Saying that “language should not be bound by prescriptive rules” is itself a prescriptive statement about language. It's “prescriptive descriptivism!” Would you argue that because ecosystems have always changed over time, that we shouldn't take prescriptive measures against deforestation, over-fishing, or introducing foreign species without a thought for whether they'll destabilize the system? Are you against protecting endangered species of animals? Are you a market fundamentalist who doesn't believe in prescriptive regulation of trade, even when it's clear that short-term market forces are pushing us in a direction that is harmful in the long term?  Clearly, the fact that language has constantly changed over time tells us that it will likely continue to, no matter what we do; it does not imply that we shouldn't try to guide it.

“Disinterested” doesn't mean what you think it means.

Dear Internet: the term passive-aggressive It is not a generic synonym for “snide,” “backhanded” or plain “bitchy.” These types of behavior already have perfectly good words to describe them. Passive-aggressive behavior does not. When you popularize an inaccurate, generalized definition of a word, you make the word effectively useless. Congratulations: you're making the English langage tangibly worse.

Like many of these kids, I was also born into the 1%… or at least, pretty close to it. Maybe 2-5%. Doesn't really matter. Unlike many of them, I don't hate what my great-grandfather did to make the family fortune, nor do I fault him for investing it soundly so as to ensure that it would last and provide financial security for generations to come.  That's not to say that I don't stand with the 99%. I do. And not just because I'm a nice guy and think it's embarrassing for the wealthiest country in the world to have children dying in poverty at a rate more befitting of a developing nation. (Though it is.) As a young, college-educated member of the 1%, I have plenty of perfectly selfish reasons to stand with the 99%. Mostly, I want to work. I want a good job in the field I was educated for. I had a great job that I was good at, before the economy tanked, and the company went under.  Older colleagues tell me about how not long ago, someone with our skill-set and experience would be fielding job offers within hours of getting laid off. Instead, I've spent the last two years having to constantly scramble for freelance assignments because that's what companies are doing these days instead of hiring permanent employees.  I stand with the 99% not out of altruism, but because history demonstrates that our economy actually works better when wealth isn't so inequitably distributed. Real jobs are created to meet the demand of the 99%, not by the largesse of the 1%. That's what drives a healthy, stable, production-based economy. When it's the investment-incentives of the 1% that drives the economy, that's when you end up with an economy that produces only illusory wealth based on financial fictions, like leveraged dept-backed derivatives.  I am the 1% and I stand with the 99% because in the end, I'd benefit from a fairer system the same as they do.

Biased sample? Hardly. What percentage of the wealthiest 1% of the population do you think weren't born into wealth? One guy in the list won his money in the stock market. Do you really think that of the 3 million people who make up the richest 1% in this country, that more than 5% of them actually made their own money? Again, hardly.

I think they worked there for money that they could in turn exchange for goods and/or services.

I'm sure at the time the British felt the same way about George Washington.

Please go back to Murray Hill.

So, do the employees at Wired, reddit or the New Yorker just never take the elevator?