It’s a noncount noun.

Even people who pretend to believe it’s a count noun never use the singular, “a datum”.

Your well come.

I miss Allie’s blog alot.

Noone should of aloud this code to go out the door. Atleast alot of other people people probably complained aswell, so your apart of a bigger group, incase you were worried.

COBOL

This headline sounds a lot funnier if you assume “it” means Signal, like I did.

glizzy

I’ve never heard that term, and wouldn’t know what it meant.

“a language that doesn’t adapt to an ever changing society is bound to be lost”, sure, but adapt too quickly and you lose the ability to communicate between groups of people.

There needs to be some compromise where new words are adopted, and changed words are accepted, without flooding the language with garbage. For example, English should still be taught in schools, and English teachers should still have the freedom of correcting the writing kids produce, and taking points off for “mistakes”.

Like, if you go pure descriptivist, “it’s” and “its” can now mean the same thing. There is no ability to distinguish between their, they’re and there. A business email describing a product as “cheugy, no cap” is perfectly acceptable and it’s up to the reader to figure it out, because every word is a real word and perfectly valid, and every grammar deviation is acceptable because languages evolve.

Even on social media, I think it’s fair to push back on “mistakes” that make it hard to understand something. An error that might take a poster 1 second to fix, might cost the world minutes, as thousands of people each take a few seconds to puzzle out what the OP meant to write.

Languages are about communication, and that can suffer whether the language police are too rigid and forbid any deviation, are too easily bribed and allow for anything.

Neither is “ask” as a noun. You don’t have asks, you have requests.

OTOH, at least the word for tomorrow isn’t also the word for morning.

You mean <<pardonnez moi?>>

“pardon et moi” means “pardon and me”. “pardonnez moi” means “pardon me” (in a polite / respectful tense).

The flip side of that is that if the words you’re using are wutdownrerary, you should be told to stop using those words because by using them you make communication harder.

Ah, then the addition of two sine waves offset by a certain phase would have been easy for you to understand. It’s always hard to guess how much someone will already know.

Sure. So, imagine a rectangular pool of water. You have a little weight on one end of the pool bobbing up and down producing waves. Then you put a wall halfway down the pool with two gaps in the wall. The waves from the wave-generator hit the gaps and go through. At the back wall of the pool you can measure the wave height. What you see is that at some points there are big waves, and at other point no waves at all. What’s happening is that the waves coming through each gap travel different distances. If the wave from one gap is at a trough when the wave from the other gap is at a peak, they interfere with each-other and the water doesn’t move much. If, instead, the distance is right so that both waves are at a trough or both waves are at a peak, the wave height is doubled at that point.

If the weight bobbing up and down is very regular, the pattern stays very regular. The places on the back wall with no waves are always in the same spot, and the places with big waves are in the same spot.

Now, do a similar experiment but instead of using water, you use light. To keep the waves all the same wavelength / frequency, you need a laser. So that laser shines forward and hits a barrier with two small slits in it. When the laser hits a wall after that you get the same pattern of bright spots and dark spots. Light is acting like a wave and the light waves are interfering with each-other in the way you’d expect.

But, what if you turn the laser way down. You can reach a point where instead of getting a continuous pattern on the back wall of the experiment, you only get an occasional “blip”. What’s happening there is that the intensity of the laser is so low that you get a single photon being emitted, passing through the slits and hitting the back wall.

So, this basically shows that light is acting like a particle. It is emitted from the laser, passes the slits, and hits at one single, specific point on the back wall. So, this shows that light is both a particle in some ways (individual light “packets” can be emitted and strike one specific spot on the back wall), and it’s a wave, because the light passing through the two slits interferes and produces a strong/weak pattern on the back wall.

But, the truly mind-blowing part of the experiment is what happens if you record the positions of each hit on the back wall when the laser is tuned way down and only emitting one photon at a time. If you record the location of the hits (or say, use something like photographic film that you expose over multiple days while you run the experiment), what you see is that there are points where you get many single-photon hits on the back wall, and points where you don’t get any single-photon hits on the back wall. And, the points where you don’t get any hits are exactly the points where you get dead zones from the wave interference when you run the laser at full intensity. Even though you’re only allowing one photon to go through at once, it’s still acting as if it’s going through both slits in some way.

The obvious question at that point is “Which slit is it actually going through?” So they measured that, and as soon as they could determine which slit the photon went through, the interference pattern disappeared. Instead it looked exactly how it would look if you blocked the other slit. But, when they stopped measuring which slit the photon went through, the interference pattern comes back.

This revealed a few fundamental things in quantum mechanics:

1. Everything is both a particle and a wave. That applies to things we mostly think of as particles like protons and electrons, but also to things that mostly act like waves like electromagnetic radiation (light, gamma-rays, x-rays, radio waves, etc.)
2. Measuring fundamentally changes the result. It’s not possible to observe passively. This isn’t just a vague statement though. There’s an equation that says that the uncertainty in position multiplied by the uncertainty in momentum is always bigger than a certain value which is related to the Planck Constant. It’s a tiny, tiny value so it doesn’t much affect human-scale things, but massively influences things at a sub-atomic scale.
3. For many quantum phenomena, something can be in an indeterminate state and interact with the world in some ways until something forces the quantum state to collapse. Instead of going through either of the two slits, there’s a probability distribution about its position, which doesn’t collapse until it interacts with the back wall of the system, which forces the wave function to collapse and results in a single spot being produced on the back wall.

That’s not a good analogy because typically cameras don’t change the things they’re observing. But, a camera with a flash…

Imagine a guy driving down a dark road at night. Take a picture of him without a flash and you’ll get a blurry picture.

Take a picture of him with a powerful flash and you’ll get an idea of exactly where he was when the picture was taken, but the powerful flash will affect his driving and he’ll veer off the road.

You can’t measure something without interacting with it. This is true even in the non-quantum world, but often the interactions are small enough to ignore. Like, if you stick a meat thermometer into a leg of lamb, you’ll measure its temperature. But, the relatively cool thermometer is going to slightly reduce the temperature of the lamb.

At a quantum level, you can no longer ignore the effect that measuring has on observing. The twin-slit experiment is the ultimate proof of this weirdness.

It’s not that it doesn’t make sense in words, it’s more that it isn’t something we can intuitively understand. Basic physics is intuitive. Advanced physics is much less intuitive but you can sort-of get it if you use analogies to things that are understandable. Truly advanced physics is so far removed from the world we experience that you just have to trust the math.

IMO, everything being a wave is not quite pure math territory. Things like constructive and destructive interference are ideas you can understand using water waves or sound, so when concepts are explained in those terms you can sort-of get it. But, things like electron spin or quark flavours are things you just have to accept.

Doubleclick has been Google for decades now. The difference is that (at least these days) most companies wouldn’t accept it if doubleclick ads had obnoxious pop-ups. But, they choose to have a Google sign-in form that has an obnoxious pop-up. Yes, it’s annoying that Google made an annoying login pop-up. But, much worse is that places like Reddit choose to go with that obnoxious pop-up instead of saying “we don’t want to force that on our users”.

What I mean by it not being a Google thing is that it doesn’t just appear there on its own, like it might if it were a Doubleclick ad or something.

This is something that companies like Reddit see and think “Yes, I want that obnoxious thing on my site”.

Worth noting, this isn’t really a Google thing. It’s something other websites do to allow you to login with various other credentials: Facebook, Google, Amazon – Twitter used to be common. It’s just that Google is obnoxious because when say Reddit allows you to login with your Google account, the login widget Google uses is an obnoxious pop-up.

Yeah, but the “for comedic effect” is key here. Unless you’re going for comedy or confusion, you shouldn’t refer to someone by a name they don’t use.