a lot of energy telling people “no”.

      change: move the period, so it's inside the quotation mark.


      Placing commas and periods inside dialogue quotation marks is proper syntax/grammar in normal writing. .... It's improper syntax only in technical/computer writing. However, it's possible that -- stylistically -- this may have changed in recent years, as technical (and technology) writers have influenced mainstream writing somewhat.

    9. but 3 is still pretty good.”

      My understanding of strict grammar rules, with regard to writing numbers, is as follows:

      • When writing a number less than ten, one spells the number (and refrains from writing the digits).
      • When writing a number greater than 10, one writes the digits (e.g., 24).

      (Side note: I don't recall what the rule is for the number ten itself!)

      Anyway, that being said: My sense is that in journalistic writing (and in fiction, and in novels), one can take stylistic licenses; it's entirely up to you, based on what style, context and goals you have in mind.

      If it were me, I'd spell it out (but it's your call): "but three is still pretty good."

  32. Nov 2015
  33. Oct 2015
  34. Sep 2015