English Language & Usage: Multi-Layered Discourse Room - 2012-01-08 (page 3 of 3)

« first day (423 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (4498 days later) »

9:00 PM

-2

Q: Access atomic vectors shown by Filter(is.atomic, eq) in R

Filter(is.atomic, something) returns atomic vectors. 1. Weather -example here > Filter(is.atomic, study) $region [1] "Hamburg" "Bremen" 2. mosaic-plot-as-tree-plot -example here > Map(function(x) Filter(is.atomic, x), ls()) $g [1] "g" $lookup [1] "lookup" $req.data [1] "req.data"...

r functional-programming

the comment by Gavin

Looks like you have much experience with poor questions.

I see nothing that needs explanation.

@hhh It is used the standard way.

@hhh He just means that you should not respond to downvotes with unnecessary (unwarranted) downvotes.

I see nothing special about it.

One person used the phrase. Doesn't mean it's common so it could also have been closed as too localized here.

9:01 PM

You down-vote someone else, and he down-votes you back in revenge.

How is that more than the sum of its parts?

really? ...what about extra (...) around the attack? It is very ambigous use of the term: "That's not what downvotes are for (reciprocal attacks)."

It's not ambiguous.

He means that "that" stands for "reciprocal attacks".

Not at all ambiguous.

@hhh So what don't you understand about this?

Is it perhaps the structure of the whole sentence that confuses you?

9:03 PM

...(do) you (Write) like this (normally) ? The extra (...) stresses the word, it is ambigous -- leaving the mil connotation with more stressful meaning

it is like threat

There is no military connotation, except perhaps for the word "attack", which is trivial.

I think youre reading too much into this.

or litotes in this context

There is no special stress that I can see.

but it is still odd use of the term

9:05 PM

No it isn't.

@hhh There is no litotes.

It's not a real term, either.

Perhaps you misinterpret the structure of the sentence?

Not in terms of being idiomatic or the like

(...) is usually used to for different purposes (to clarify things is one) but here it is more artistic or stressing -technique

9:06 PM

@hhh Not really.

He just uses the brackets to explain what he means by "that".

@hh at this point, if you're unsure you should ask Gavin himself

like gasping here?

Gasping?

I see no sign of gasping.

because it left out the sentence out...

Stop reading into it.

9:07 PM

if you read it like without the end...

"That's not what downvotes are for." <--- the extra two words are not really required there, it is evident...

We can't tell you what he meant. We are not that commenter. But I assure you that you're giving it too much extra meaning.

...well I just wanted to get this "extra" meaning clear because I have noticed this kind of use in other SE networks. It creates a bit odd feeling that this kind of question is mocked down with down-votes.

It is just like saying, "King George is behaving like a tyrant, because that is what Kings are (tyrants).

@hhh True.

@hhh it was a poor question. Poor questions are down voted

It's not mocking. It's the SE system.

It is an explanation added as an afterthought. What's so special about that? It doesn't change its meaning.

9:10 PM

I don't see why we're still having this discussion.

To make sure our guest understands what the comment meant.

@mahnax thank you for being a voice of reason.

FAQ "Usage, word choice, and grammar"

@simchona Yep, voice of reason, at your service.

FAQ "Pronunciation (phonetics and phonology, dialectology)
Spelling and punctuation"

9:11 PM

@hhh what are you talking about?

by which point it is closed as "not real question". As the discussion by Matt and this usage discussion showed, it does satsify the FAQ bullet points.

Pardon my French--it's a crappy general reference question.

I didn't even realize it, but the question was closed by Waiwai. He is the voice of reason for EL&U.

I could make it more clear by copy-pasting the usage from SO, is that then better question?

@hhh I voted NARQ before your latest edits.

It was incomprehensible at that point.

9:14 PM

No. @hhh I will not vote to reopen a question that is general reference at its heart.

@hhh Not really.

I won't vote to reopen that either.

@Mahnax Pardon.

@hhh Is there something unclear about what I said?

@Mahnax Is there something unclear with the FAQ: "Usage, word choice, and grammar"?

@hhh The question was certainly incomprehensible before edits, so NARQ. Now that it is comprehensible, it's still general reference! See the FAQ.

9:16 PM

@hhh english.stackexchange.com/…

@hhh I'm with @mahnax.

Jinx!

Darn!

Yeah. In short, it changed from NARQ to Gen Ref after your edits.

@hhh But you shouldn't take it personally: nobody's blaming you for not knowing that this question was too basic! Closing doesn't mean we don't love you: it just means the question is not at home on this website.

Sorry, @hhh. I don't think it will get reopened.

9:19 PM

@hhh For it to be reopened, you would need to a) convince a mod or b) convince 5 >3000 rep users.

@Cerberus yes in a way it is basic but in a way if you analyze this as we did with Matt, it is not (that is the tricky point)

@hhh I disagree. So it your responsibility that it isn't as basic as it seems! If you can do that, I will gladly vote to reopen.

...it is tricky because this prhase is used differently over the network sometimes in different purpose I think.

@hhh Why did you create a spam proposal?

@hhh I don't think so.

9:20 PM

@Mahnax sorry?

I read the definitions of basic and general etc, did I click something by accident?

@hhh Asking me "sorry" does not answer my question. Why did you create a spam proposal?

@Mahnax where? (But this is a diversion at the best.)

@hhh Right here.

@Mahnax ...it is FuN! proposal, to see how tolerate people are to this kind of things -- not spam proposal. Currently some sites are spam (I think or in very controversial state) with "mock experts" such as F&N. When I realized that there are sites where mods did not follow faqs (rather tried to adhere to personal straits by patronizing), I decided very well -- why not create then tolerate FuN proposal... because we have already that kind of controversial sites.

we have solved the last issue with other mod but he did not patronize me, rather followed FAQ well.

So you did it to test a system that was working? Interesting.

9:30 PM

I like it if questions and proposals are closed and killed with proper premises.

Precisely, done it many times.

Then you should like the fact that your question was closed.

@hhh And the system works. My suggestion is, stop testing.

@Mahnax yes but I cannot always know that, it is a bit like innovation -- reaching the limit. Sometimes I get jackpot with good question that fires many good ideas but sometimes just /dev/null

Okay then. I'm leaving, work. Bye.

@hhh What do you think would happen if everyone started doing that?

But this was diversion, let it be too basic then.

@Cerberus sorry? I think ti would create better and more innovative SO

9:35 PM

I don't think so.

@Cerberus this is all about facing uncertainty, some people are hesitant to face hard problems.

@hhh The site would be full of nonsense sub-sites and nonsense questions.

..not really many times people are dishonest about things like frugalness etc

they do not want to label things correctly.

Eh?

people want to make things better than they really are, to obfuscate things and to make things confusing.

Look at Frugal -label in Bicycles.SE.

9:37 PM

Eh I'd rather not.

There was no categorization about this topic before I started using it (but it required some work) but sadly some are using it now corrently and some are misusing it (this is grey area but helps to find things)....

Right.

people used all kind of figure of speeches etc to express the thing "frugal" or "cheap"...

it was a chaos and one really wanted to make any order to that chaos (it is still hard to see the dots but it is not a bit better)

err a lot of typos

bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/frugal

Well, creating order out of chaos is generally a good thing.

People are naturally making things look better than they really are, perhaps some psychological strait -- it drives against the whole concept of labeling

it makes them very useless to find this kind of material. Search sxcks because people do not use the terms or use some other way of saying things...

The general theme is "archieving" (a long term process), my feature -request.

I feel the whole concept of processing information is misunderstood in a way, it is a pain to find anything for multiple reasons. It would be good if people could realize that, hence the feature request.

9:45 PM

Then what do you request?

Archival tool for favorites

0

Q: Archival tool for favorites

Definition & Some Description: archiving properly is a long-term process, very short outlining in Wikipedia here. It contains different phases such as creation, pre-prosessing, investigation and archival decision or /dev/null. Even archiving different material may be different. In m...

feature-request

It is a bit risky feature even to suggest facing the populism of "being one family", who cares to make data more accessible and easy to use? Who cares to get richer information?

Again it is hard to see the gains but it is much more easier to see the uncertainty around this, I have stated there even myself that I am unsure how one should really implement it. I have suggested small changes such as modulazation and some visual changes

they would leave the facade almost intact but make the site more usable for sure. I have also covered there how things are handled in more restrictive areas such as mil, now SE is a bit tricky buz -driven thing so it is hard to suggest anything.

Well I can see this conversation really improved.

Haha, your picture is funny.

user image

But I don't understand your question: it is hard to get what it is exactly that you want.

...it is surrealistic at best meant to be blurry :P

You just complain about how it is hard to get an overview of information on this website, that is the main thing I understand from your question. But I see no clear, main question that could be answered with any precision.

9:55 PM

@Cerberus which question you mean? Archieving?

I have no idea, since your question is unclear to me.

The question you just linked me to.

@Cerberus It is not unsuprising because archiving is a long term process, very time-consuming buz.

Would you appreciate it if I commented on the style of your question with brutal honesty?

It is common that it is underutilized because of commons-of-good problem.

@Cerberus sure, I am no extremist :P

@Cerberus but make it well-premised.

Are you sure? I won't be nice.

9:58 PM

@Cerberus If you make baselesss statement, it is againts you. If you make clever observations, it is good for everyone.

Okay, so you're not sure.

@Cerberus ...if you read my answer clearly, you may realize that I also notify the short-comings. If this kind of thing is patched, it must be done well with well-planned structure -- I know what it takes to design a physical archieve!

Right.

...and I also have some sense that trying to it here is more than one man job...

EAD works in mil because it must work, here it is a bit double edged sword. It may have some benefit but there is no reason to waste too much money to it...

...my feature-request tries to address this topic with natural way (without needing archival personnel), not breaking things up but trying to add some feature beneath the facade.

a bit like Vi's style modularization

I feel it would be useful even for moderators to know what is "really needed" and what is not, often only the asker knows the context.

letting asker to have the freedom to prioritize stuff is essential to build things on top of one another. Now it is just one big sand box.

err user

@hhh please stop using an ellipsis with every line

@cerb, what time is it there?

10:14 PM

@hhh Good luck on your quest!

@simchona 11:14 PM. Why?

Nice talking to you about this issue, it is related to much larger issue about searching and data/information -concept where some guys are trying to make some hard exponential problems into a bit more meaningful issues. I think even J. uses the terminology 0.777... version for their finding utility, it is a never ending process to improve it. The first step is to realize the problem and next step is to mock-solve it :P

Let's hope the world's problems will be solved!

RegDwight Ѭſ道

0

Q: Is man a root word for woman?

By looking at the words "man" and "woman", I derive "man" is root word to "woman" but I think it should be other way around because woman precedes (gives birth to) a man. So I think it would have been apt to name "man" as "woman" and "woman" as "man". But since it is not so, is there any mytholog...

WTF

Matt Эллен

Yes, clearly the answer is yes

Man is superior

oh, Kit isn't here

no one to wind up with that statement

unless simchona is listening...

@RegDwightѬſ道 Haha, brilliant.

RegDwight Ѭſ道

10:20 PM

Hey! I mean it!

I actually provided two links.

@MattЭллен She can be a ferocious kitten too with respect to (perceived) discrimination.

@cerb me?

@RegDwightѬſ道 Ah! Those weren't there a minute ago.

I actually didn't know wo- came from wife.

RegDwight Ѭſ道

@MattЭллен you misspelled @kit

@simchona No. The other Simchona.

RegDwight Ѭſ道

10:22 PM

@MattЭллен you misspelled @simchona

Matt Эллен

@RegDwightѬſ道 I don't need to bring their attentions to it when I'm not here to see the fireworks!

Hehe.

You already summoned one of the Furies even without the @ anyway!

RegDwight Ѭſ道

You think they won't bring your attention to the fireworks, @Matt? Really, @Matt? Are you sure they won't, @Matt?

Hehe.

Matt Эллен

well, you've got my attention @Reg

10:25 PM

Is that other guy gone?

RegDwight Ѭſ道

Jan 5 at 16:33, by RegDwight Ѭſ道

May I just yawn and shrug?

Matt Эллен

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

yes

RegDwight Ѭſ道

I went ahead and did it anyway. Can't be bothered waiting for @Matt's approval every time, @Matt.

Are a libertarian?

Matt Эллен

phew! I was worried @RegDwight had lumbered me with some sort of yawn & shrug permission responsibilities, @RegDwight

RegDwight Ѭſ道

10:28 PM

Yo @Cerberus, we are in a really close war, you happen to have a bar to spare?

@RegDwightѬſ道 Always!

RegDwight Ѭſ道

@Cerberus Then GD, please. Not the other clowns.

OK.

0

Q: What's the adjectival form of "cinematography", and how is it pronounced?

Cinematography describes the art and process of choosing frame, lighting, and other film techniques for a particular composition in film. What is the adjectival form of this word? I think it is probably "cinematographic", but I can't decide how to pronounce that form. Ci-ne-ma-TO-gra-phic? Ci-ne-...

pronunciation adjectives

Gen ref?

Matt Эллен

I was thinking cinematic

10:30 PM

@RegDwightѬſ道 Talk about close!

Matt Эллен

@simchona yes

Or cinematographical?

@matt cool.

Matt Эллен

@Cerberus or cinematogrammical

Of course, why didn't I think of that.

@Reg: Done.

10:34 PM

@Matt: what do you think about the term "counterattack"?

Matt Эллен

@hhh doesn't really relate to cinematography

@MattЭллен sorry I meant as a substitute for the recip..

Matt Эллен

@Cerberus maybe one of your other heads did...

Possible!

Matt Эллен

@hhh I see! Yes, it would fit in the context of Gavin's comment, although it would indicate some sort of ongoing battle of down-votes

10:38 PM

@MattЭллен Yes, I agree but is there some difference between counter.* and reciprocal.*? The former is much more used according to Fumble.* in the comment

Matt Эллен

yes, counter means move against, which is not the same as reciprocal

@hhh It is, because a counter attack implies that it takes place after an earlier attack (I attack someone after he attacked me). A reciprocal attack technically doesn't specify any relation of time, though based on context it can't mean anything else.

Matt Эллен

sorry to flake out, but I must abed. Cheero!

Night!

@Cerberus I am now confused by the term "reciprocal attack", counterattack is more used.

10:42 PM

Yes.

But it must mean the same thing.

@Cerberus en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal but it has some technical connotation of which I am probably unaware of.

dictionary.reference.com/browse/reciprocal

> 2. given, performed, felt, etc., in return: reciprocal aid.

This is all you need.

No technical meaning here.

@Cerberus Thanks that makes it clear. Perhaps, the term was just to alleviate the tune in counterattack (not to use such sexy word...).

@Cerberus Is it more high-brow term?

I don't think the choice between those two doesn't make any difference here.

@hhh No, it is just not a normal term.

BRB

Night!

And thanks for clarification.

I think the term "reciprocal attack" makes a feeling of expertise, much better than media-overused "counterattack" but perhaps it is just me.

10:50 PM

@hhh stop reading into it. Really.

@simchona Thanks, perhaps I am just puzzled by analysis.

But have sleep now, night.

user19161

11:11 PM

@reg Hope the moving was a success!

RegDwight Ѭſ道

So far, yes.

user19161

In Soviet Russia house moves you!

11:36 PM

0

Q: the verb to be and collective nouns

The media, at least, are convinced (it seems to me more so recently) that "Manchester United have won" and that "Walmart are hiring". I even heard on the BBC recently that "the Shinto priesthood are heriditary". I think these should all be singular?

Peeving.

« first day (423 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (4498 days later) »

Transcript for

Jan '128

English Language & Usage: Multi-Layer…

Not for the faint of heart or those easily triggered by Englis...

phrase-requests pronunciation single-word-requests synonyms

join this room
about this room

00:00

06:00

12:00

18:00

all times are UTC

site design / logo © 2024 Stack Exchange Inc; legal

mobile