Item 1 of “a lot”, judging by most of the written English I see.

Let’s forget the much over-discussed greengrocers’ apostrophe and look at a few of my bêtes noir of grammar and vocabulary.

of. Very few if any past participles in English take “of”. So not “bored of” but “bored with”. Not “sensitive of” but “sensitive to”. And especially not “off of”, just “off”!

Chef’s “off”. Why do chefs have to “do off” everything. “I’m just going to fry off these onions”! Argghhh! None of the verbs you guys use should have “off” added. At best it is affectation, at worst slovenliness. Just “fry” will do!

Decimate. Unless you really do mean a reduction by exactly 1 in 10 it is incorrect.

Different to. No. Something is “different from” something else. But it is “similar to” another. Likewise things are “compared with” each other not “compared to”.

My school teachers also always used to deride the old exam favourite “compare and contrast” as being tautology: “compare” technically includes both similarities and differences, so “contrast” is unnecessary.

Impact on. Things do not “impact on” each other. They may “impact”, “collide”, “interact” or “impinge”, none of which need “on”.

Nude and Naked. The OED gives these as cognates, at least as far as human form is concerned, although I discern some variation. Used alone they are absolutes: both mean undressed; totally undressed; not wearing a bikini, or socks, or a hat. But gradations of nakedness (but not, I discern, nudity) can be indicated by the use of “almost”, “nearly”, “not quite” etc. Naked may also mean devoid of hair (where hair would generally be expected). Naked is much more readily and correctly applied to plants, animals, land, swords etc. etc.

Less and Fewer. The rule here is simple. Less of a quantity. Fewer of number. So we would get “less milk from fewer cows” and not any other variant.

OK, so language is a living thing and subject to change. But one had to have some standards, you know!