At first I was thinking, why not use “impacted”, it sounds a little bit awkward, but I’ve definitely seen it being used in relatively formal situations (or at least that’s what I remember).
But no, I looked it up and “impacted” should not be used in the sense of affected. TIL.
“Impactful” is a heinous travesty of the language. I’ve actually seen “impactfulness” used too. Also bad is “impacts” … “the stock market has suffered several impacts due to low business confidence.” This cumbersome wording tries to amp up the drama. It’s much cleaner to say “The stock market has been affected by low business confidence.” Aside from the shock value of replacing “affected” with impacted, a metaphor for bodily collision, many have turned to impacted because the subtle difference between affected and effected intimidates them.
Be the better person. Avoid the hokey metaphor.
Btw, media uses “slammed” and “pounds” and other Batman words simply because they get more clicks than rebuked or chastized. Don’t be a headline writer.
Impact, impacted, impacts are totally fine for these use cases. As a native English speaker, I’d never heard of these rules against using them that way.
But even if there is a rule, it doesn’t matter; if the terms are used this way and fully understood by both the speaker and listeners, then the rule is void.
That makes sense! I am a rule enjoyer, I guess I was responding more to the thread than to you in particular. It is good to be aware of the rules, but I also think they can sometimes hinder natural communication and create confusion.
The way I look at it, it would be better if we had a nice, consistent language with rules that make sense but… we don’t have that. English is a nonsense language with more exceptions than rules. So if I’m going to have to deal with something that doesn’t make sense in the first place, I’d rather just go with the flow. If Shakespeare can make up words, so can I.
In some cases ‘they do’ (they don’t) as the tariffs imposed may well be enough to stop people buying X at 150-200% of normal price, if selling X to US was a big enough chunk of BizY’s business, then that does impact the target country, not just US citizens.
In all cases US citizens hurt, but in a few the target country does too.
RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world
on 09 Jul 18:20
collapse
That’s basically the point of a tariff; to discourage people from buying foreign goods and to encourage production and sale of domestic goods instead.
The only times it doesn’t work correctly is when too much of the general populace refuses to do the work necessary to create production, domestic regulations make production locally too prohibitively expensive, and/or when domestic product manufacturers raise their prices to match the new higher tariffed prices, effectively cancelling the intended benefits of a tariff.
The USA right now is kinda seeing the effects of all 3. It has been so reliant on imports for such a long time that trying to cut that off all at once is having a more pronounced effect than if its import reliance was curtailed more slowly and started a while ago. And since there is no regulation (AFAIK) saying that domestic good prices cannot raise to match imported good prices when tariffed, that doesn’t help either. Businesses want the most money, and if all the other options for a product are $150 and their domestic one is only $50, without law saying they can’t match those other prices businesses feel like they are leaving $100 on the table.
Well, Nintendo increased the sale price on NS2 in Europe and Australia to compensate for the tariffs in the US, so they could keep the end-user price down for US consumers even with tariffs. This effectively shifted the cost of the tariffs to European and Australian consumers, which is why I have sworn off Nintendo for good.
I get that Nintendo’s policy is fucking you and the good friends in Europe and Australia, but it still makes the title misleading. My (Japanese) government didn’t impose the tariff on Nintendo products — the Americans’ did.
Oh right - the journalist screwed it up. I just got angry about Nintendo’s response to the “American Import Taxes” I ended up grumbling about that. Sony did the same thing, so console gaming is becoming more ethically restrictive. :(
Eggyhead@lemmings.world
on 09 Jul 12:51
nextcollapse
Clearly the Japanese shouldn’t be making all our Japanese games! We need American businesses making Japanese games!
IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world
on 10 Jul 14:18
collapse
anyone ready to reopen the “is avatar anime” debate?
Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works
on 10 Jul 00:48
collapse
The Switch 2 seems doomed to fail. “Fastest selling console yet” isn’t much to say when your loyal base is huge. But as in most things the Pareto principle applies to sales, and most sales of any product comes from casual buyers. I don’t see casual buyers putting up with this. Parents might just buy mobile games for their kids, and teenagers and adults might as well just buy a PC handheld.
IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world
on 10 Jul 14:17
collapse
I’m betting switch 2 implementation will be gradual, as switches get old and break, they will be replaced by the switch 2.
threaded - newest
Affected, not impacted. Never use the word impacted when you mean affected. Use impacted when bodies collide.
At first I was thinking, why not use “impacted”, it sounds a little bit awkward, but I’ve definitely seen it being used in relatively formal situations (or at least that’s what I remember).
But no, I looked it up and “impacted” should not be used in the sense of affected. TIL.
If media can say “slammed” to mean “said something about”, I can use “impacted” to mean “affected”. Especially when we have the word “impactful”.
“Impactful” is a heinous travesty of the language. I’ve actually seen “impactfulness” used too. Also bad is “impacts” … “the stock market has suffered several impacts due to low business confidence.” This cumbersome wording tries to amp up the drama. It’s much cleaner to say “The stock market has been affected by low business confidence.” Aside from the shock value of replacing “affected” with impacted, a metaphor for bodily collision, many have turned to impacted because the subtle difference between affected and effected intimidates them.
Be the better person. Avoid the hokey metaphor.
Btw, media uses “slammed” and “pounds” and other Batman words simply because they get more clicks than rebuked or chastized. Don’t be a headline writer.
“impacts” has been in my vocabulary for as long as I remember, and it’s common to use it that way. The dictionaries even have that definition.
I’m not afraid of language evolving.
Impactfullted.
Didn’t mean to imply you can’t, I was just curious about the formal rules for the word.
And it seems “impacted” can be used in the sense of “affected”.
I am confused :)
Where did you look it up?
Merriam-Webster defines it as:
And lists "affect" as a synonym when impact is used as a verb.
Just a quick web search; the first few results which linked to dictionary style resources.
Now I am confused. :)
Impact, impacted, impacts are totally fine for these use cases. As a native English speaker, I’d never heard of these rules against using them that way.
But even if there is a rule, it doesn’t matter; if the terms are used this way and fully understood by both the speaker and listeners, then the rule is void.
For sure, I am just curious. Not to lecture others, for my own knowledge. :)
I see where you are coming from, but as someone who speaks several other languages, I would say there can be benefits to lanagauge rules.
That makes sense! I am a rule enjoyer, I guess I was responding more to the thread than to you in particular. It is good to be aware of the rules, but I also think they can sometimes hinder natural communication and create confusion.
The way I look at it, it would be better if we had a nice, consistent language with rules that make sense but… we don’t have that. English is a nonsense language with more exceptions than rules. So if I’m going to have to deal with something that doesn’t make sense in the first place, I’d rather just go with the flow. If Shakespeare can make up words, so can I.
Wow, reading this has a huge impact on me…
While the definition may disagree, I would argue that language is constantly evolving, and the actual meaning of words is based on how you use them.
What do they mean by Japan’s tariffs? It’s not ours, it’s the stupid Americans that’s imposing them.
No, no, you don’t get it. It’s the other country that pays the tariffs… duh.
In some cases ‘they do’ (they don’t) as the tariffs imposed may well be enough to stop people buying X at 150-200% of normal price, if selling X to US was a big enough chunk of BizY’s business, then that does impact the target country, not just US citizens.
In all cases US citizens hurt, but in a few the target country does too.
That’s basically the point of a tariff; to discourage people from buying foreign goods and to encourage production and sale of domestic goods instead.
The only times it doesn’t work correctly is when too much of the general populace refuses to do the work necessary to create production, domestic regulations make production locally too prohibitively expensive, and/or when domestic product manufacturers raise their prices to match the new higher tariffed prices, effectively cancelling the intended benefits of a tariff.
The USA right now is kinda seeing the effects of all 3. It has been so reliant on imports for such a long time that trying to cut that off all at once is having a more pronounced effect than if its import reliance was curtailed more slowly and started a while ago. And since there is no regulation (AFAIK) saying that domestic good prices cannot raise to match imported good prices when tariffed, that doesn’t help either. Businesses want the most money, and if all the other options for a product are $150 and their domestic one is only $50, without law saying they can’t match those other prices businesses feel like they are leaving $100 on the table.
Well, Nintendo increased the sale price on NS2 in Europe and Australia to compensate for the tariffs in the US, so they could keep the end-user price down for US consumers even with tariffs. This effectively shifted the cost of the tariffs to European and Australian consumers, which is why I have sworn off Nintendo for good.
I get that Nintendo’s policy is fucking you and the good friends in Europe and Australia, but it still makes the title misleading. My (Japanese) government didn’t impose the tariff on Nintendo products — the Americans’ did.
Oh right - the journalist screwed it up. I just got angry about Nintendo’s response to the “American Import Taxes” I ended up grumbling about that. Sony did the same thing, so console gaming is becoming more ethically restrictive. :(
Clearly the Japanese shouldn’t be making all our Japanese games! We need American businesses making Japanese games!
This is a JRPGan A-JRPGIts like Skyrim, with wait…
Yeah I think that’s just Skyrim.
F-RPGs: Freedom RPGs.
Even better
anyone ready to reopen the “is avatar anime” debate?
The Switch 2 seems doomed to fail. “Fastest selling console yet” isn’t much to say when your loyal base is huge. But as in most things the Pareto principle applies to sales, and most sales of any product comes from casual buyers. I don’t see casual buyers putting up with this. Parents might just buy mobile games for their kids, and teenagers and adults might as well just buy a PC handheld.
I’m betting switch 2 implementation will be gradual, as switches get old and break, they will be replaced by the switch 2.
plus the occasional holiday consumption.