To me, as non-native, it seems that it may be because the idea [1] of "cases" was already introduced. So, at the start of a conversation you would say:
- The rules of a/the are simple.
- Not really, if you think so, then you haven't considered _all cases_. There's this exception and there's that exception. [...]
but:
- The rules of a/the are simple.
- Not really. There's this exception and there's that exception. [...] If you think the rules are simple, then you haven't considered _all the cases_.
[1] but take what I write with a big grain of salt, I can't explain why I wrote "the idea" or "the start" and I'm not 100% sure if that's correct :)
- For "the idea" and "the start", your usage is correct and changing it would be incorrect.
- I don't think the explanation of "all cases" vs "all the cases" fully works. I agree with other commenters that in this example, either phrase might be used. (Whether the sentences comes after a point-by-point discussion or before.)
To me, the version without the has a less natural feeling. You might describe it as more formal, or more stilted, or more abrupt, but the main point is that it's going to be somewhat dispreferred. There isn't necessarily a reason for the preference to tilt one way or the other.
> So many of these things would have been really painful to find if I'd had to sift through every line of a big commit.
> So to watch people intentionally balling up an entire PR's worth of commits and squashing them together to throw away the only (in my mind) thing that version control is good for, is truly baffling.
> But yeah, there are plenty of people like the parent in that camp
I'm confused. The parent doesn't want big commits but rather, as they wrote twice, commits that are small, atomic and without noise. So presumably "fix typo" would be removed during rebase but "rename function" would stay and be separate from "implement logic".
I guess the difference between the parent and me is that I’ve been around long enough to see my share of “fix typo “ and “remove logging “ commits that accidentally removed the line above or below.
That’s the commit I want to find six months later when the SVG text is blurry because we’re no longer forcing opacity to 1.0 at the end of a transition.
IIUC, "clearly shows" doesn't apply to "they have certain concerns" but rather to the part that you replaced with "...". In other words "the statement clearly shows that they value [their certain concerns] more highly than the kind of stuff we tend to think the EFF primarily cares about"
You do realise there are AI checkers online.
https://www.zerogpt.com/ assesses this content as: 27.49% ChatGPT
While this writer obviously had a lot of input into the model, they even state (or more accurately according to zerogpt, ChatGPT wrote this whole paragraph) "The writing process should be highly iterative", so they have added their own flavour into the writing, but it is still, (probably not for much longer) but still obvious when this is used.
Great observation! Not only does ChatGPT produce seemingly human-authored output—humans can also produce ChatGPT-style output.
If you really want to fly below the radar you can even include instructions to adopt a certain writing style, e.g.: you can tell it to use a Gen-Z style with minimal formatting.
While normalization is usually one-way, if you're doing DSP normalization & have a record of the level offsets you've applied, it's reversible. This is never the case for compression - you can't increase dynamic range of a compressed file (short of AI-generating something that never was)
- The rules of a/the are simple.
- Not really, if you think so, then you haven't considered _all cases_. There's this exception and there's that exception. [...]
but:
- The rules of a/the are simple.
- Not really. There's this exception and there's that exception. [...] If you think the rules are simple, then you haven't considered _all the cases_.
[1] but take what I write with a big grain of salt, I can't explain why I wrote "the idea" or "the start" and I'm not 100% sure if that's correct :)
reply