Police in Edina, Minnesota, said that the string of burglaries over the past half a year doesn't involve victims who are chosen at random; instead, the criminals...
Minnesota burglars are using Wi-Fi jammers to disable home security systems::undefined
And yes I agree, if people want to get in they are going to get in but a lot of people buying these cameras some how think they are suddenly immune to crime.
Devils advocate: A masked figure who walked to my property and stole my stuff doesn’t solve who did it. If someone doesn’t want to get caught, there are always ways to prevent it.
Note: I don’t think people think they’re immune but they may not realize wifi can be jammed. Wired is better than wireless but sometimes wireless is the only way or only way to provide a camera to a certain spot that wouldn’t be covered otherwise. And then there’s renting where wired mods to the home/property may not be permitted. There are some use cases that make sense.
All precautions you can take are just visual deterrents
Is correct, but so is
All precautions you can take is just a visual deterrent.
Because it’s talking about a singular group of things, whether you use “deterrents” or “deterrent” is what determines if an “is” or “are” is used.
The singular/plural is about if your talking about a bunch of visual deterrents or everything adding up into a singular visual deterrent.
So talking about “locks” as a group gets a singular deterrent and “is”. Logically it’s that all the locks are one singular visual deterrent rather than each lock being it’s own.
Doesn’t really matter tho, English is a pretty stupid language.
By your rational the first person should have said:
If they are running over Wi-Fi they aren’t really security, they are just toys. At the very best they are visual deterrents for opportunistic people
But they didn’t, they said:
If it is running over Wi-Fi it isn’t really security, it is a toy. At the very best a visual deterrent for opportunistic people
Even though they were talking about security systems which have more than one component even if only one camera.
The “visual deterrent” made the whole sentence singular. Just like when I referenced a group of locks.
Like
His baseball card collection is his most important possession.
That collection is a lot of individual things, but the group is singular.
Theres multiple locks, but we’re talking about them as a group being a singular visual deterrent.
Like I said, English is a stupid language. Like how we list adjectives in a certain order, we know when it’s right or wrong, but ask someone to explain why and they usually can’t.
Don’t have the time to get into a grammar debate. Just letting you know why you’re being downvoted since no one else told you why your statement is incorrect
Someone corrected me, and I clarified that whether it’s singular or plural is kind of ambiguous which make both correct.
Because like I said, English is stupid. And even native speakers who follow all of its rules can’t explain them.
Think about that for a second, we all get over a decade of learning the language, and we’re mostly going off gut feeling when we use it. We may know a few rules, but not all the excepttions and rare cases the rule is wrong.
Since someone cared enough to point out the general rule, I explained the rare exception. Because I thought they’d care.
“So are all”
And yes I agree, if people want to get in they are going to get in but a lot of people buying these cameras some how think they are suddenly immune to crime.
Devils advocate: A masked figure who walked to my property and stole my stuff doesn’t solve who did it. If someone doesn’t want to get caught, there are always ways to prevent it.
Note: I don’t think people think they’re immune but they may not realize wifi can be jammed. Wired is better than wireless but sometimes wireless is the only way or only way to provide a camera to a certain spot that wouldn’t be covered otherwise. And then there’s renting where wired mods to the home/property may not be permitted. There are some use cases that make sense.
Eh, depends.
Is correct, but so is
Because it’s talking about a singular group of things, whether you use “deterrents” or “deterrent” is what determines if an “is” or “are” is used.
The singular/plural is about if your talking about a bunch of visual deterrents or everything adding up into a singular visual deterrent.
So talking about “locks” as a group gets a singular deterrent and “is”. Logically it’s that all the locks are one singular visual deterrent rather than each lock being it’s own.
Doesn’t really matter tho, English is a pretty stupid language.
‘All precautions’ is plural, so you have to use ‘are’. Using ‘is’ is in no way correct there; the ‘deterrents’ bit has nothing to do with it
By your rational the first person should have said:
But they didn’t, they said:
Even though they were talking about security systems which have more than one component even if only one camera.
The “visual deterrent” made the whole sentence singular. Just like when I referenced a group of locks.
Like
That collection is a lot of individual things, but the group is singular.
Theres multiple locks, but we’re talking about them as a group being a singular visual deterrent.
Like I said, English is a stupid language. Like how we list adjectives in a certain order, we know when it’s right or wrong, but ask someone to explain why and they usually can’t.
Don’t have the time to get into a grammar debate. Just letting you know why you’re being downvoted since no one else told you why your statement is incorrect
Oh ok…
Thanks for replying to say you’re not replying I guess
Doesn’t seem like a good use of time tho.
The fact you used your possessive instead of you’re in “if your talking about” pretty much discredits anything you had to say there.
Oh yeah, for sure.
A phone typo immediately let’s you know that person doesn’t know grammar.
Whilst usually I would agree if you are attempting to be a pedant about grammar you should probably use correct grammar…
Not really being a pedant.
Someone corrected me, and I clarified that whether it’s singular or plural is kind of ambiguous which make both correct.
Because like I said, English is stupid. And even native speakers who follow all of its rules can’t explain them.
Think about that for a second, we all get over a decade of learning the language, and we’re mostly going off gut feeling when we use it. We may know a few rules, but not all the excepttions and rare cases the rule is wrong.
Since someone cared enough to point out the general rule, I explained the rare exception. Because I thought they’d care.