Actually, the difference seems specific to US English. My OED includes vise only as an alternative to vice, which carries both meanings. A quick Google also turns up this [1] article, which claims (without citation) that "In the U.S., the word for the clamping tool comprising two jaws closed and opened by a screw or lever is spelled vise. Outside American English, the vise spelling rarely appears. The gripping tool is instead spelled vice."
Okay, that's interesting. It seems that having two distinct words was an example of pointless complexity for the modern reader, and compressing them into one simplifies things for everyone. This reminds me of the fate of "literally", which has come to mean (a) literally, and (b) figuratively. Overall, a great simplification.
Comments
Actually, the difference seems specific to US English. My OED includes vise only as an alternative to vice, which carries both meanings. A quick Google also turns up this [1] article, which claims (without citation) that "In the U.S., the word for the clamping tool comprising two jaws closed and opened by a screw or lever is spelled vise. Outside American English, the vise spelling rarely appears. The gripping tool is instead spelled vice."
--
[1] http://grammarist.com/spelling/vice-vise/
Okay, that's interesting. It seems that having two distinct words was an example of pointless complexity for the modern reader, and compressing them into one simplifies things for everyone. This reminds me of the fate of "literally", which has come to mean (a) literally, and (b) figuratively. Overall, a great simplification.
http://www.salon.com/2013/08/22/according_to_the_dictionary_...
I would never have considered an English (in a geographic sense) journal of any kind to use the spelling vise in this context.
Regards the other point if anything I would have said that was one of the worst "evolutions" of our language in recent times.