No, oral is more clear. We also say something is an oral tradition not a verbal tradition because one of the definitions of oral is “Spoken rather than written.”
One of the mean songs for Verbal is “Of, relating to, or associated with words.” So a written test could be a verbal test.
> When two or more parties come to an agreement without any written documentation, they create a verbal agreement (known formally as an oral contract).
I think that alone demonstrates that verbal contrasts with written.
The fact that many people use it in opposition to written is insufficient proof that all dictionaries are wrong. Eventually it may only mean oral, but today it doesn’t.
language, in fact, evolves. a rectal exam involves examining the examining the rectal cavity, so a oral exam should be reserved for examining the oral cavity.
I agree in general, but disagree on the details. In an oral exam, a student answers questions orally. That's how language has evolved so far. I can't imagine a situation where a committee of professors would need to examine a granduate student's rectum to evaluate knowledge, so the "rectal exam" above is poorly named. To further advance linguistic evolution, "rectal exam" should be reserved for occasions when the student is required to pronounce words rectally in response to questions in his or her field of study.
That happens more often than you might think, plus it makes everything consistent.
As Peter Thiel has pointed out, the reality is that founders take on incredible amounts of risk and put in long hours to build and grow their companies. American exceptionalism is founded on the principle of rewarding hard work and entrepreneurship, and founders who succeed in building successful companies should be celebrated, not demonized.
While employees at startups don't take on the exact same risks as the founder, they do take on personal risks when joining one and I think the reason founders are demonized is because they regulary ignore this fact, especially when it comes time to divvy up the cash.
These days 9/10 founders only take on opportunity risk. In real terms, they take on a tiny amount of risk. Undocumented immigrants on the other hand, that's risk. Astronauts, yep, an incredible amount of risk. Founders, no, just hard work.
We’re talking about financials here so it’s referring to financial risk. A highly-qualified and skilled founder is forgoing the guaranteed opportunity to make $1m+ in the time they choose instead to work on their startup. They also risk harming their future earning potential and career prospects if they don’t already have a track record of success. A low-paid worker in this imaginary situation isn’t risking much of anything financially as they’ll (hopefully) get minimum wage either way.
(In practice a lot of small businesses owners use debt and that is where the financial risk lies for them).
