|
Rich Leyshon wrote: And whilst I'm on it, here's another that is becoming very prevalent around this area. Drivers now seem to think it is too much trouble to turn the wheel on their power steering car to turn right properly.
Oh, yes, this to the n'th power. Also, people driving micro cars who think they're 12 feet wide and have to drive 3 feet from the kerb straddling the centre line.
Don't get me started on drivers who simply pull a U-turn when there is traffic approaching from both directions, expecting everyone else to stop to accommodate them.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Trouble is, it';s pretty much accurate: the higher the traffic density, the more likely a jam is, because one set of brake lights going on, slows X cars down in response, and they slow a further Y, and "slowness wave" propagates back through the traffic getting slower and slower until some traffic does stop, even momentarily. Which makes more people stop, and you rapidly build a jam for no reason other than the amount of traffic.
It's weirdly beautiful to watch in models, but frustrating if you are driving!
I don’t know if this happens in the UK but here in the states I’ve frequently been in traffic jams where it turns out the actual accident was on the other side of the median (otherwise known as traffic going in the opposite direction) and the only reason you’ve had to sit in an hour long backup is because of all the rubberneckers who come to a complete stop so
|
|
|
|
|
I just had to correct someone that claimed they "researched" something online.
I told them they consumed content online.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
Yes! It pisses me off when people don't know the difference between "search" and "research". You use Google to do a "search" and you do "research" in a lab, or a library with tons of books and equipment and many, many hours of hard work.
A doctor I went to see once had a coffee mug that said: "Don't confuse my medical degree with your Google search!"
Mircea
|
|
|
|
|
Hardly anyone does research. Almost everyone, including most STEM professionals, have to decide whom and what to trust. And it's getting harder, because it has become increasingly clear that a lot of sources are full of crap. It's been obvious in politics, journalism, and economics for a long time. But even "trust the science" has now become a red flag for "you'd better look into this yourself and try to figure out if it's propaganda". Your arrogant doctor with his mug is no different. I doubt he ever takes the time to evaluate what his cohort, guild organization, or guild journal tells him.
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Utas wrote: Almost everyone, including most STEM professionals, have to decide whom and what to trust
That's scary! You are describing an almost religious society in which each one has their own beliefs and there are no proof based facts. "Alternative facts" are echoing in my mind 
Greg Utas wrote: Your arrogant doctor with his mug is no different.
I have other doctor friends and I know they read medical journals and try to keep up with what's new in their field. I'd like to believe that the one with the mug was doing the same... You may say I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one 
Mircea
|
|
|
|
|
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! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. 