zlacker

[parent] [thread] 6 comments
1. akerl_+(OP)[view] [source] 2023-05-11 23:27:45
"Faces a sentence that cannot exceed" and "faces up to" convey very different messages.
replies(1): >>dragon+y
2. dragon+y[view] [source] 2023-05-11 23:31:02
>>akerl_+(OP)
They literally mean the exact same thing.
replies(1): >>akerl_+Z1
◧◩
3. akerl_+Z1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-05-11 23:40:07
>>dragon+y
That's great, and if humans were a silicon-based life form that parsed language dispassionately, I'm sure it would be relevant.

But humans are made of meat, and words and phrases have connotations. There's a difference in the perception (both to the subject and society) between those two options.

"Cannot exceed" makes it pretty clear that it's a maximum bound, and doesn't imply that the actual number will be any particular distance between zero and the maximum. "Up to" leads the reader to assume that the likely sentence is close to the stated amount.

replies(1): >>dragon+g3
◧◩◪
4. dragon+g3[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-05-11 23:48:59
>>akerl_+Z1
> “Up to” leads the reader to assume that the likely sentence is close to the stated amount.

Honestly, I think most readers will be more familiar with how “up to” doesn’t mean that it is likely to be close than with the meaning of “cannot exceed”, from experience (as “up to” is regularly used in this way commercially), but, yes, unfortunately given only one figure, even if clearly marked as an upper bound, people who aren’t actively critically reading are likely to fixate on it as if it was a prediction of the likely result rather than a bound.

replies(2): >>akerl_+H3 >>dlltho+5G
◧◩◪◨
5. akerl_+H3[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-05-11 23:51:28
>>dragon+g3
It seems like the DoJ and basically every other executive office disagrees with you, given that they get to write the reports, and they've spent years saying "up to" in press releases designed to imply that the listed number is accurate and scare the subject of the investigation.
replies(1): >>dragon+95
◧◩◪◨⬒
6. dragon+95[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-05-12 00:00:22
>>akerl_+H3
> given that they get to write the reports, and they’ve spent years saying “up to” in press releases designed to imply that the listed number is accurate and scare the subject of the investigation.

Press releases aren’t designed to scare the subject of the investigation, especially not press releases announcing a plea agreement that has already been reached.

◧◩◪◨
7. dlltho+5G[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-05-12 05:42:40
>>dragon+g3
In the commercial context I'm particularly fond of "up to X or more!"
[go to top]