Words are tricky. They don't have one true definition. What's accurate for one, may not be for another. Words have multiple, sometimes incompatible meanings, depending on context of discussion and participants. It's not really about completely random meanings that differ from person to person, but more about slightly different meanings that differ from culture group to culture group.
I see more and more that people attempt to devalue & derail statements made by others by making an offensive remark about semantics, instead of attempting to understand what was said.
It would be convenient if everybody used a single definition book for every word, however we don't live in such a reality. A "semantic nazi" is a person who goes around and tries to convert everyone to use their culture group's definition book. [1]
--
[1] I want to be clear that in this specific case the "render" definition extension was pointed out in a respectable manner and I wouldn't pin the nazi name on them for it.
I truly believe that the renders -> photoshop clarification was genuinely more useful than the 'renders can mean any kind of drawing (even though it's clear from context that the writer meant computer 3D rendered)' clarification. Not that the second one was useless, but calling the photoshop point 'wrong' is way over doing it.
> renders -> photoshop clarification was genuinely more useful
Except 'the clarification' is wrong. If you have a render, it doesn't mean it's 3D. It can be 3D, 2D, a mixture of both (last is probably the most frequent). It's a render.
This question can be more important than you think, since people may have the wrong expectations when they get a 'render' from the industry. Good post-processing (color balance, a bit of motion blur and other small effects) can work wonders to show off a product (e.g. video-game), while not being so representative of the end result. Which explains then the disclaimers on trailers and screenshots, which are not there to be pedantic.
Anyway, I'm off sending Wittgenstein to the camps.
I disagree that it was wrong. A render is clearly a term with multiple meanings, depending on context, and in the context and audience here most readers will take it to mean 3D rendering . That there is a context where the statements are true does not mean that the statements weren't making the wrong impression in the readers here. Check out the author's reply, clearly indicating that they were surprised at the clarification.
The fact that tgb "truly believes" the first, and erroneous, clarification was more useful means nothing to me. The first comment was simply incorrect. The impetus was to say someone was wrong. This was corrected by someone else, in a very civil manner, and you called that person a nazi. Grow up and leave meaningful comments or else don't bother.
It's not just that the first clarification was more useful. The first clarification was correct. The comment said the renders are beautiful, obviously meaning rendering in in the 3D rendering[1] sense. The clarification stated that they weren't rendered in that sense because the author used photoshop, which doesn't render in that sense.
Then the second clarification stated that rendering also meant drawing... and while it does, it also has a specific meaning within 3D representations which doesn't really fit here.
Nothing to call anyone a nazi over but the second clarification wasn't needed or useful.
Quite a roundabout way for describing people that care for the accurate use of terms...
Is assigning random personal meanings to words a thing now? I mean, talk about putting the p...y on the chainwax!