Latest news with #Dictionary.com
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Celebrating 30 Years of Dictionary.com Through the Words That Defined the Times
Words grow up, too. From "stream" to "hallucination," our language—and world—has evolved since 1995. SAN MATEO, Calif., May 28, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- In 1995, the world met Toy Story, tuned into the O.J. Simpson verdict and embraced a new tech frontier known as the World Wide Web. That same year, opened its virtual doors, becoming one of the internet's first destinations for word lovers, curious minds and anyone needing to settle a spelling debate. Now, the world's leading online dictionary turns 30. And while it hasn't bought a house or started saving for retirement, it has redefined what it means to be the authority on language in a rapidly changing world. "Over the past three decades, so many words we use regularly have evolved to take on completely new definitions," said Steve Johnson, PhD, Director of Lexicography for the Dictionary Media Group at IXL Learning. "Words like cloud and stream no longer just refer to natural phenomena—they also reflect how we live and interact with technology. Through it all, one thing remains the same: language never stops evolving, and never stops paying attention." Taking on new meaningTo celebrate its 30th birthday, is looking back at how far words have come—in technology, pop culture and how we describe our world. Throughout the last three decades, has documented this evolution, growing alongside our language. Consider these examples: Technology:Stream (noun or verb) Then: A flowing body of water, or a verb meaning "to run or flow" Now: A verb in digital technology meaning "to send or play video, music, or other data over the internet in a steady flow without having to download it" The rise of high-speed internet in the 2000s turned streaming from a tech experiment into an everyday experience. Today, we can binge-watch an entire series or replay our favorite songs with a tap. (Kids today will never know the pain of waiting for Saturday morning cartoons.) Hallucination (noun) Then: A false notion, belief or impression; delusion Now: False information generated by a machine learning program, such as artificial intelligence, presented as if it were true Once confined to psychology textbooks, hallucination now sits at the heart of conversations about artificial intelligence—especially when AI chatbots "make things up." The term even earned the title of 2023 Word of the Year. Pop culture:Ghost (noun or verb) Then: The spirit or soul of a dead person Now: a verb meaning "to disappear from communication," especially in reference to dating People have been getting dumped forever, but ghosting adds a modern twist. With social media, dating apps and DMs, there are endless ways for someone to vanish without a trace. Mysterious, much like the original ghost. Lit (adjective) Then: bright, full of light Now: "intoxicated" or a term of approval meaning "amazing, cool" Even in the early 1900s, people described themselves as lit after a few too many drinks. Today, it's a go-to word for anything exciting or fun—whether you're at a party or just hyping up your group chat. These shifts reflect more than evolving definitions. They show how language mirrors the spirit of the times—from everyday lingo to coding breakthroughs. For more throwbacks and linguistic insights, check out the full anniversary editorial article here: Charting a new courseSince its founding, has grown from a useful tool into a cultural touchstone. It has tracked the rise of internet slang, unpacked buzzy headlines and spotlighted the words that help us make sense of everything from viral memes to major world events. Today, it continues to shape how we think, talk and connect through language, with features like Word of the Day and Word of the Year leading the conversation. That mission expanded in 2024, when IXL Learning acquired and formed Dictionary Media Group. The group encompasses inglé ABCya, and Together, these sites reach over 500 million people around the world each year. About define every aspect of our lives, from our ideas to our identities. aspires to empower people to express themselves, learn something new and find opportunities through the power and joy of language. With 96 million visitors each month, is the premier destination to learn, discover and have fun with the limitless world of words and meanings. helps you make sense of the ever-evolving English language so you can put your ideas into words—and your words into action. Press ContactJoslyn ChessonIXL Learningpress@ View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE IXL Learning Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Yahoo
20-04-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Nice vs. Kind: The Difference Is Significant
The words 'nice' and 'kind' are often used interchangeably to describe a positive quality in a person. From an early age, we're told to 'be nice,' and we learn about the heartwarming nature of 'acts of kindness.' But when you look into the definitions and usages for 'nice' and 'kind,' you'll find they aren't quite synonyms. In fact, one might be a preferable characteristic to strive for. So is it better to be nice or to be kind? What does each really mean, and what is the difference? We asked experts, including psychologists and lexicographers, to break it down. 'I would suggest that being 'nice' is about being polite, civilized and demonstrating high levels of social skills and etiquette,' said Thomas Plante, a psychology professor and faculty scholar with the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University. Interestingly, the word derives from the Latin 'nescius,' meaning 'ignorant,' but it evolved over time to hold meanings like 'timid' and 'faint-hearted,' and eventually its current association with synonyms like 'pleasant' and 'satisfying.' 'The first definition of 'nice' — and the one that could be considered the most likely and common — is 'pleasing; agreeable; delightful,'' said Grant Barrett, head of lexicography at 'I would define 'kind' as behavior that's thoughtful, caring and considerate, but also strong, confident and self-caring,' said Dr. Marcia Sirota, a psychiatrist and author of 'Be Kind, Not Nice: How to Stop People-Pleasing, Build Your Confidence and Discover Your Authentic Self.' Barrett similarly noted that the first definition of 'kind' is 'of a good or benevolent nature or disposition, as a person.' Indeed, the word kindness has roots in Middle English with the word 'kinde,' which means 'friendly' or 'deliberately doing good to others.' It also has Germanic origins linking 'kind' to the word 'kin,' as in family. Houston Kraft, author of 'Deep Kindness: A Revolutionary Guide for the Way We Think, Talk, and Act in Kindness,' noted that the word kindness denotes 'action, quality or state.' 'Putting the pieces together, kindness is a deliberate action of friendliness or care that chooses to see others as if they were connected to you in some meaningful way,' he said. 'It is a choice to practice empathy, connection and generosity to meet the needs of another.' 'Being 'kind' seems to take being 'nice' a bit further in being gracious, generous, empathetic and hospitable,' Plante said. 'It involves action and intentions beyond just politeness or niceness. Both demonstrate good social skills and a gracious manner, but I believe that being kind is a higher level of engagement, behavioral intentions and commitment than being nice.' Thus, being kind generally requires greater effort and time. Kraft described kindness as 'proactive' and 'care-oriented,' whereas niceness is more 'reactive' and 'I-oriented.' 'Kindness moves beyond feelings and conveniences,' he said. 'It is a deliberate choice to bring encouragement, support or appreciation to yourself or others. Nice is pleasant, but doesn't usually require much pain. It is non-sacrificial and, as such, rarely makes a lasting difference. Most actions in kindness are inconvenient. It almost always costs us something ― time, effort, comfort, pride, ego. But it is those intentional, knowing sacrifices that make it meaningful.' By contrast, he believes niceness falls short of deep impact, perhaps in part due to its roots in notions of ignorance. To be nice is about people-pleasing in service of being liked. 'It is a behavior that can masquerade as kindness, but is often motivated by selfish motives whether people are conscious of them or not,' Kraft said. 'The nice person often expects something in return for their actions. They seek gratitude from the recipient even if the person wasn't expecting — or doesn't want — what is being given.' Being nice might stem from a place of pride or entitlement, rather than genuine generosity. As a result, someone may get defensive if another person doesn't accept or appreciate their niceness. This is because they're acting out of a need for validation or approval from others. 'The nice person will help pick up trash after a long night ― but only if someone is watching so they can get the credit,' Kraft suggested. 'In its worst form, this ignorance leads us to believe we are deeply good people doing good for the world when we are primarily doing good for ourselves.' This contrast emerges in the linguistic analysis of the words nice and kind as well. 'There is one essential issue that comes up when looking into niceness: Is it sincere?' Barrett said. 'We seem not to see problems with kindness, at least when looking at the language data.' He pointed to the common use of phrases like 'feign niceness,' 'facade of niceness,' 'veneer of niceness' and 'tyranny of niceness' ― as well as the association of 'niceness' with modifiers like 'bland' and 'phony.' Sincerity also gets called into question with expressions like, 'Diplomacy is to do and say the nastiest thing in the nicest way' and 'Overniceness may be underniceness.' By contrast, Barrett offered examples like 'loving kindness,' 'brotherly kindness,' 'act of kindness,' 'gesture of kindness' and the proverb, 'Don't expect to enjoy the cream of life if you keep your milk of human kindness bottled up.' 'The main 'overlap' is in public perception, since many people assume that kind and nice are the same thing,' Sirota said. 'On the surface, an act of kindness can look similar to an act of niceness, but the motivations behind the two acts are very different, and the energy around the acts is also quite dissimilar.' While a nice person might go to great lengths to gain approval from others (potentially even causing harm in the process), a kind person engages in generous acts built on a foundation of self-love. 'They also take good care of themselves, and they don't tolerate mistreatment or disrespect,' Sirota said. 'They have good boundaries, and they feel comfortable saying 'no.'' Saying 'no' might in fact be an act of true kindness, especially if it's in service of someone else's well-being. 'Sometimes being kind may mean letting someone down in the short term, maybe not leading them on if you don't have the same feelings for them as they have for you,' said Sue Varma, author of 'Practical Optimism' and a clinical assistant professor of psychiatry at New York University Langone Health. 'Being kind may mean not enabling an addiction, or not giving in to someone asking for something that can ultimately be harmful for them, even if they can't see it at the time.' Keeping in mind these differences between kindness and niceness, it seems clear that kindness is the better goal. 'People who are nice are always trying too hard to please, and therefore, they aren't authentic,' Sirota said. 'Any positive attention they receive is based on their pleasing persona, which means that they aren't being loved for themselves. For this reason, they can't actually benefit from their actions. And on top of it, they often end up resentful for constantly having to overextend themselves for a bit of affirmation.' Indeed, people pleasers might struggle to meet the needs of others at the expense of their own needs and integrity. Those who embody the values of kindness are more likely to love themselves, rather than depend on others for their self-esteem. Thus, they can do good deeds while also being good to themselves. 'We are by default nice because nice is self-oriented,' Kraft said. 'It comes from ignorance, our default state. Nice is where we start, kindness requires striving. And we should all collectively strive toward it because it is the antidote to a world divided, anxious, and lonely.' In a time when so many people seem to lack empathy or human connection, kindness can make a major impact, both on the self and others. 'Acts of kindness trigger the release of oxytocin, fostering joy, connection and trust,' Kraft said. 'These acts activate brain reward centers, boosting happiness and reducing stress. Kindness strengthens bonds, improves mood, and diminishes depression symptoms. It enhances self-esteem and self-worth, imparting personal value. It is not a nice-to-have but a must-have in our modern world.' When asked if he believes it's better to strive to be nice or kind, however, Plante had a different response: Why not both? 'Certainly our world needs more niceness and kindness out there, especially in our currently polarized community,' he said. 'Our world is so fractured. We are very quick to be mean to each other and even cruel.' He called on everyone to step up their efforts to be kind and nice to each other, even if they don't like each other. 'We need more civility, hospitality, solidarity and kinship for sure,' Plante added. 'Actually, our very survival may depend on it!' How To Raise Kids Who Care About Other People Can Listening To Podcasts Provide Social Fulfillment? How To Fight The Urge To Always Make Everything About Yourself
Yahoo
08-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Dear Fellow College Presidents: We Need to Do More Than Wait This One Out
Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily. In 2024 chose 'demure' as the word of the year. On college campuses (or at least in their presidents' offices and board meeting rooms) the word of the year, in the wake of the war in Gaza and the campus protests that followed, was 'neutrality,' which has a similar vibe. One might think that those who embrace neutrality do so either because they have no strong views, or because they do and are afraid to express them. Some university leaders, following the University of Chicago, have tied themselves to the more agreeable notion that were they to weigh in on issues, this would chill speech on campus—that others will be encouraged to speak up if they keep their own mouths shut. The august American Council of Trustees and Alumni has urged all trustees to preserve 'the high purpose of our academic institutions' by ensuring that their institutions stay out of political disputes—silence is golden, especially when the heat is on. Some creative leaders have demurred even about making a commitment to neutrality, and, like Nicole Kidman's character in Babygirl, have discovered the pleasures of restraint. Institutional restraint. In the past months, since Trump's victory in the general election, leaders in the worlds of business and education have been rushing to show that they no longer have any political beliefs. Facts? Why check them? Privilege? Who's to say that the megarich don't deserve their advantages? Anticipating how best to be obedient, they aim to please those at the vanguard of what Mark Zuckerberg called a 'cultural tipping point.' It's one thing to be reminded that 'elections have consequences,' but quite another to insist that the best response to the abuse of authority is to be restrained, demure, neutral. For university leaders the exception is their opposition to endowment taxes. On this topic, they're inclined to be positively brat. It may seem that asking corporations, universities, and other organizations to 'keep their mouths shut' is a conservative position. Far from it. Since the 18th century, thinkers associated with conservatism and classical liberalism have emphasized the importance of having an independent civil society, the informal networks in a country that are adjacent to the political sphere. Businesses and schools, libraries and neighborhood associations, are crucial elements of that sector. From Baron de Montesquieu and Edmund Burke in the 18th century to Alexis de Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill in the 19th, political philosophers have underscored that freedom depends on the pillars of civil society not being subsumed by those with governmental authority. Tocqueville wrote that 'Local institutions are to liberty what primary schools are to science; they put it within the people's reach. … Without local institutions a nation may give itself a free government, but it has not got the spirit of liberty.' And Mill underscored the 'need for political devolution and the diffusion of power and initiative within the great entrenched institutions of our society.' Authoritarians, by contrast, have long known that total control will elude them if they don't eradicate the autonomous support engendered within civil society by cultural, religious, commercial, and educational institutions. That's why the Nazi party announced the policy of Gleichschaltung, the coordination of all aspects of German society in line with the ideological goals of the party and its leader. Under Mao, the Cultural Revolution was meant to ensure something similar. All aspects of society—from family relations to schools, from farming to music—would be cleansed of independent allegiances and aligned with the party and its leader. Authoritarians love to talk about their devotion to the Truth. But it's only the truth as they'd like it to be. The official newspaper of the Soviet communists was, after all, entitled Pravda—'Truth.' Leaders in civil society shouldn't be 'demure' in the face of authoritarian attempts to align all power with a president's agenda, civil society be damned. Business and civic officials, religious authorities and college presidents should weigh in when they see the missions of their institutions—not to speak of the health of their country—compromised. This wouldn't be a novelty. Clergy have often done this, as have other local officials. Although university leaders do have a long history of capitulating to the powerful, there have been times when they have stood up for the values on which the missions of their institutions were built. Frances Wayland at Brown University spoke powerfully against slavery, as did Jonathan Blanchard, the president of Knox and then Wheaton College. Charles Finney at Oberlin College and Horace Mann at Antioch also were prominent in their support of abolitionist activities. A century later, Kingman Brewster at Yale, Theodore Hesburgh at Notre Dame and Harold Taylor at Sarah Lawrence made sure that critics of the Vietnam War got a hearing. And they were not demure about speaking out themselves. New administrations in Washington naturally try to bring together forces that will allow them to make progress on their agendas. But in the past, they have done this while recognizing the importance of working with others with different points of view. A healthy democracy depends on a dynamic mixture of competing opinions. University leaders themselves should do more to ensure this dynamic mixture on their own campuses. Too many of us have led colleges that have become politically homogeneous. This leaves us out of touch with many other Americans, and it means we learn less because too often we hear the same views echoing each other. Now we face a Trumpian administration intent on demonizing any opposition—either labeling differing views as 'crazy,' or attaching labels to them, like 'Marxist,' 'ideologically corrupt,' or 'transgenderist.' This is a classic authoritarian move: create scapegoats and undermine the health of civil society in order to increase the power of the leader and his loyalists. Corporate and educational leaders must not put on a demure face and stay silent while civil society is undermined by the diktat of executive orders. We must not sacrifice academic freedom and a healthy civil society for the short-term gains of anticipatory compliance. We must instead cultivate in our institutions the ability to bring different kinds of people together in common purpose, the will to protect the vulnerable, and the resilience needed for our institutions to successfully pursue their missions. Their missions, not the agenda of whoever controls the powers of the central government. Let's hope that the 2025 word of the year isn't 'submissive.'
Yahoo
05-02-2025
- General
- Yahoo
I Just Learned Why We Say 'By And Large' – And It's Surprisingly Nautical
It turns out that saying 'pardon my French!' when we swear in English has more to do with class than I realised. 'Spill the beans' comes from an ancient Greek voting style, and 'stealing someone's thunder' has a theatrical past ― even 'goodbye' used to have holy connotations. And now, I've learned that 'by and large' (meaning roughly, or on the whole) has unexpected origins too. According to the phrase has 'nautical' origins and once meant 'to the wind and off it'. Merriam-Webster's dictionary explains that in old sailor's slang, sailing directly into the wind was termed 'by', while going away from the direction of the breeze was called 'large'. 'By' in that context was also used in the phrase 'full and by,' which means sailing into the direction of the wind with all sails 'full' (or up). In his 1578 book, mathematician and Navy gunner William Bourne wrote that 'to make a ship to draw or go but little into the water, and to hold a good wind, and to sail well both by and large, were very necessary'. In other words, the phrase originally meant balancing the wind's different effects on the ship to keep it steady. says the term had made its way onto dry land by the 1700s, at which point its definition had been broadened to mean 'in one direction and another'. That became 'more or less,' or 'on the whole,' over time. Many! Royal Museums Greenwich says that 'loose cannon' originally meant a cannonball that had become loose from the ropes securing it on a ship. That meant it could roll around, potentially harming sailors and generally acting unpredictably. We've also written before about how 'chock-a-block' came from ships, too. A chock is a type of block that was originally used to hold ships in place ― they're still placed under the tyres of inactive aeroplanes to stop them from rolling away. When sailors used to erect sails using complicated pulley systems (called block and tackle), there came a point when the ropes wouldn't move any further. This reminded them of the braking effect of the 'chock', so 'chock-a-block' became used to mean that stage of setting up sails on ship. That phrase became conflated with Middle English's chokkefull, meaning full to the brim. I Just Learned Why We Say 'Chock-A-Block', And It's Surprisingly Technical I Just Learned Why We Say 'O Clock' And I Never Would Have Guessed I Just Learned Why We Say 'Goodbye' And It'll Never Hear It The Same Way Again
USA Today
28-01-2025
- Business
- USA Today
What is DEI and why are companies turning away from it?
What is DEI and why are companies turning away from it? Show Caption Hide Caption DEI: Explaining the diversity, equity and inclusion debate Initiatives for diversity, equity, and inclusion are facing bans across the United States. President Donald Trump's executive order to dismantle federal Diversity, Equality and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives came last week, but many U.S. businesses had already started rolling back their structured hiring practices. DEI, a hiring practice designed to create a diverse and equitable workforce ensuring all employees have equal opportunity regardless of their background, has been met with growing political opposition and drew ire from Trump, who vowed on the campaign trail to rescind then-President Joe Biden's order that put many DEI policies in place. Many businesses began scaling back their policies amid scrutiny from conservative groups. Others began rolling back following a June 2023 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that ended affirmative action in college admissions. Here's some more information about what DEI is and what companies have already changed their policies. What is DEI? Diversity, equity, and inclusion is a concept that promotes the fair treatment and full participation of all people, particularly groups that are "underrepresented or subject of discrimination because of their background, identity and disability," according to The intended purpose of DEI programs was to create opportunities for all people to feel supported and have the resources to succeed, regardless of their race, identity or orientation. Many businesses and agencies rushed DEI programs into place in the wake of the 2020 protests against the death of George Floyd by Minneapolis police during an arrest. But diversity practices have been around for decades, dating back to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Trump has made clear that he opposed DEI programs like targeted hiring. During the heat of the presidential campaign, Trump supporters took to calling then-Vice President Kamala Harris a 'DEI hire.' What companies have changed their DEI policies? Several U.S. businesses have modified their DEI initiatives. Here are some amid a growing wave of companies as conservative backlash grows: Lori Comstock is a New Jersey-based journalist with the Mid-Atlantic Connect Team.
