And if I need for simple service object without validation? You can use Formalism::Action, a parent of Formalism::Form.

memoize :call, condition: -> { environment == 'production' }

Such gems like Memoist override methods. So, if you want to memoize a method in a child class with the same named memoized method in a parent class — you have to use something like awkward identifier: argument. This gem allows you to just memoize methods when you want to.

It's a fork of Memery gem. Original Memery uses prepend Module.new with memoized methods, not touching original ones. This approach has advantages, but also has problems, see discussion here: tycooon#1

but PR is not updated somewhy

Unfortunately, $ method_name -s doesn't work in Pry, but I hope that some day it will get fixed. Just a ref to issue: pry/pry#1756

You can require plugins for Filewatcher, which extends core functionality.

If you have questions, problems or suggestions about plugins system — please, don't hesitate to create a new issue.

Lightweight file watcher weighing about 300 LOC. No runtime dependencies and no platform specific code. Works everywhere.

Monitors changes in the file system by polling.

while true; do waitforsave assignment.ly; lily assignment.ly; say "done"; done

mount IndexController do # all methods will be mounted automatically, it's just an example of refinement get '/hello', :hello_world end

The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations Ori Brafman, Rod A. Beckstrom How do you build teams and organizations that are sustainable over time? How can you be the most adaptable? Forget everything you know about leadership and organization, be completely transformed. A must for anyone wanting results.

You can also schedule a block to run immediately and periodically with Timers::Group#now_and_every

.time {|timer = Timer.new.start| ... } ⇒ Object Takes a block and returns the total time it took to execute.

you may want to implement a fan-out or map-reduce.

Unless you need fan-out, map-reduce style concurrency, you can actually use a slightly more efficient Kernel#Sync execution model.

When should I use Async? ¶ You should use Async when you desire explicit concurrency in your program. That means you want to run multiple tasks at the same time, and you want to be able to wait for the results of those tasks.

A programming model is an execution model coupled to an API or a particular pattern of code.

Modern parallel languages have much easier to use execution models. The thread model was one of the original parallel execution models, which may account for why it has persisted despite being difficult to use.

The complication comes from the fact that the execution model does not have any means for the execution of "give up ownership of the lock" to have any influence over which execution of "gain ownership of the lock" in some other timeline (thread) follows. Very often, only certain handoffs give valid results. Thus, the programmer must think of all possible combinations of one thread giving up a lock and another thread getting it next, and make sure their code only allows valid combinations.

a common synchronization construct is the lock

The execution model is the definition of the behavior, so all implementations, whether in-order or out-of-order or interpreted or JIT'd etc.. must all give the exact same result, and that result is defined by the execution model.

A task can be in one of the following states

A change in the minor component signifies a non-breaking change, and that the consumer can safely use the new version without breaking, although the consumer might need to be updated to use its new functionality. For example, adding a non-mandatory feature column with a default value to the model is a minor bump, because when a value for the added column is not passed, inference still works.

Using semantic versioning facilitates model deployment, by communicating which if a new version can be deployed without changes to the application:

When a user asks Claude to generate content like code snippets, text documents, or website designs, these Artifacts appear in a dedicated window alongside their conversation. This creates a dynamic workspace where they can see, edit, and build upon Claude’s creations in real-time, seamlessly integrating AI-generated content into their projects and workflows.

The architecture covers both easy unsubscribe options, mailto and URL. This is because not all mailbox providers support the List-Unsubscribe-Post header.

Offering an easy unsubscribe method allows recipients to indicate which type of email they would like to receive and not receive based on topic or category.

Amazon SES unsubscribe method: The Amazon SES subscription management feature, which provides subscription management via the List-Unsubscribe header and ListManagementOptions footer links.

Unsubscribe method header: A hyperlink that is rendered by the mailbox provider based on the List-Unsubscribe email header. Recipients can use this link to unsubscribe from that sender.

Unsubscribe method footer: An unsubscribe link in the email footer, which redirects recipients to a landing page, where they can unsubscribe or edit their communication preferences.

Custom-built unsubscribe method: A custom-built unsubscribe link in the email footer and manually added List-Unsubscribe header.

This is the most simulative version of a controller. It will try and mimic real user behaviour. It's the recommended version to use when the goal of the load-test is finding out how many concurrently active users the target instance supports.

I'm often asked to describe the “advantages” of free software. But the word “advantages” is too weak when it comes to freedom. Life without freedom is oppression, and that applies to computing as well as every other activity in our lives.

A proprietary program puts its developer or owner in a position of power over its users. This power is in itself an injustice.

Of course, the developer usually does not do this out of malice, but rather to profit more at the users' expense. That does not make it any less nasty or more legitimate.

Power corrupts; the proprietary program's developer is tempted to design the program to mistreat its users.

Yielding to that temptation has become ever more frequent; nowadays it is standard practice. Modern proprietary software is typically an opportunity to be tricked, harmed, bullied or swindled.

Software designed to function in a way that mistreats the user is called malware.

Microsoft is using malware tactics to get users to switch to their web browser, Microsoft Edge, and their search engine, Microsoft Bing. When users launch the Google Chrome browser Microsoft injects a pop up advertisement in the corner of the screen advising users to switch to Bing. Microsoft also imported users Chrome browsing data without their knowledge or consent.

The commercial license prohibits reverse engineering and tampering with our license key mechanism unlocking paid features so that we can run a compliant and fair commercial business.

ELECT DISTINCT ON (customer) id, customer, total FROM purchases ORDER BY customer, total DESC, id;

The perfect index for the above query would be a multi-column index spanning all three columns in matching sequence and with matching sort order:

WITH recursive temp (n, fact) AS ( SELECT 0, 1 -- Initial Subquery UNION ALL SELECT n+1, (n+1)*fact FROM temp WHERE n < 9 -- Recursive Subquery ) SELECT * FROM temp;

GROUP BY 1

Monopoly is not played on a cartesian plane. It's played on a directed circular graph. Therefore, it is inappropriate to use the Euclidean distance metric to compare the distances between places on the board. We must instead use minimum path lengths. Example: If we used Euclidean distance, then you would have to agree that the distance between, say, Go and Jail is equal to the distance between the Short Line and the Pennsylvania Railroad. Clearly, this is not the intention. In your example, the "nearest railroad" would be the railroad square having the shortest path from wherever you stand. With the game board representing a directed graph, there are no "backwards" paths. Thus, the distance from the pink Chance square to the Reading railroad is not 2. It's 38.

However, in order to tell InheritedResources that it really failed, you need to add errors to your model.

it really depends on how the organization's legal counsel interprets the laws and how risk-averse they are. Some organizations might say only Germany requires double opt-in, while others also include Austria and Switzerland. Some organizations might say the US operates under "everyone is opted in until they opt out" while others might say everyone needs to opt in, regardless of country.

It’s also worth pointing out that an unfriendly unsubscribe experience is also a major driver of spam complaints. Half of U.S. consumers say they’ve reported a brand’s emails as spam because they couldn’t easily opt out, according to our Adapting to Consumers’ New Definition of Spam report. So putting up opt-out barriers not only jeopardizes your legal compliance but can also hurt your deliverability as well.

ensure you’re following unsubscribe best practices:Don’t charge a fee.Don’t require any other information beyond an email address.Don’t require subscribers to log in.Don’t ask subscribers to visit more than one page to submit their request.

Keep a clear record of how you obtained consent from your current subscribers When, how, and why (what for) you obtained their data – timestamp, wording, source.

I've just experienced the same issue with confirmation links being executed in a sent email before the user has received them and invalidating the link. I got around the issue by modifying the page the URL links to. I've added a Confirm button on the page which the user has to click to confirm their email and this works nicely.

I've seen the same issue. The links in emails opened in outlook seem to be crawled immediately by the 'BingPreview' bot.

If the link you are trying to send is just some kind of harmless confirmation link (e.g. subscribe/unsubscribe from a newsletter), then at least use a form inside the web page to do the actual confirmation through a POST request (possibly also using a CSRF token), otherwise you will unequivocally end up with false positives.

"this is a bug of the mail provider" Seriously, Drupal community bring less and less value. Unfollow this issue, but I perhaps time for me to delete my D.O. account. It's a critical issue that can lead to the impossibility for user to log-in. In the real world, nobody care if Microsft server "should" act differently.

Drupal use a HTTP GET to change data witch is not how HTTP protocol is supposed to be work. A HTTP POST request should be used to change an account from blocked to active. It's a bug and a ugly one.

Especially users working with Microsoft Office 365 and therefore Outlook noticed very often that login is not possible. Upon closer analysis, it was found that the MS/Bing crawlers are particularly persistent and repeatedly call the reset links, regardless of server configuration or the like. For this reason, a text field was implemented in the backend via the Drupal State API, in which selected user agents (always one per line) can be entered. These are checked by 'Shy One Time', in case of a hit a redirect to the LogIn form with a 302 status code occurs, the reset link is not invalidated.

Another suggestion some senders are trying is to set up a “stealth” link, that human readers won’t see or click on but that parsing software might. Clicks on that link are a sign that the click was not done by the recipient.

Confirmations are a little more difficult, as senders really do want to keep the transaction as low friction as possible. Adding a confirm button may result in people abandoning the confirmation process.

This behaviour may affect one-click unsubscribe links. If clicking the link in an email automatically processes the unsubscribe, then Barracuda may unsubscribe users without their knowledge.

This behaviour may affect opt-in confirmation links.

I’ve implemented a form on the landings page that auto-submits (on DOMContentLoaded) and posts the token to the next page. Passwordless login is now working for my client despite their mail scanner.

In June 2021 I can confirm Microsoft seem to be running a product that completes client side activities, like automatically submitting a form. I guess they are running a headless browser to do the scanning.

Really appreciatie your suggestion. We hesitated between this solution and the one where the landing page auto-redirects/posts to the next page. I think both are good solutions. Yours a bit more secure. The other less clicks and less friction for the user.

If you want to be (relatively) sure that any action is triggered only by a (specific) human user, then use URLs in emails or other kind of messages over the internet only to lead them to a website where they confirm an action to be taken via a form, using method=POST

Links (GETs) aren't supposed to "do" anything, only a POST is. For example, your "unsubscribe me" link in your email should not directly unsubscribe th subscriber. It should "GET" a page the subscriber can then post from.

The purpose of distinguishing between safe and unsafe methods is to allow automated retrieval processes (spiders) and cache performance optimization (pre-fetching) to work without fear of causing harm.

Request methods are considered "safe" if their defined semantics are essentially read-only; i.e., the client does not request, and does not expect, any state change on the origin server as a result of applying a safe method to a target resource.

For example, most servers append request information to access log files at the completion of every response, regardless of the method, and that is considered safe even though the log storage might become full and cause the server to fail. Likewise, a safe request initiated by selecting an advertisement on the Web will often have the side effect of charging an advertising account.

For some reason, Microsoft decided to use the MS Word HTML rendering engine in Outlook 2007 to 2013 (desktop version) – this was even worse than the IE5/IE6 rendering engine which I believe was used in Outlook 2000, 2002 and 2003! As most large corporate businesses force their staff to use a version of desktop Outlook that hasn’t been updated in years, email is stuck in this hell of being held back in worse-than-IE6 web.

We want users to unsubscribe to messages they don’t want; we don’t want them to mark them as spam and hurt the reputation of the sender. We have seen by implementing this unsubscribe affordance in the UI that spam marks go down and in some cases are being reduced by 30 to 40%.

The table below lists the general categories of bodies and objects by their location or structure.

Some have likened anyone being able to issue a verifiable credential being like a shop clerk deciding if they should accept an out-of-state license as proof of age when purchasing alcohol.

It is now possible (but not easy) for anyone who is determined enough to create a xanadoc, and send it to others, who may open and use it.  (Note that the World Wide Web was available for several years before the Mosaic editor made it easy for the public.)

Transclusion facilitates modular design (using the "single source of truth" model, whether in data, code, or content): a resource is stored once and distributed for reuse in multiple documents. Updates or corrections to a resource are then reflected in any referencing documents.

However, with verifiable credentials in a Solid Pod, the university issues some information stating that a student completed a course and cryptography signs that information. This is a verifiable credential. They then pass that credential to the student who stores it in their Solid Personal Online Datastore (Pod). When the student wants to apply for a job, all they need to do is grant access to the credential so the company can read it. The company can confirm that the credential isn’t faked because its cryptographically signed by the university.

If all human data were structured in one massive knowledge-graph (a global knowledge graph), we could unlock this potential. Fortunately, Solid is that knowledge graph.

Today, data is abundant, but for the most part, unusable. Seventy percent of a data scientist’s job is just cleansing data. The modern software architecture encourages data to be hoarded only accessible through proprietary APIs. And, even with proprietary APIs the market for data integrations is expected to grow to a trillion dollars by the end of the decade. When humanity is spending the GDP of Indonesia just so that the data in System X can work with the data in System Y, the field of software engineering has failed us. So much data - data that could be used by new startups and nonprofits that couldn’t exist today - goes unused because it’s so difficult to access.

This is classic Rails Magic - a clever side effect that guarantees the token in the session cookie will always match the token on the page, because rendering the token to the page can't happen without inserting that same token into the cookie.

I'd agree that much of the time 'not prefer' is a perfectly adequate way of conveying the same sense as 'disprefer' (just as 'not agree' will for most purposes convey the same sense as 'disagree', and 'not like' the same sense as 'dislike'). However, they aren't strictly equivalent; I might neither prefer nor disprefer Coke to Pepsi, but rather be neutral between them. Possibly the purpose for which 'disprefer' is most useful is cancelling implications – 'I don't prefer it – though I don't disprefer it either'.

It's an interesting position and had me rethinking things a bit, but the way I look at it, the actions themselves are negative; it's their boundary conditions which are different. Take for instance embark/disembark. In pseudo-mathematical terms, I would tend to think they increment or decrement one's embarkedness, with an upper boundary of 1 (aboard), and a lower boundary of 0 (ashore). The non-existence of values >1 (super-aboard) or <0 (anti-aboard) shouldn't affect the relative polarity of the actions themselves. I think. Looking through the rest of the list, there's a variety of different boundary conditions. Prove/disprove would range from 1 to -1 (1=proven, 0=asserted but untested, -1=proven false), entangle/disentangle seems to range from 0 to infinity (because you can always be a little more entangled, can't you?), and please/displease is perhaps wholly unbounded (if we imagine that humanity has an infinite capacity for both suffering and joy).

her first remark upon embarking would no doubt be "on a scale from one to on a boat, we're on a boat!

snowcloning

It was enclosed in scare quotes, a sort of acknowledgment that the author knew it was non-standard, but was too apt for the purpose to resist. I remember reading it and trying to think of the “real” word that would be employed there, but could not find a satisfactory alternative. Since then, I’ve found myself unable to resist using the word when appropriate, due to its utility!

I'm surprised no one has mentioned disambiguate in this context. It sounds horrible and outlandish on first hearing, has a reasonably transparent meaning (which may shed some light on the semantics of dis-), and seems to be used almost exclusively by linguists.

I am disinterested and uninterested in this debate.

If you disprove something, you haven't necessarily proved the opposite. If you disprove something, you have indeed proved its negation. If you disapprove of an action, you do indeed approve of not doing that action (so, disapproving X is approving not-X).

(That is, when you disprefer that George be elected, you prefer the negation, that George not be elected, rather than just you do not prefer that George be elected, which is compatible with indifference.)

Who says it's not a word? Not a word, simply because lexicographers have not recognized it? When a lexicographer recognizes it, it has already been in use! Even Mr. Fiske says it is a word, although he obviously disprefers it.

I believe it is possible to disprefer something while either 1. not disliking it, or 2. liking it but not intensely enough to be the preference. As in, "I like tart apples, but I sometimes disprefer them as an ingredient on a green salad." It doesn't and hasn't, meant I would refuse to eat a salad with this ingredient included, but there are times when my preference would have been to have a salad without them.

idiolect

"Disprove" is fairly negative. "Prove" -> establish as true; "disprove" -> establish as false. I'd say "disprove" is like "disagree".

I think you linguists worry too much. It's a simple enough formation using a very common prefix, and while it is not clear whether "I disprefer" means "I do not prefer" or "I prefer something other than" or "I prefer the opposite of" or "I stop preferring", either it'll settle down to one meaning or it'll carry a range. So what? This is the first time I've heard the word but I don't find it particularly puzzling.

Poetry and children both have many interesting warpages and torsionings of language, all legal but serving to make the brain choke slightly, as the lungs do with a sudden whiff of ammonia or other unpleasant gas. 'Disprefer' is another good one!

'Disprefer' is another good one! It fits well with a wonderful pungent comment about some holiday meal by my nephew when he was about 10: Well, I don't love the parsnips …. Apparently it was a common construction for his classmates in 4th grade, a truth-in-humor bit of sass enjoyed by all. I'll introduce 'disprefer' to him as a high-falutin' possibility for his more grown-up years.

The problem with "object to" as an alternative to "disprefer" is it doesn't mean the same thing. And in the specific example, there's no evidence that people who commonly choose one word/phrase/construction over another object to the word/phrase/construction not chosen, so "object to" doesn't work.

I have become a dyed in the wool descriptionist because of Language Log, and have been known to cite entries here in battle against of the prescriptionistas of the Axis of Evil within the blogosphere.

on reasonable uses of "disprefer" — it's probably true that its meaning is not immediately apparent, and using it when addressing general audiences probably avoided (dispreferred?), but of course, it depends on the context I think. It is a term that has an obvious jargon aspect, but that doesn't seem to me to make it uniformly verboten. Other, DNA would never have entered the popular lexicon, or quantum… I'm sure those parallels are inapt in several ways, but my point, which I think still stands, is that while clarity to the broadest audience possible is often a laudable goal, this also doesn't mean it should be the only or always the chief goal. It seems to me technical words get disseminated and incorporated popularly through their use outside of strictly technical fora, and while several people said they did a double take or didn't immediately understand the word (or misunderstood its meaning), it's also true that this can happen with perfectly reasonable, standard vernacular constructions, especially reasonable standard constructions that are expressing a counter-intuitive (even if true) claim. Just sayin' — "can people understand this without giving it but a moment's thought" is a high (or ultra-low) car to hold all non-technical communication to. (That said, I also have a love for arcane words, shades of meaning, and being able to express certain moods/valences/concepts precisely. THAT said, I'm no linguist, and probably won't be using this word commonly for all my talk.)

To me, dis- negates in words like disagree, and displease. If you disagree with a position, that (generally) implies that you agree with the opposite position. If you displease someone, you make them angry or unhappy, you don't leave them feeling neutral.

On the other hand, I feel that dis- neutralises in words like disprove, disapprove, disenchant, disentangle, disembark, discharge, and so on. If you disprove something, you haven't necessarily proved the opposite. If you disapprove of an action, that doesn't mean you would approve of the opposite action. If you're disenchanted, it doesn't necessarily mean you now hate what you were formerly enchanted with. And clearly once you disentangle something it's back to zero; you haven't "anti-tangled" it.

The main problem with disprefer is that it violates de Buitléir's rule: If *I* use a word you're not familiar with, your education or experience is lacking. If *you* use a word I'm not familiar with, you're being a show-off or making up words.

I also like "infelicitous" for this purpose.

On lackey, more or less following up on Mark Liberman's comment above: except in period references (where it refers to 'a footman, esp. a running footman; a valet' — OED2, citations from 1529), the word now comes with a sneer.

So what's the problem here? The problem is that it's not a word except to small, relatively closed circles of specialists such as linguists (saving your reverences). And, pace those people who think its meaning is clear on first sight, it's not (and it's telling that some people's response to Amy's saying that she hadn't understood it was to chastise her rather than admit that perhaps they were wrong about its transparency). Hell, I have an MPhil in linguistics, and even I dislike it and would try to avoid it if possible. I think it's fine for use in the field, where you can expect that your readers will be familiar with it, but it's solipsistic verging on insulting to use it with the public at large; showing off specialist vocabulary (which this is) is not polite.

Having read this, it appears that there is a reasonable consensus and, given that, I will probably add it to my vocabulary as it does fill a niche – but I'll be careful where and with whom I use it.

I wonder what makes it so ugly — its newspeakiness?

rant against the horrible solecism, duck tape

And the exact meaning of "dis-" varies from word to word, but it always includes reversing the polarity of some semantic component (rather than just neutralizing it). Connect X to Y = position X such that it is joined to Y Disconnect X from Y = position X such that it is separated from Y Approve X = assert that X is good Disapprove X = assert that X is bad Prefer X = when selecting from a set choices, choice X first Disprefer X = when selecting from a set of choices, chose X last

I don't think "disprefer X to Y" is a mistake, but I do think it is almost always more awkward-sounding to me than "prefer Y to X", and the meaning is equivalent.

prescriptivist habits, but "disprefer" seems a straightforward, useful coining to me.

Computer programmer here. 'Disprefer' is a somewhat uncommon, but entirely standard, word at my work. I would guess that it's most common use is in restricting some other preference. E.g. "sort by age, but disprefer objects that need disk access".

The ones which are close to the meaning of 'not X' are so only because the phenomena of often (though not always) viewed as binary. But, as the remain forms clearly indicate, this doesn't come automatically from the meaning of the prefix.

Don't prefer A = not prefer A Disprefer A = prefer not-A

OK apparently meaning isn't immediately clear to some. But I disapprove of your approach, and disagree with your conclusion. I don't need to disinter my dictionary to understand the word. Simple comparison with other words that use the prefix will disgorge the meaning with a minimum of discomfort, all from the comfort of your armchair. I don't mean to discourage dictionary use, but rather, to encourage examining the language you already know. Without such comparison, blind prescriptionist obedience to dicta from the dictionary may lead one astray. For even in the pages of the dictionary, one may find numerous examples of disobedience to its every dictum.

There's a void — a need where a word should fit. There's a construction — a prefix and a root, which fit together to fill the void. Meaning is clear on first encounter. A need is met. What is the problem?

John: But that's exactly what I did! Dis- + prefer should theoretically mean "don't prefer" or "unprefer". So what does that mean? You're neutral? I understand the meaning now from the comments. But I don't think the meaning is clear from the components. Just to check my understanding of dis-, I checked a few online dictionaries, and roughly speaking… dis- = lack of, not, apart, away, undo, remove The reason I was confused was that to me, dis- simply neutralises a word. It multiplies the meaning by zero, yielding zero. It's not like anti-, which multiplies by minus one, changing the sign and changing the meaning to the opposite. If you said anti-prefer, I'd have a better idea of what the word meant.

If you said anti-prefer, I'd have a better idea of what the word meant.

I'm no linguist, and can barely aspire to lackeydom (takers?), but I'm taking quite a shine to "disprefer". Meanwhile… to "object to" something, it seems to me you have to express your objection, where to prefer or disprefer you need only choose, possibly with no one else the wiser. So, he's wrong again.

So what's the problem here? The obvious reasoning is that "dis-" is a common English prefix, and "prefer" is a common English verb. You don't need a dictionary entry to explain or justify combining them. The dictionary entries for "dis-" and "prefer" should be all that's needed, and any reasonably fluent speaker should be able to make or understand the combination. Granted, "disprefer" may not be a common word, but it shouldn't be a mystery to anyone with any familiarity with English.

I've never come across this word before, but I immediately understood it and see its usefulness. I'm likely to use it in the future.

Amy: It's a real word. I use it all the time (of course, I'm a linguist, and I allow the possibility that I picked it up from my linguist chums, though it doesn't seem particularly jargony to me). For me, "disprefer X" means something like "not choose X when other options are available". This is subtly different from "prefer anything over X", quite different from "not prefer X", and totally distinct from "dislike X" or "object to X".

Perfectly useful jargon: if we say that of alternatives ABCD, we disprefer C, we mean "definitely choose something else if possible", almost as strongly as if we said C was the worst alternative.

It baffled me, because I wasn't sure whether it meant simply "don't prefer", or the stronger "dislike". Despite having read the article, the possibility that it meant that "prefer anything over" didn't occur to me until I saw blahedo's comment. "Disprefer" is the most disunconfusing word I've heard in a long time.

*Other things being equal, we should disprefer blogs to journalism. USE prefer journalism to blogs.* I can't say he's clearly wrong about this one, depending on the information structure of discourse or text. If blogs are the topic, there's a lot to be said for making it the direct object rather than an oblique, the object of a preposition.

*It's interesting as a spelling pronunciation, preferred by some speakers, dispreferred by others. USE not* Fiske fails to note that dispreferred expresses a contrary negation, not simply a contradictory one. The writer is excluding the possibility that the dispreferring speakers might be merely indifferent to the pronunciation in question, but the use of not would include that possibility.

The most important nontechnical use of 'disprefer' (for me) is to say that among a sea of choices to which I am largely indifferent, there is some choice that is particularly my least favourite—I may not have any legal, moral, or other objection to it, I just don't like it. I wouldn't say I use this all the time, but I certainly use it regularly when it's appropriate.

The linguistic phenomenon of "a multi-use, customizable, instantly recognizable, time-worn, quoted or misquoted phrase or sentence that can be used in an entirely open array of different variants" was originally described by linguist Geoffrey K. Pullum in 2003.[2] Pullum later described snowclones as "some-assembly-required adaptable cliché frames for lazy journalists".[1]

At the entry for irregardless, we provide a paragraph in which we note that the use of the word is still met with considerable objection, and we even go so far as to advise the reader to use regardless instead—which is about as close as we get to offering a usage prescription in our dictionaries.

Lexicography is the practice of creating books, computer programs, or databases that reflect lexicographical work and are intended for public use.

Linguistic description is often contrasted with linguistic prescription

"Less favored" or "less preferred" may be the preferable word choice most of the time (because it's usually about degree of preference, not merely a binary "preferred or not")

Why invent ugly new words when there is adequate vocabulary available?

Not preferring is not the opposite of preferring, but rather the absence of preferring.

If you want to stop receiving this email, then hit the Unsubscribe link. Because you asked for this email and confirmed that you wanted it, the right thing to do is to follow the directions to unsubscribe from it.

it is important to regularly clean your email list to avoid sending emails to individuals who have previously asked to be removed.