dream_weasel

One missing point:

git stash $NAME lets you name a stash, and then you also can pop with that name to restore.

Super useful if you’re doing something with plotting or presenting data and you want to try a few easy variants to see what you like most. I don’t use it all the time but it’s good to know.

More like choosing names like Fae Wilds.

True fact.

There ARE two "R"s in strawberry.

There’s also a third one, but you can’t have three without having two.

So you understood most of what I meant, but we missed slightly. I agree that irregular verbs might be misconjugated or that they may tend back toward regular conjugations (see for example “to plead” in the legal sense, or “to hang” in the execution sense), but I specifically meant mismatched count. As a stickler, I would sometimes put lack of use of subjunctive or adding it unnecessarily (though the second is pretty uncommon) in the realm of a mistake but that could be because I like it and hate to see it fall out of use.

Also yes that’s what I was meaning for indirect and direct object pronouns (to/for whom vs who, or maybe more simply him/her/me vs he/she/I). Here you could also include “myself” or “themselves” or the slightly less natural sounding “themself”. I was trying to craft an example of creating a misunderstanding in English but it didn’t work as well as it does in Spanish for example where you can accidentally create reflexive verbs with a different meaning. I suppose though you are right: these are not mistakes a native speaker can really make because they have the knowledge that the word is changing.

For countability, I assume you mean the question of less vs fewer, and when you might pluralize words like ”water" and when you don’t. That is indeed an interesting topic.

Prestige dialects are not an example of a direction I would like to go, but as a counter I really appreciate that French DOES have the French academy to decide what is proper and what is not.

Im an American, I only speak one language natively because there’s not exactly a variety of spoken languages in the Midwest. Since high school though I’ve been “collecting” languages though and am passably conversant in a few. My wife’s extended family is all in France so French has been an important skill to develop. For me, the fact is that “deviations” from the book usually result in losing track of the meaning or losing track of the conversation. English is already hard enough without adding even more irregularity, so I tend to lean in on being precise and I think it’s a worthwhile effort. It is a real source of stress when the shoe is on the other foot.

You can pick a word besides ”correct" but it means sort of the same thing either way: we are moving individual variations of language toward the collective standard.

Languages all have categories of words, general rules for how those categories are applied, exceptions to the rules, and idiomatic parts to name a few. Misconjugating a word is not evolution of language, it is a mistake. Mismatching count is also a mistake. Mixing direct and indirect object pronouns is a mistake. The risk is not “i don’t understand you”, it is rather that I did understand you, but what I understand is not what you mean. You can call it a “unique linguistic quirk”, but if it leads to people misunderstanding you it’s a mistake. And yeah, pushing mistakes under a rug of " it’s descriptivism" is just as gross as any allegory to runaway cell growth.

If everyone understands you and its not a perfectly grammatically correct construction and lots of people start to use it, sure this is evolution of language. Every deviation is not that.

We don’t have to be silly with descriptivism either. Of course languages evolve over time, but speakers also make mistakes that should still be corrected to keep language cohesive. It’s the difference between change in body shape from evolution, and an isolated growth that probably shouldn’t exist. We use a different word for that second one: cancer.

You gotta have both IMO. Not too rigid, not too flexible.

Why would anyone want rules and consistent applications of those rules? ANYONE could just learn any language that way. How would we keep our ability to communicate for native speakers only? It doesn’t make sense.

Heresy

Yo… You can’t use commas like that.

Fun fact:

Bryony is a poop name.

This is some real funbreaker bullshit, I tell you what.

I think you’ve got to be a little careful how you say what you mean here:

In light’s own reference frame, this is true-ish from a pure special relativity perspective. Velocity is sort of undefined in that case because at c, Lorentz transformations bring all distances to zero, meaning that the photon is everywhere at the SAME time. Or said another way, it’s everywhere on its own simultaneity curve. Maybe this is splitting hairs on the definition of “undefined” because, mathematically yeah you’re right, but a rock also moves zero distance in zero time. Its more like it’s velocity doesnt make sense to compute.

From the outside though (as in a non photon frame) this is not true at all. Using laws of refraction you can compute, and even photograph and verify a real, defined speed for a photon in a medium.

Removed by mod

Pavlova doesn’t exist in the states anywhere I’ve ever been.

Not super conclusive here. Lean not dangerous? Eh, it doesn’t actually matter that much, I like steak and I’m not eating it every day.

TIL about Gayle. I always thought this was a gay photoshop of Elijah Wood…

The gravitational constant G, no, the mutual gravitational force between the earth and the ball approximated as g, yes.

Edit: Since this is a little pedantic, G is used to calculate g.

In no way does this make science religion. What it means is all opinions aren’t created equal and if you want to have a valid opinion you have to do work. If you dont want to do work that’s fine, but 998 times out of 1000 your “contribution” is you looking like a dipshit.

If you want to learn it learn it. If you want to participate, learn it. Science isn’t just discussion between friends.

Edit: To be exceptionally clear, scientific discussion is NOT open to everyone all the time, and you have no inherent right to participate without preparation and investment.

The “you” here is misleading. Consider any scientific field, then now consider all the people you know. How many people do you know, if any, who can propose a theory that is equally valid compared to scientific consensus on some topic in that field? It’s unlikely most people are friends with Aristotle or the like or are themselves in that boat.

Is it theoretically possible? Sure. Is it more likely that you or I or the stranger who fills this theoretical situation is actually an over confident moron? Overwhelmingly yes lol.