My immediate gut reaction to a rule as general as this is that there's fat chance it's universally applicable, there will always be cases where active would be clunky.
Like I can't imagine an RPG protagonist exclaiming that "Someone trapped this chest!" instead of the 100% more natural "This chest was trapped!"
This article is wild already, on the first page there's this quote
‘Do not use the passive voice when such use makes a statement clumsy and wordy. . . Do not, by using the passive voice, leave the agent of the verb vaguely indicated, when the agent should be clearly identified.’ [Edwin Woolley, Handbook of Composition, 1907, p. 20]
Emphasis mine on... a clear usage of the passive! In active this would have to be "when you should clearly identify the agent" or something of the like, the fuck, how hard is it to not expose your whole ass like this mate
Wait what, TIL there was/is a crusade against... the passive fucking voice?
Some people just need to invent problems for their life to feel meaningful, don't they
so businesses and employees who get real value out of the stuff.
I have really bad news about what percentage that would be
Mods when a post escapes containment: No! No!!
Sickos like me when a posts escapes containment and they get to see the worst takes humanity has to offer: Yes... Ha ha ha... YES!
I'm sorry but what the hell is a "work trial"
Exactly, like the whole point of their schtick is that they want to legitimise plain old racism as something more sophisticated, so I don't see a reason to entertain them as such.
I really don't see a reason for us making a linguistic distinction between "low-brow bigotry" and "high-brow bigotry", which is essentially what this is in practice.
When my uncle drunkenly complains about how "those stupid immigrants are everywhere and they ain't even speaking our language" - it's racism; but when a guy with a university degree writes a treatsie about how immigrants will take over and that's a problem because his bayesian priors say they're statistically less intelligent - then it's suddenly "race pseudoscience". No, both of them are the same breed of racist, the only difference is the latter had enough money to attend Yale.
but at what point do we start calling it race pseudoscience
I think the word you're looking for is "racism"
Retail customers prefer payment processors for the ability to partially or totally reverse fraudulent transactions, though
Wait, but again, isn't this the main thing that banks provide? Like I can call my bank and tell them listen, this transaction was fraudulent, and that's it, it's gone. They sometimes even call me first to double-check that a large-sum wire was actually authorised by me.
Either that, or live in some futuristic utopia like the EU where banks consider "send money to people" to be core functionality. But here in the good ol' U S of A, where material progress requires significant amounts of kicking and screaming, you had PayPal.
Wait what? Can people in the USA not, em, transfer money? What do the banks do then?
This is so funny, I don't think I've seen this before
Like imagine a cryptobro circa 2020 being like "no, we're not early, this is actually the honeymoon phase and it'll just get worse"