• 2 Posts
  • 30 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 15th, 2023

help-circle

  • m0darn@lemmy.catoScience Memes@mander.xyzAcademic writing
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    12 days ago

    Not who you’re responding to but I must vehemently disagree. In English, which doesn’t have a centralized governing body, the correct way of pronouncing/spelling something depends on your intention and expected audience. If your intended audience is English speakers then the correct spelling is probably octopi or octopuses, whichever you believe will cause the least confusion/distraction (surely it varies regionally).

    However, usually my intention is to portray my unfathomably superior knowledge and intellect, so the correct spelling/pronunciation in this case is: octopodes (which I think he had listed but ironically got ‘corrected’ to ‘octopuses’).





  • m0darn@lemmy.catoScience Memes@mander.xyzAcademic writing
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    13 days ago

    I don’t read much (/any) academic writing, but does it really misuse words the way the link portrays?

    Eg

    • academic writing isn’t prose, like that’s almost the definition of prose.
    • intra-specialized doesn’t mean anything (the intra prefix didn’t work on adjectives)
    • “obfuscating … accessibility” means making it difficult to see that it is accessible, where the author probably actually wants to say “reducing the ability of outsiders to access the meaning”

    I get that it is satire, but imo it would be better satire if he put in the work to actually make it mean something. Unless the point is that academic writers misuse thesauruses this badly.


  • m0darn@lemmy.catoScience Memes@mander.xyzSeconds
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Yeah true, but I think they actually use wavelength of red shift, which is distance… traveled by light in the time it takes to make a full cycle. So I guess we’re back to seconds again.

    I think they use this for distance and time because at scales being dealt with they have the same implications.










  • m0darn@lemmy.catoScience Memes@mander.xyzPublic trust
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    7 months ago

    The messaging could have been clearer but I’ll spell it out for the dumb.

    Phase 1:

    Don’t panic buy medical supplies expecting them to protect you. We don’t have enough, and frontline healthcare workers need them to protect themselves and others, you don’t know how to wear them and they probably don’t fit you properly.

    Phase 2:

    We still don’t really have enough medical grade masks but just fyi: any sort of mouth covering will reduce the risk of a contagious person sneezing into the mouth of a vulnerable person. If you have to go out, please wear something over your face. Cotton is better than nothing.

    Phase 3:

    A tight fitting mask really is best, it limits a contagious person’s generation of aerosolized clouds of viruses, and limits a vulnerable person’s exposure to clouds of aerosolized viruses.


  • Your explanation makes sense to me, an uninvolved spectator with no particular knowledge of generators.

    Maybe you direct the generator exhaust over the exterior of the tank? Would that be adequate heat?

    My thought was to recall that my 20# propane tank has some sort of safety valve integrated into it that will clamp outflow if there is too big a surge in flow. Flow needs to be 0 for a minute or so for it to reset. But that doesn’t explain your experience with the larger tank.


  • A few people in here conflating randomness with luck, as if the existence of probabilistic outcomes means that a person can have luck. Some people have fortunate outcomes from probabilistic processes and call that good luck. Some people: negative, and bad. The fortunate (too often) deny the probabilistic nature of the process, and call the unfortunate “weak”. The unfortunate decry the inequity of the outcomes and call the fortunate the benefactors of unearned luck.

    Ron is doing a great job of demonstrating unscientific, motivated reasoning, since acknowledging the possibility of unfortunate outcomes for the “strong” undermines the entitlements of the fortunate. Which can be very damaging to their psyche/ego.

    The problem our society faces is that outcomes often aren’t probabilistic enough. The main determinants of fortune are too often not luck, but the ability of one’s parents to create opportunity for, and invest in/ support their children. The people that end up with favorable life outcomes have more ability to do the preceding, and/or reinforce systems that increase the probability of their children having fortunate outcomes (ie decrease the probabilistic nature of the favourability of life outcomes).

    The meme is a bit of physics and a bit of sociology.