|
The essence of science is the evolution of "proof-based facts". Around 1900, Rutherford spoke of the "death of physics"--that it had all been pretty much figured out. Soon afterwards, Einstein showed up. There is often a general consensus based on what is currently "known", but even that is subject to manipulation. Unfortunately, more and more areas are getting politicized.
|
|
|
|
|
I cannot find a reference for Rutherford speaking about "death of physics", so I cannot know in what context to put it. He should have been however quite aware of the Ultraviolet catastrophe[^] and expect it to be solved somehow. More recently, I know of someone else who proclaimed the "end of history", so maybe we can generalize, paraphrasing Mark Twain: news of any domain death are greatly exaggerated 
Greg Utas wrote: Unfortunately, more and more areas are getting politicized.
I don't think it's so much politicization as flooding with information we ("we" as society, not "we" as individuals) cannot handle. If you have time to spare, you can see my ideas in more detail here: The Third Cultural Revolution[^].
Mircea
|
|
|
|
|
You were probably wrong.
RESEARCH:
NOUN
the systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions:
"we are fighting meningitis by raising money for medical research"
VERB
investigate systematically:
"she has spent the last five years researching her people's history"
"the team has been researching into flora and fauna"
When one reads a web page and directly uses the information found, that is consumption.
When one reads numerous pages, especially when not all agree, and forms logical conclusions based upon what was read, that is research.
|
|
|
|
|
It was an article from thedailybeast.com
I wasn't wrong.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
"off of"
Often when reading a novel, if I come across this grammatical turd, I dump the book and never go near that author again.
I can say no more, I could explode with anger just seeing the words in my own post.
So old that I did my first coding in octal via switches on a DEC PDP 8
|
|
|
|
|
That doesn't really bother me, but I relegate the writer to an illiterate when I read could/would/should/may/might of.
|
|
|
|
|
Clumpco wrote: "off of"
Also the closely related misuse of "should of" or "could of" as in "I should of gone home early".
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Raw wrote: What's something that drives only you up the wall, while other people are just fine with it?
I don't have any pet peeves regarding things of that nature. Mine are lies or online peeps being arrogant with nothing to back it up except feeling brave behind a keyboard. Online peeps just seem to laugh it off. I probably need to get out more and stay off the Internet. 
Oh, fake people annoy me too. And smokers/stoners.
Steve Raw wrote: Do they think I'll inadvertently forget to return it and mistakenly bring it home with me? If they're going to take my golf ball away, why not rip the golf club from my hands and punch me in the face?
So, you know... I hear prozac works wonders.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Nance and Kevin Burkhart.
Pretentious narcissists with microphones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
News reporters who misuse words. Their tool is language, they ought to learn how to use it correctly.
I have lots of examples in French I hear all the time, but translate poorly. But one that'll work fine to illustrate is the abuse of the word "literally". I still vividly remember a report, from years ago, about some minister who got angry while parliament was in session and went on a tirade, and we, the viewers, were told he "literally exploded".
No.
No, he didn't. It would've been a very different story had that been the case.
|
|
|
|
|
dandy72 wrote: some minister who got angry while parliament was in session and went on a tirade, and we, the viewers, were told he "literally exploded".
World could be a better place if some ministers "literally exploded"
Mircea
|
|
|
|
|
i happen to have gotten a hole in one on that windmill and a nifty little plastic trophy for which i was most proud .
|
|
|
|
|
|
kmoorevs wrote: 2: misuse/overuse of the words 'like' and 'literally'
I have a list of words, or rather two: One in English, one in Norwegian, of words of that kind. Before I present a document to anyone, I make a global search for each and every one of those words, throughout the text. Some times they are appropriate, but most of them can be removed / rewritten.
I guess that my most frequent to-be-removed-or-rewritten in English is 'but', 'however' and 'will', as well as passive voice. I also tend to, on the initial writing, string together sentences with 'and' and a couple others. So I search for ', and'. Usually I chop them into two shorter sentences. I guess that on the average, the average length of the sentences I publish is 50-70% of what I did in the very first writing.
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Raw wrote: Whenever I think of miniature golf
It is great time waster for younger kids.
Not to mention a really safe event for date night for kids of a slightly older age.
|
|
|
|
|
Computer book authors, and their editors.
In the old days of typewriters, the authors were using words sparingly, writing what is necessary, and leaving the rest out. Today, books are so wordy, crammed with the author's personal opinions and excitement, repetitions upon repetitions, and a lot of stuff of minimal interest to the reader. I have several books where, every time I open them, I am itching to grab a black felt tip pen and strike out completely unnecessary sentences, and a plain pen to circle sentences and draw an error: This belongs in that paragraph (or chapter), not here.
There are the authors taking from granted that you are experienced in some other field, such as an earlier, now outdated / replaced technology, explaining the current technology mainly in terms of the old one.
Related: When you publish a revised 2023 edition of a book, you should also make sure to remove excited ovations about the new technology introduced in 2007. Make sure to update the references to specific versions of tools, libraries, standards etc. so that the discussions and examples are not outdated by several versions, and you have to go to an internet search to see what is still valid of that old stuff.
There are those authors who cannot limit themselves to the topic of the book, maybe because they have been lecturing to students who had not yet completed that other course. Like that book I bought to get to know the peculiarities of GPUs, and there is a lengthy chapter discussing the very basic concepts of binary semaphores.
Often, when a book treats a small handful of distinctly different technologies in separate chapters or sections, you cannot just read the introductory chapters and then skip to the section of the technology you want to learn: The examples, evaluations and explanations are built directly on top of the previous chapters; you must study them all to understand the explanations of 'your' technology. This if frequently the case even within one base technology: Examples are far from free standing; you must have studied them (and sometimes tried to solve the exercises) of all earlier chapters to understand the example to illustrate the solution to your problem.
Essentially, the books are like a professor's lecture notes: His students do not have a problem to solve, they have a set of topics that they are to learn, one after the other. They do work through the chapters and all the exercises, one by one. College textbooks are fine at a college, but if you publish for an audiences outside the college, but for a professional audience, you should do it differently, especially in the editing.
|
|
|
|
|
The stoopid "Wordle" posts here in the lounge...
Congratulations you solved a daily word problem - you better post it for all your online "friends" to see! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Drivers who merge early when a lane is closed - it is actually a road rule to merge as late as possible in Oz. But when you calmly pass all the idjits that have merged out of the closing lane to merge just before the lane closes they get pissed off and some even try and stop you from merging late.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity -
RAH
I'm old. I know stuff - JSOP
|
|
|
|
|
Same problem in Canada. If you merge at the last minute, people act as if you're butting into line (barging into the queue). But it's been proven that a "zipper merge", where all lanes are used until no longer possible, is the most efficient.
On a related note, some years ago I noticed a significant correlation between lousy drivers and cars that have crap hanging from the rear-view mirror. Little scented pine trees, rosary beads, fuzzy dice, dreamcatchers...localize it with the nonsense popular in your part of the world. It's practically a dead giveaway.
|
|
|
|
|
My peeve is the constant promotion of zipper merge. It depends entirely on all the drivers being courteous.
From my years of commuting in Michigan with almost-constant construction and road repair, I can tell you this would take some universe-bending magic.
The other is construction of roundabouts where there's an unending line of traffic from one direction- a shift change or parents dropping off and picking up their kiddos from school. If you're on the downstream leg of the intersection, you can get trapped in a mile-long line of unmoving cars.
|
|
|
|
|
I share most of the ones mentioned later in this thread, but one not mentioned yet that really gets my goat:
When somebody of note dies (eg Nelson Mandela) the media (esp. rolling news TV) will not only ignore anything else happening around the world, no matter how important (esp. to those involved), but will spend all its time finding people to interview to ask either for their reminiscences about the person concerned - whether they knew them or not! - or their thoughts about what other people who might have known that person are feeling about other people who might have known that person are feeling. (Recursion: see Recursion.)
Surprisingly, this didn't happen as much as I expected when Prince Philip and The Queen died, possibly because there is both more respect for them and there was also plenty of other stuff associated with their deaths to cover.
For Mandela though, we ended up with the rediculous situation of someone who had never met or known him asking another perosn who might just possibly have glanced at a photo of Mandela on a newspaper page once many years ago (perhaps whilst looking over the shoulder of a commuter on the Tube) being asked what Mandela's family were feeling at the moment etc. (Repeat endlessly until something more newsworthy comes along, like the presenter dropping their pencil etc.)
This carrries on still in a minor way, with long, insensitive interviews with people who have suffered some tradegy, not with the aim of improving the victim's lot, but because it makes for 'good' emotional TV and hence draws in the rubber-neckers to increase viewing figures. (Think of the coverage of that poor woman with mental health issues who drowned recently.)
...
AND another thing!
This trope (adopted by just about every media co now) of sending someone to stand outside a building (often in the dark/and or rain etc) with a TV crew to tell you something that the studio presenter could easily report, or which that same reporter could have said in the studio. I'm not talking about on-the-ground live-coverage/breaking news stuff here (eg reports from Kyiv etc), but when there is - for example - a ministerial or business statement. Some poor reporter and team is sent to relate the contents from outside a closed office building, or No 10 with only Larry the Cat and the policeman for company. Such a waste of time and money.
---
Sorry, I'll get me coat...
|
|
|
|
|
One of the most ridiculous examples of this was after an airliner crashed and sunk in the ocean. A news channel was showing an image of water- probably a local river or pool in front of their building from the size of the waves.
|
|
|
|
|
While it doesn't drive me up the wall to quite the same degree as your hatred for miniature golf does I do have a huge annoyance with A.D./B.C. and have had it since I learnt what they stood for.
"Anno Domini" is a neat sounding phrase in latin. Few may mean what it actually stands for, "in the year of our lord", but most everyone know it signifies year >0. On the other hand "before Christ" is just plain English.
Why mix languages? Latin does have the term A.C., "ante Christum", to mirror A.D. but it doesn't see any use and there's no English "after Christ" term that's ever seen use as far as I know.
This weird mishmash of languages is stupid and I hate it.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
bonus eyeroll for using them both in the same sentence. 