(no subject)

[hatman]

In other news...

The good people at Webster's have chosen their "Word Of The Year."

Reuters has an article about it, and, of course, you can see the official announcement over at m-w.com.

So what is the word?

W00t!

No, really. It's "w00t." Which they have correctly spelled with two zeroes.

What can I say?

Uhm... "W00t!"?

Comments

[alliegee.livejournal.com]

Okay, I like w00t, I use w00t. Nothing against w00t. But:

"People look for self-evident numeral-letter substitutions: 0 for O; 3 for E; 7 for T; and 4 for A," he said. "This is simply a different and more efficient way of representing the alphabetical character."

...I agree that using the numbers is a "different way" of representing the alphabetical characters. Sure. But I have to argue: It is not a "more efficient way" to represent the alphabetical characters. The MOST EFFICIENT WAY would be to use THE ACTUAL ALPHABET to represent alphabetical characters.

Am I right, here?

[pgwfolc.livejournal.com]

Well, in this case, you're using 0 instead of o. It's a 1-to-1 substitution, so technically neither one is more efficient. Or, yeah, I guess o would be more efficient since the reader doesn't have to pause and decipher it.

On the other hand, l8r is more efficient because the 8 substitutes for three whole letters.