Like the author, I used to be an avid user of dictionaries. In fact, my interest in them led to me freelance part-time as a lexicographer for a number of years. And, like the author, I find online dictionaries and apps to be a mixed bag.
But the biggest problem with conventional dictionaries, whether paper or digital, is that they cannot tell you what a word means in the specific context in which you encountered it. If you come across the word canonical, to use the OP’s example, and you look it up in a dictionary, the dictionary won’t tell you whether, in the text you’re reading, it means “conforming to a general rule or acceptable procedure,” “of or relating to a member of the clergy,” “of, relating to, or forming a canon,” or something else.
Take the following instance of canonical, from a recent Ezra Klein podcast:
“One of the things I always think when I hear this argument about loneliness is I don’t think we’re online because we’re lonely — I think we’re lonely because we’re online. ... And the loneliness is partially a product there. Sometimes you’re lonely being online with people you know — the canonical kids texting their friends instead of hanging out in person. But I also think that, even for people who are not lonely online, there is something really disastrous about the politics it produces.” [1]
None of the definitions of canonical shown in the OP's screenshots, or in the other dictionaries I checked, matches that usage.
That dovetails with the standard prescriptive vs. descriptive issue, don't you think? The speaker in your podcast example seems to be (mis- ?) using the word to refer to a stereotype, likening an Internet trope to reality, and (thus) implying that the Internet now has the status of a canon. So, it's an inaccurate use, prescriptively; but it's sufficiently related to the prescriptive use that it gives us some insight into the speaker — probable age, reading habits, opinion about the validity of what the speaker reads online, etc. — provided we have some context. It's a pleasing instance of the game of language being played.
Later edit: I guess one point I'm making is that real dictionaries are still of great use and need in the age of LLMs.
If anyone is aware of a .dict file to add Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition (1942) to the MacOS Dictionary app, please post! That would be the holy grail for me.
Like the author, I used to be an avid user of dictionaries. In fact, my interest in them led to me freelance part-time as a lexicographer for a number of years. And, like the author, I find online dictionaries and apps to be a mixed bag.
But the biggest problem with conventional dictionaries, whether paper or digital, is that they cannot tell you what a word means in the specific context in which you encountered it. If you come across the word canonical, to use the OP’s example, and you look it up in a dictionary, the dictionary won’t tell you whether, in the text you’re reading, it means “conforming to a general rule or acceptable procedure,” “of or relating to a member of the clergy,” “of, relating to, or forming a canon,” or something else.
Take the following instance of canonical, from a recent Ezra Klein podcast:
“One of the things I always think when I hear this argument about loneliness is I don’t think we’re online because we’re lonely — I think we’re lonely because we’re online. ... And the loneliness is partially a product there. Sometimes you’re lonely being online with people you know — the canonical kids texting their friends instead of hanging out in person. But I also think that, even for people who are not lonely online, there is something really disastrous about the politics it produces.” [1]
None of the definitions of canonical shown in the OP's screenshots, or in the other dictionaries I checked, matches that usage.
LLMs do much better. Here is what Gemini gave me:
https://g.co/gemini/share/156820176dba
And Claude:
https://claude.ai/share/7fb2aabd-fb29-439c-925a-c2d4b167b35e
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/19/opinion/ezra-klein-podcas...
That dovetails with the standard prescriptive vs. descriptive issue, don't you think? The speaker in your podcast example seems to be (mis- ?) using the word to refer to a stereotype, likening an Internet trope to reality, and (thus) implying that the Internet now has the status of a canon. So, it's an inaccurate use, prescriptively; but it's sufficiently related to the prescriptive use that it gives us some insight into the speaker — probable age, reading habits, opinion about the validity of what the speaker reads online, etc. — provided we have some context. It's a pleasing instance of the game of language being played.
Later edit: I guess one point I'm making is that real dictionaries are still of great use and need in the age of LLMs.
The online version of Webster's 1828 is pretty good (third-party project because the work is in the public domain):
https://webstersdictionary1828.com/
To go the better route, here's a HN post about adding Webster's 1913 to the macOS dictionary app (the dictionary is very good):
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29733648
If anyone is aware of a .dict file to add Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition (1942) to the MacOS Dictionary app, please post! That would be the holy grail for me.
Real post title is “Dictionaries”, but that’s so devoid of information that a bit of editorialisation to make it more descriptive seemed appropriate.