[nickff]

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about Canonical's motives and reasoning.

Perhaps the question about language indicates that they're only looking for people who wouldn't have closed their tabs.

[dymk]

I would be able to give "impressive" answers to those questions, yet I'd still close the tab. Canonical is shooting themselves in the foot.

The next worst thing they could have asked was my Myers-Briggs personality category.

[fatnoah]

> I would be able to give "impressive" answers to those questions

I want to complain that they don't have a "won the state championship" answer for the math question. The allowed responses don't even capture my full, 30 years ago high school glory.

[ryandrake]

I think OP was just pointing out the irony of complaining about high school English questions while making a high school-level English usage mistake (would of vs. would have)

[dymk]

English prescriptivists are even more ironic-er. If they'd of bothered to take even an undergraduate level course in linguistics, they'd understand how wasteful a pastime "grammar nazi" is.

[kube-system]

"Would of" is just is a misspelling of "would've".

[lovich]

Irregardless of that fact, if enough people misuse a word or grammatical construct long enough, it becomes de facto correct

[kube-system]

> Irregardless

I see what you did there. And you’re right, but “would have” is not there yet, it’s just a common mistake like swapping your/you’re.

[HeyLaughingBoy]

Sure. I'll give it a couple hundred years.