Are you in the loop?
« previous post | next post »
I think jargon is getting thicker with each passing day, but where are people learning it? Perhaps they are actually being taught it in business schools. It's so pervasive, nauseating, and suffocating that it must be somebody's job to produce it.
To put the new wave / avant garde jargon in perspective, I turned to this consummate collection compiled by WSJ from the complaints of actual endurers:
‘Leverage.’ ‘Reach Out.’ ‘Circle Back.’ The Corporate Jargon We Hate the Most.
We pinged our readers for the terms that really annoy them. The list is long.
By Demetria Gallegos, WSJ (Feb. 26, 2026)
Here begins the deluge:
Bandwidth: You’re not a router, just say you’re busy, pal!
I recall during an all-hands, the CEO announced the elimination of a quarterly planning meeting to “protect everyone’s bandwidth.” The freed-up two hours were immediately filled by: one new check-in meeting, three “bandwidth review” sessions to discuss how people were using their reclaimed bandwidth, and a mandatory survey about whether people felt less bandwidth-constrained. By week two, people had less bandwidth than before. The CEO sent a note: “Given current bandwidth constraints, we’ll discuss the bandwidth situation next quarter.”
— Noa Khamallah, New York
[VHM: I should mention that each of the 28 items comes with an illustrative example. Here, to save bandwidth, I omit the illustrations. However, because of the wit and vitriol displayed, I invite you to read each of them in their entirety.]
Change agent: …conjures for me someone on the midway at the fair wearing a money belt with pennies, nickels, dimes and quarters.
Circle back: I asked someone to do some research and the response was “I’ll check it out and circle back to you.”
Decision tree: As in, “Let’s reach up into our decision tree.” It’s just stupid!
Decisioning: It’s a pointless invention to give gravitas to the notion that action or choices should follow. For example,
Deep dive: Every time I hear some C-Suite type utter the dreaded “deep dive,” I want to respond, “Oh, really? Not investigate, study, discern, discover, find out about, look into?
Growth mindset: Used mainly as an ambiguous way of describing (or asking for) ambition…
Hard stop: I used to participate on a weekly call with several of my peers from different departments, all of whom, I estimate, were equally busy and crunched for time. The call was scheduled for one hour. But one person had a propensity to announce to everyone at the beginning of the call that she had a “hard stop” at 2 p.m.,
Hit the ground running: Early in my career as a new-employee trainer, I witnessed a manager tell this to a group of new hires on their first day, at the start of the onboarding process.
Juice isn’t worth the squeeze: I hear this so much every day you’d think I was working at Tropicana.
Lean in: Lean in to what? Are you dancing the Macarena? [VHM: This is one of my least favorite and least understood, but most ofter heard, trite expressions.]
Let’s take this offline: No, let’s discuss it now! [VHM: kinda reminds me of two guys in a bar about to fight — "let's take this outside"]
Leverage: When did this become a thing? “We can leverage the existing PowerPoint deck,” for example. Or maybe we could just use it?
Move the needle: Ugh. I want to vomit every time I hear this phrase.
Negative growth: This one is tough to beat.
Piggyback: As in, “I just want to piggyback on his comment.”
Pivot: Usually said by someone who does not want to tell their superior they disagree with their strategy or when a project is going horribly wrong.
Probabilistic: In the marketing world, there is “probabilistic” targeting of customers. It means probable, but someone had to make it sound fancy and almost impossible to pronounce.
Put a pin in that: This, along with “Let’s double-click on that,” is just silly speak.
Reach out: This phrase sounds so overblown.
Socialize: To share an idea or proposal with key decisionmakers in order to solicit feedback and gain approval or buy-in to make a decision.
Soup to nuts: This phrase is a non-value-add in most cases as we can tell from the context of the statement something is being looked at or redone completely. [VHM: I never thought about this enough before to understand that it meant "beginning to end".]
Space: The equity space. The beauty-supply space. The intellectual-property space. The media space.
Stakeholders: It makes me think of vampire slayers. [I bemoaned this years ago.]
Take a 10,000-foot view: I hate when people use this phrase to mean taking a look at a situation or project more broadly.
Thought leadership: This isn’t a term that most of us would use, even in semiformal conversation. Either “research” or “analysis” is easier to understand quickly/
Unpack that: In other words: Deal with it now.
Utilize: I teach new writers to avoid utilize except in a “MacGyver”-like case, when something is used for a purpose it wasn’t originally intended…
There follows the Conversation section which closed after it received and printed 688 comments, which are similar to those in the main body of the article. Of this avalanche, I will quote just the first one, together with its illustration:
Asked Grok to use all 28 phrases in one paragraph:
In a highly orchestrated alignment meeting framed as a thought leadership exercise, leadership opened by citing bandwidth pressures and recent negative growth, insisting we leverage existing assets before any deep dive, though a pivot remained visible on the decision tree pending further decisioning. Key stakeholders were told to reach out and socialize the proposal, ideally taking a 10,000-foot view while a designated change agent tried to move the needle by piggyback-ing on prior work. Predictably, difficult topics were deferred as we put a pin in that and agreed to circle back after we unpack that offline, because the juice isn’t worth the squeeze, at least under current probabilistic assumptions. Everyone was encouraged to lean in, utilize available resources, respect the looming hard stop, and maintain a resilient growth mindset despite the absence of anything resembling a concrete decision.
To me it's all just so much empty talk. I couldn't help but think how I'd say that in Mandarin, which (for me) would be fèihuà 廢話 (lit., syllable by syllable, "wasted / crippled talk"). In turn, I thought of all the ways to translate fèihuà 廢話 into English: nonsense; absurdity; balderdash; blab; blabber; blah; blather; bull; bullshit; buncombe; bunk; bunkum; codswallop; fiddle-faddle; fiddlestick; gab; guff; haver(ing) [VHM: heard that word many times in a Scottish song by the Proclaimers, "I'm gonna be (500 Miles)"; inanity; keckle; overtalk; piffle; poppycock ; prattle; rubbish; stuff; talk nonsense; tootle; trash; tripe; twaddle; waste; yack; yackety-yak; yak; yap (courtesy of GT)
Now, here at the end, I'll circle back to one of the least favorite expressions I hear from people on a daily basis: "quick question", meaning, I have no clear idea what I want to ask you, so this is going to take a lot of time to unpack and make any sense of..
Selected readings
- "May I ask you a question?" (6/12/17) — "readh out to your", cf. "overreach"; "quick question"
- "Stream of consciousness blather" (4/4/12)
[h.t. Mark Metcalf]
Chris Button said,
March 5, 2026 @ 6:29 pm
Unless you're talking about forces in physics or assets in finance, then I dont think you should be using the word "leverage".
Laura said,
March 5, 2026 @ 6:49 pm
Naming (in lieu of identifying, acknowledging, pointing out, stressing or any number of other options)
Onboarding (you're not at sea, you're just going through orientation)
Ugh!
Josh R. said,
March 5, 2026 @ 7:01 pm
Complaining about business jargon and momentarily faddish expressions strikes me as just an extension of grammar and slang peeving, so I don't have much to say about most of these expressions. But I am interested in the "hard stop" example.
It appears to have escaped from film and television production, where "in" and "out" are used for the availability of actors when creating the production day schedule. Filming has a tendency to get delayed or run long, which is not a problem if an actor is able and willing to stay beyond their scheduled "out" time. But an actor who cannot stay past that time, who will in fact be leaving at that time no matter what the state of production is, is said to have "a hard out". This lets the assembled cast and crew understand that any shots of that actor *have* to be completed before that time.
Apparently because the person in question isn't in actor who will be leaving the set, the "out" has been replaced with "stop", but with the same idea.
Philip Taylor said,
March 5, 2026 @ 7:22 pm
"We pinged our readers" — "pinged" ? Why is that not in the list ?
martin schwarrtz said,
March 5, 2026 @ 9:47 pm
While Josh R.'s 1st sentence is correct, I, in the midst of time's flux,
think I have the right to loathe that superannuated but still pervasive,,cliché "deep dive", and, while I have similar feelings for "reach out"
(with all its sef-valorizing connitations), to fault the many people I
knw who use it would get me viewed as a cantankerous nut case.
"deep dive" is "powered" by it's alliteration (I noted today that
von Suppé's overture was originally called "Dichter und Bauer",
lame compared to "Poet and Peasant"). Let me add to the
list "resilient", which seems to be having an acme these days.
Michael Vnuk said,
March 5, 2026 @ 10:18 pm
I tend to agree with Josh R’s opening comment. However, that doesn’t mean I like all these terms. And I certainly don’t use all of these terms myself, but that's language for you – you choose what comes out of your own mouth, or what you write or type.
One thing intriguing me is that many of these terms are metaphorical in origin. Isn’t this showing inventiveness and imagination? Why would people complain about this?
Someone disdained ‘onboarding’ because no one is at sea, and they offered ‘orientation’ instead. Hmm, I doubt if anyone in a modern company orientation is shown which direction is east (although they may be shown where the coffee machine is and where the toilets are). ‘Orientation’ is a well-established metaphor. ‘Onboarding’ is just newer.
Another term on the list is ‘unpack that’. I don’t recall hearing the word ‘unpack’ with ‘that’, but the metaphorical sense of ‘unpack’ (analyse or explain something complex in detail) seems concise and useful to me. I like the word and use it. Why is it objectionable? Lewis Carroll metaphorically used ‘portmanteau’ to mean two meanings packed into one word. The metaphor of ‘unpack’ is similar but in the opposite direction.
The article, as quoted, says: ‘Probabilistic: In the marketing world, there is “probabilistic” targeting of customers. It means probable, but someone had to make it sound fancy and almost impossible to pronounce.’ However, it does not mean ‘probable’. ‘Probabilistic targeting’ means targeting customers based on the likelihood (the probability) that they are interested, as opposed to ‘deterministic targeting’ which is based on knowing (having determined) that customers are interested. Also, ‘almost impossible to pronounce’ is almost impossible to believe.
Viseguy said,
March 6, 2026 @ 1:58 am
Quite a few of these expressions — "circle back", "deep dive", "reach out", "piggyback", et al. — would be acceptable as figurative speech, but have become hopelessly stale through overuse. If plain English is too boring for the workplace, the remedy is to throw open the windows and let in some fresh metaphors.
"Decision tree" is perfectly good English, just as the derriere is a perfectly good part of the anatomy. Reaching up into it is usually not advisable, however.
"Leverage" has an established meaning in finance. It's not going anywhere, but is best confined to that, um, space. As for "unpack", in the sense of analyze, I have the idea that it originated with psychotherapists sometime after the 1950s (maybe because classical analysis had fallen out of favor by that time?). If so, it's not an apt metaphor as it reduces what is a messy, multidimensional, organic process to a repetitive mechanical task. To me, it sounds ugly.
"Stakeholders" is, I feel, a useful extension of the original meaning of someone who has a financial stake in something. Jargon-y, but useful. It came in handy in my practice of public-interest law.
As for "decisioning", "growth mindset", "negative growth", and "socialize", one can only hope they all die a quick death.
Michael Carasik said,
March 6, 2026 @ 4:06 am
Somehow the complainer himself used the equally inane and annoying phrase "the onboarding process."
Richard Hershberger said,
March 6, 2026 @ 6:25 am
I am so old that I remember when "proactive" was the trendy word to complain about. I have a particularly fond memory of when, early in the process, a manager went to some seminar and came back excited to use this new word. But he hadn't gotten it quite right. He gathered us around and told us that the problem was that we were too proactive and needed to be reactive. Decades later I am still proud of myself for not breaking out in guffaws.
Then, overnight, "proactive" was no longer a vogue word. But it is actually useful, so rather than disappearing it became simply a word: not terribly common, but serving its purpose.
What I take away from this morality tale is that the complaints about "proactive" were misplaced. The problem was not the word, which was and is perfectly cromulent. A better critique would have been of over-users of vogue words.
And yes, most of the list here is simply garden variety peeving, no different from the annual list of "banished words" that LSSU used to be mocked for, until people stopped noticing. "I want to vomit every time I hear this phrase." How do you feel about the overuse of a hyperbolic cliché?
Andreas Johansson said,
March 6, 2026 @ 7:16 am
Perhaps amusingly, one common context for the metaphorical usage of "unpack" is explaining some jargon-rich statement in plain (but longer) language.
And I don't think "thought leadership" means anything like "research" or "analysis". It's rather the quality exhibited by a thought leader, which Wiktionary defines as "A person, organization, publication, etc. regarded as an authoritative source of new ideas or intellectual trends."
KeithB said,
March 6, 2026 @ 8:21 am
I think "hard stop" is more of an electronics term. If you have a moving piece of machinery, a "soft stop" is a normal limit the software sets, while a "hard stop" is a physical stop to prevent motion that might damage the equipment or injure someone.
cervantes said,
March 6, 2026 @ 9:20 am
I get that some of these terms are overused and some of them are pretty much vapid, but "stakeholder," for one, is a perfectly good word, that has an important sense and no real synonyms. I really don't see what the complaint is about that. Managers ought to be concerned about their stakeholders, and have a broad view of who they are.
DJL said,
March 6, 2026 @ 9:53 am
I hate many of these expressions too, as in most cases you can use perfectly normal words that are far less pretentious. I feel more or less the same about loads of expressions from the world of pro sports, though, especially from US sports. You often need to know the meaning of loads of expressions in order to understand what they are talking about…
Robert Coren said,
March 6, 2026 @ 10:35 am
"Put a pin in that" jogs my memory in a way that is far from the (presumably) intended meaning: In the last chapter ("The Choices of Master Samwise") of The Two Towers (Volume 2 of The Lord of the Rings), we have one orc pointing out to another the unprecedented fact that someone "has stuck a pin in Shelob" – referring to the spider-monster having been stabbed (or, actually, impaled herself on a sword).
Perhaps this means that it's time to stick a pin (in the fatally-wounding sense) in "put a pin in that".
Victor Mair said,
March 6, 2026 @ 11:47 am
@Robert Coren
"Put a pin in that"
Reminds me of Beyoncé "Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4m1EFMoRFvY
Barbara Phillips Long said,
March 6, 2026 @ 12:33 pm
I was surprised to see “soup to nuts” on this list, because it is an older phrase that I associate with formal dinners. I wouldn’t be surprised to find it originated in England, where formal dinners a couple of centuries ago began with soup and ended with a selection of fruit, cheese, and nuts.
When I was growing up in the 1950s and 1960s, dishes of nuts were a common part of entertaining and were set out routinely during entertainments that involved food. In the U.S., often the nut dish was accompanied by a dish of mild-flavored pale pastel mints, as after-dinner cheese was not an American habit.
By the 1970s when I was inviting folks to meals and other get-togethers, the role nuts as a standard marker of hospitality had diminished. More and more people had food allergies, particularly to peanuts (or legumes in general) or tree nuts. Within a decade or so, some schools were banning peanuts from their premises entirely. Thinking of nuts as a common coda to a meal is no longer in fashion. “Soup to nuts” is a throwback.
Allan from Iowa said,
March 6, 2026 @ 1:09 pm
I would only ever use "thought leader" sarcastically, to refer to someone who is not an actual authoritative source of new ideas but just plays one on LinkedIn.
As to where people learn these terms? I never went to business school but am familiar with all these examples. I heard them from CEOs and chief marketing officers, who presumably learned them from seminars or airline magazine articles by thought leaders.
Yves Rehbein said,
March 6, 2026 @ 2:35 pm
I do not think that lean in is recent slang. It is pretty much to hang in, if you ever participated in a tug of war, hoisted a sail or moved furniture upstairs as if your job depended on it. Talk about bein in the loop. Those cables have a life of their own!
I believed for a long time following that wired is the same as what you call weird. I also harbour some misconceptions about loop (hole), incidentally.
Mai Kuha said,
March 7, 2026 @ 12:25 am
I think a related but separate issue that might be going on is performativeness, particularly in LinkedIn posts, sometimes with an added dash of toxic positivity. This is unpleasant, of course, but does the unpleasantness come from the words used, necessarily?
In actual contexts of use, I find that many of the terms we've mentioned in this blog post and comments are functional in distinguishing more precise meanings relevant to the community of practice in question, just as is the case in language use generally, beyond business contexts.
For example, my sense is that an "orientation" would leave a new hire knowing where things are and what each department does, so it is meaningful to talk about "onboarding" instead when we want to refer to a process that leaves the new hire fully equipped to work independently. To me, onboarding people (esp. freelancers) to a project includes giving them training materials and a certification assessment, evaluating the assessment, and arranging necessary login credentials for them.
Similarly, if a team gets rid of "check-in" meetings and starts having "stand-ups" instead, that's not necessarily vacuously trendy. Rather, may aim to convey that the meeting is supposed to be short (i.e., so short that attendees will not bother sitting down for it). In some teams, it may signal something more specific about the purpose and structure of the meeting, as part of Scrum.
One expression whose necessity I'm uncertain of is "align/alignment". When someone tells me "I align with that" or "we align" or "I'm aligned with you", possibly the intent is to avoid the claim to authority or higher status that might be implicit in "I agree with you". ("I agree with you" seems appropriate when addressed to someone of equal or lower status, but not when addressed to someone of clearly higher status, right? But anyone can align with anyone.) Or maybe it merely signals shared group membership through a shared register.
Lately I'm also starting to learn about "benchmarking". For most of my life I took it to be a pointless noise used just for posturing, but apparently it is meaningful after all.
I can hardly believe I'm saying all these things. What a turn my life has taken after leaving higher ed!
Nat J said,
March 7, 2026 @ 12:36 am
I don't know how old "soup to nuts" is, but it has a classical analogue in Latin: "ab ovo ad malum", "from the egg to the apple". I don't know if they are causally related, but I wouldn't be surprised. But then has anyone had nuts for a dessert? Perhaps that little detail itself points to a hoary origin for the phrase.
While I find all these terms grating, years of reading Languagelog itself have led to me being less judgmental of these targets of my personal peeving
Bob Ladd said,
March 7, 2026 @ 5:48 am
The blog "Word Histories" is, as usual, pretty thorough on "from soup to nuts":
https://wordhistories.net/2020/08/26/from-soup-to-nuts/
Richard Hershberger said,
March 7, 2026 @ 6:34 am
Fun fact: "Soup to Nuts" is the name of a 1930 slapstick film written by Rube Goldberg–yes, that Rube Goldberg–and is the first film appearance of the trio of actors soon rebranded as The Three Stooges. The complaint about this utterly standard expression is that it can sometimes be omitted. There is a lot of competition for "most tiresome sort of peever," but the guy that combs through a text in search of words to omit is right up there.
Jerry Packard said,
March 7, 2026 @ 10:26 am
I don’t get why you insightful and intelligent folk don’t accept these totally normal metaphorical uses of language. They’re all perfectly understandable. When someone says something like ‘unpack’ a comment it is completely understood by everyone. How prescriptive of youse. That deictic behavior is precisely what makes us human. Cormac McCarthy got it exactly right when he said that we became human precisely when some homo simian realized that something can be seen as something else.
Simple, know?
Francois Lang said,
March 7, 2026 @ 10:53 am
Space: The equity space. The beauty-supply space. The intellectual-property space. The media space.
What about the space space?
Mai Kuha said,
March 7, 2026 @ 12:46 pm
Shane Littrell's paper "The Corporate Bullshit Receptivity Scale" looks relevant, but from skimming it I'm not clear on whether the author is just positing this difference between jargon and corporate BS, or has actually empirically confirmed and investigated it.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382308213_The_Corporate_Bullshit_Receptivity_Scale_Development_validation_and_associations_with_workplace_outcomes
Philip Taylor said,
March 7, 2026 @ 1:00 pm
"They’re all perfectly understandable", quoth Jerry Packard. "All", Jerry ? To whom ? Of the expressions listed, half a dozen are complete incomprehensible to me : "change agent", "lean in", "pivot", "put a pin in that", "soup to nuts", and "thought leadership" for a start. And whilst I "understand" (for better or worse) many of the remainder, that does not stop me from loathing them. "Leverage" (verb) and "reach out" I not only loathe, I detest.
Jerry Packard said,
March 7, 2026 @ 1:26 pm
Well, Philip, I guess you’re right that sometimes it requires rich context or repeated hearings to palpate out the meaning. And certainly we are free to loathe or detest any usage. But I don’t get why you feel that way about, say, the notion of leverage in a negotiation or relationship, because it feels so natural to me.
Jason M said,
March 7, 2026 @ 2:04 pm
Got it. Use only existing terms and long-established metaphors. No new ones, or someone will get annoyed.
Philip Taylor said,
March 7, 2026 @ 2:45 pm
Simply because, in British English, "leverage" is a noun, not a verb, Jerry. One can "lever" something, or "use leverage" on something, but one cannot "leverage" anything, any more than one can "car" someone (or "automobile" someone, in <Am/E>).
Philip Taylor said,
March 7, 2026 @ 3:30 pm
Oh, and (of course) because "leverage" has a long "e", not a short one. [Stupid boy, Taylor — how could you have possibly overlooked that ?!].
Chas Belov said,
March 7, 2026 @ 5:31 pm
I'm in the "this is peeving" camp. Language changes over time. I can't understand why anyone would expect the office to be an exception.
While I've been amused rather than annoyed at some of these as I've heard them come into use over the years, some of them strike me as quite useful, "hard stop" among them. I'm pretty sure "take it offline" has been in use for at least 20 years.
I've never heard "decisioning" and it does strike me as odd, but I verb nouns all the time so I'm in no position to cast stones.
Tom said,
March 7, 2026 @ 7:40 pm
I think KeithB's explanation of "hard stop" is likely correct. It has the meaning, "the time at which I will physically leave the meeting" and is thus analogous to the computer engineering usage.
I dislike the phrase "soup to nuts" and thus never thought about it much before reading this post, but I always imagined "nuts" referred to the metal construction piece, as in "nuts and bolts". I thought "soup to nuts" meant everything in the sense of "even the most disparate things". Now I have to laugh at myself.
I was vaguely aware of what Barbara says about the place of nuts in British culture (as a delicacy), but more as an element of holiday celebrations. I recall reading an account of someone sitting and cracking open and eating walnuts all Christmas morning. I don't know if the nuts=delicacy association was due to post-WWII rationing or was older than that. Anyway, I think serving nuts at dinner parties went out of fashion more due to modern farming and to health fads than to food allergies. When I was young, nuts were still expensive, but now you can find them in huge "value-sized" packs in every supermarket. Also, the 70s was the era when people became conscious of dietary fats. I bet eggs and nuts both suffered.
Barbara Phillips Long said,
March 8, 2026 @ 2:30 am
Laura and Mai Kuhn both discuss “onboarding” and “orientation.”
What I have observed is that the two are often entirely different processes in the U.S. Often, onboarding involves the new employee signing tax forms, filling out paperwork for benefits, being issued a parking pass or sticker, being photographed for iD or access cards, signing to confirm receipt of the employee handbook, and any other paperwork or procedure that the HR (Human Resources) department deems necessary.
Orientation is more likely to involve the actual work the employee will be doing, such as introductions to key coworkers, an outline of workflow through the department, information on clients, and so on.
Then there are the items that, depending on the employer, fall into either category. Being assigned a desk and equipment, learning IT sign-in and password protocols, and being shown where the bathrooms and break rooms are may be part of onboarding or orientation. But because there is no strict definition of either process, ultimately the scope of either will vary by employer.
Mai Kuha said,
March 8, 2026 @ 5:36 pm
Several people have asked a question along the lines of "why do people have such negative emotional reactions to business jargon, given that they are normal linguistic phenomena?" While it is most likely a rhetorical question, it is one that I have genuinely asked over the years about my own similar reactions to various linguistic phenomena. Here's where I've landed:
1. When someone talks to me using the register of a speech community I'm not in (for example, about sports or a certain particularly ubiquitous religion), they are essentially angling for me to analyze the context and search my general world knowledge in an attempt to make inferences that might allow me to map the noises they just made to something meaningful. This would be very hard work for me (and I would probably ultimately fail). We all typically prefer to not work hard; we are cognitive misers.
2. By talking to me using their in-group language variety even though they surely must know I won't understand, they are being thoughtless and othering me. Of course by now I very much want to NOT be in that particular person's group anyway, but still, how dare they.
3. When people roll up blabbering nonsense, we can't predict what other peculiar things they might do next, and unpredictability presents a threat (maybe slight, but still).
This is why I think we react negatively to unfamiliar business jargon in contexts where we expected to be understood: it makes us feel overworked, left out, and threatened.
Andreas Johansson said,
March 9, 2026 @ 8:05 am
I sometimes do have nuts for dessert, but more often I have them as a snack, so nuts = dessert still isn't an equation that seems terribly natural to me.
Jim said,
March 10, 2026 @ 1:45 pm
The ask is that you not boil the ocean; just put it in the parking lot.
Michael Robertson said,
March 13, 2026 @ 1:49 pm
Stakeholder — the best response to this ghastly term I have ever seen was that of Dennis Skinner MP in the House of Commons in the UK, during the Blair governments (which were keen on stakeholders). He appeared before the House holding in his hands a raw beef steak, to show that he, too, was one.
Michael Robertson said,
March 13, 2026 @ 1:53 pm
And as for "utilize", see https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/im-the-word-utilize-and-im-loving-every-moment-of-your-overblown-rhetoric
amy said,
March 28, 2026 @ 12:07 am
It seems "deep dive" these days has turned into "delve", which is also an LLM-ism.