5 ms·

> "bugs" By which they mean bacteria. I was hoping they meant insects

c7DJTLrn 5y ago
Nom nom nom... delicious... Coca Cola bottle.
waterhouse 5y ago
I understood it to mean insects, and was confused that the article's body talked about bacteria. Like, is this a usage of "bug" I'm not familiar with? Dictionary results talk specifically about insects (and about surveillance electronics)... Ok, Merriam-Webster's 3a here says it can refer to a microorganism of indeterminate nature: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bug https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bug I still think an editor choosing the title should have realized that "insect" is the more common interpretation, and should have chosen a less misleading word.
- darkerside 5y ago
  Sadly they probably did realize it and that's exactly why they ran it that way
- ros86 5y ago
  In the biotech field is indeed quite common to refer to microbes as bugs. Thanks for reminding that this is ambiguous outside the field!
- tomstuart 5y ago
  “Bug” meaning “insect” is a North Americanism [0]. The article is from The Guardian in the UK, where the non-insect meaning is the more natural interpretation, particularly in a headline (cf “hospital superbug” for stories about MRSA [1]). [0] https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/bug_1 https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/englis... [1] https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/mrsa/ https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/mrsa/
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    But even that meaning applies it only to infectious diseases, not all bacteria.
  - GordonS 5y ago
    Brit here - context matters, so when I read this headline on HN, which is US-centric, I assumed it meant insects. But, even if I'd known it was on The Guardian, context still matters, and "bug" feels like an odd choice of word in a sentence like this, where "bacteria" would be more obvious - I have to assume they've chosen "bug" as clickbait. Which has me disappointed with them :/
BrazzVuvuzela 5y ago

Nom nom nom... delicious... Coca Cola bottle.

I understood it to mean insects, and was confused that the article's body talked about bacteria. Like, is this a usage of "bug" I'm not familiar with? Dictionary results talk specifically about insects (and about surveillance electronics)... Ok, Merriam-Webster's 3a here says it can refer to a microorganism of indeterminate nature: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bug https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bug I still think an editor choosing the title should have realized that "insect" is the more common interpretation, and should have chosen a less misleading word.

darkerside 5y ago
Sadly they probably did realize it and that's exactly why they ran it that way
ros86 5y ago
In the biotech field is indeed quite common to refer to microbes as bugs. Thanks for reminding that this is ambiguous outside the field!
tomstuart 5y ago
“Bug” meaning “insect” is a North Americanism [0]. The article is from The Guardian in the UK, where the non-insect meaning is the more natural interpretation, particularly in a headline (cf “hospital superbug” for stories about MRSA [1]). [0] https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/bug_1 https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/englis... [1] https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/mrsa/ https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/mrsa/
- shkkmo 5y ago
  But even that meaning applies it only to infectious diseases, not all bacteria.
- GordonS 5y ago
  Brit here - context matters, so when I read this headline on HN, which is US-centric, I assumed it meant insects. But, even if I'd known it was on The Guardian, context still matters, and "bug" feels like an odd choice of word in a sentence like this, where "bacteria" would be more obvious - I have to assume they've chosen "bug" as clickbait. Which has me disappointed with them :/

BrazzVuvuzela 5y ago