And why the rude response?
On the other hand it does say "not waveform" which I think makes it pretty clear. What would you suggest instead?
Also, there's often no perfect combo of words, there's a spectrum of options and you just pick an operating point. Transcription is a longer word than "word" so there's a tradeoff. It doesn't feel like a chasm to me.
At any rate when I first read it I thought it was going to be some sort LLM thing where you said "remove the third bridge and increase pitch by one octave in the outro" and it would give you back an edited mp4 which you could then listen and cringe to and sometimes say "whoa, that's amazing!"
Believe me, I don't care that you disagree. I just don't like to see people breaking the civility guidelines here as it's just about one of the last places online where discourse is largely held to a a civil level for disagreements.
I write copy professionally, among other things. If you don't care whether what you write is clear to almost all readers... then I suppose it doesn't matter. Most people do not want misunderstandings of their copy and most copy editors would flag that as unclear. The new version is much better.
I seriously disagree that this breaks any sort of social contract between you and I on the internet. It was intended to be mildly dismissive but not overly rude. There's a higher standard for communicating with care at work (you should care about your coworkers), but do you really think people on the internet have time for this shit? I don't know you guy.
