« first day (4628 days earlier)      last day (589 days later) » 

00:00
In Britain, that is also preferred.
See Fowler's.
Huh. To me the version with "which" sounds not just informal but somewhat nonstandard.
This sentence irks me.
@alphabet Nonsense.
Sounds perfectly normal to me.
But I have the misfortune of having been (1) born before automated computerized scolds existed, and (2) being able to read more English text than that which was generated under those scolds' tyrannies. Like, you know, genuine literature instead of your daily fish wrap.
It's 100% fine.
And insulting to a lot of authors of renown both living and dead to say otherwise.
Perhaps you were beaten so badly by the old nuns that you can't help but feeling how you do. That's the standard reason why we're told to end no sentence with a preposition nor infinitives split: lest it offend those who know no better, having been locked into arrant nonsense too long ago to unlearn their conditioned gag reflex.
00:19
@tchrist Huh. Apparently intuitions differ.
You've been browbeaten by stupid old scolds yelling at you about this since you were a child.
So you've been conditioned to accept their insanity.
@Robusto oh I had totally forgotten about the Golf War, yeah
I mean, not that I lived it, I was born almost 8 years later
@alphabet I have the opposite impression; that the version with "that" is more informal, though still the 'natural' way to put it. This sentence sounds quite fine to me, only a little . . . didactic? I can imagine ESL teachers writing something like it, though not because they're well-versed in older literature that uses it as TCh implies, but because the lesson is about subordinate clauses
00:36
> That vs. Which: the Which Hunt
Much ink has been spilled over the question of when to use “that” or “which” to begin a relative clause. Some grammarians will argue that one should only use “that” to introduce restrictive clauses, and only use “which” to introduce nonrestrictive clauses. This is a good rule to follow if it helps you remember the difference in restrictive vs. nonrestrictive clauses while you’re writing.

However, in common use, people tend to deploy both “that” and “which” in restrictive clauses. The most important thing to remember when you’re trying to delineate restricti
4
A: Correct usage of *which* and *that*

Araucaria - Not here any more.[This is an important question because of all the folks visiting this site for guidance, who may well pass answers on to other students and writers. I myself in my pre-linguist days used to fall victim to this 'rule'. I have total sympathy for the Original Poster, as I do for my former self, and ...

Let the squicking continue. Thank you very much.
> “Yesterday, December 7, 1941—a date which will live in infamy—the
United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval
and air forces of the Empire of Japan.” That was how President Franklin
D. Roosevelt opened his famous infamy speech, 71 years ago. Ignoring
the writing handbooks, he opened with a passive construction, which of
course is just right for the rhetorical context (America as innocent
victim). And he also ignored another bogeyman rule: He introduced a
restrictive relative clause with which.
The horrors!
> Grammar snobs trying to show off their linguistic rectitude by playing gotcha with an invented rule that never matched educated usage; copy editors slaving away trying to enforce it; Microsoft Word blindly putting wavy green underlining under every relative which not preceded by a comma. What a senseless waste of time and energy.
> Follow the Fowler rule if you want to; it’s up to you. But don’t tell me that it’s crucial or that the best writers respect it. It’s a time-wasting early-20th-century fetish, a bogeyman rule undeserving of the attention of intelligent grownups.
@tchrist To me it just sounds wrong; I don't think this is from grammar scolds.
Why? What sounds wrong about it? Who told you it was wrong? Have you never heard it spoken? What's wrong with FDR?
It sounds vaguely ungrammatical. I wouldn't expect someone to say that. I don't think this has anything to do with someone telling me an invented rule; it just seems quite infelicitous.
@Robusto I wonder, has modern stealth ever been used seriously against an opponent who wasn't vastly inferior?
@alphabet Grammarly no doubt agrees!
And perhaps so will GPT.
00:56
@alphabet "Wouldn't expect someone to say that" strongly suggests that you have not read very many books that use it. Our best writers certainly use it.
How do you say "that which"? Do you use a comma? Or do you turn it into "that what"?
@tchrist "That which" is fine. But it's the exception.
> He has dreamed of being held in the pitiless emprise of something from which he cannot wake . . . he is often aboard a ship on a broad river, leading a rebellion which must not fail.
> He is being hunted, his days are full of narrow escapes which he finds eciting, physically graceful . . . and the Plot itself! it has a stern, an intense beauty, it is music, a symphony of the North, of an Arctic voyage, past headlands of very green ice, to the feet of icebergs, [...]
I think it sounds fine when the "which" is embedded in a larger relative phrase like "from which." It's only in sentences like the one H&P uses that it sounds genuinely wrong to me.
On the other hand, H&P claim that this is wrong:
> She hadn't kept copies of the letters, which he had answered only five of.
That one sounds fine to me. But they astericize it.
That one is just fine. What do they want of it?
> [...] his enthusiasm over the Donald Duck cinema cartoons, an incident during the Lübeck raid which only he and his wingman, now passed on, shared and greed not to report— [...]
They say that you have to front prepositional phrases with partitive "of."
They put an asterisk next to it. Maybe it's a dialectical thing, but I think their intuitions are broken.
01:09
No you don't, they're afraid of ending sentences with prepositions.
> The U.S. Air Force's Ramstein air base is set in a German valley, a fact which Ryan found slightly unsettling.
> Thirty years of marriage which had begun while both were still in college, the last three of which had been an ongoing nightmare as the disease that has manifested in her late thirties had in her late forties taken a dramatic [...]
They're normally OK with preposition stranding, but this one they reject.
@alphabet Actually wrong?
I do prefer the of earlier in the sentence, it's not pretty.
Do you recognize the quotations? They're a pair each from Thomas Pynchon and Tom Clancy, two well-known writers of twentieth-century literature who were never cowed into submission by such nonsense. This sort of usage is everywhere in literature. It might not occur in ChatGPT, though.
But it still sounds OK to me.
> They come up out of the transparent rectangles which now appear in the
floor, come up unbreathing, unblinking and horizontal, and they rest upon
invisible catafalques at a height of two feet, and their garments and their skins
are of all colors and their bodies of all ages. Now some have wings and some
have tails, and some have horns and some long talons. Some have all of these
things, and some have pieces of machinery built into them and some do not.
Many others look like the man, unmodified.
> The man crosses to the nearest table and eats lightly and drinks a glass of
wine. The dead dance about him, but he does not dance with them. They make
noises which are words without meaning, and he does not listen to them. He
pours a second glass of wine and the eyes of Anubis are upon him as he drinks it.
He pours a third glass and he holds it in his hands and sips at it and stares into it.
> “Now a connection is being attached to you. You feel nothing, but your
head is opened and you are about to become a part of the machine which
monitors and maintains this entire world. See it all now!”
The examples of this in actual literature are endless.
01:15
Of course.
This is well known, I should think.
That's why I'm so surprised it sounds wrong to you. It's absolutely everywhere in actual literature.
@Cerberus Yes, they say it's completely incorrect, not just informal.
Hmm.
Odd.
weird
> Images captured by the ESA's Sentinel 3 satellites had measured the land surface temperature at more than 60 Celsius in the western Spanish region of Extremadura on Tuesday.
> Authorities put an ambulance on standby near the archaeological site of the Acropolis in Athens, ready to provide first aid to tourists wilting in the heatwave, which Italy's Meteorological Society has named "Cerberus".
I'm so sorry.
01:22
My goodness.
That's never been recorded before. We've had in the 130s but never 140.
It's not air temperature, though.
> They were mostly the spotted tigers common in that part of the
country; but I saw atroxes too, with hair like man's, and sword-toothed
smilodons. Most were hardly more than bones, but some lived and
made those sounds that, as the people believe, serve to frighten
other tigers, atroxes, and smilodons which, if they were not so
frightened, would prey upon the cattle. These cattle represented a
far greater danger to us than the cats did.
Just the land itself.
Notice you can't say "smilodons, which" nor "smilodons that" there.
The highest air temperature ever recorded in Europe was 48.8 degrees in 2021 in the other of the two Sicilies.
Um, I said that wrong.
01:24
It's always going to be Greece or Italy or Spain, or the isles, isn't it?
@tchrist Why can't you say "smilodons, which"?
Confusing the Hispano-Italian Empire of Aragon with the Two Sicilies.
@alphabet Too many commas.
@tchrist Maybe the Balkan?
@tchrist No such thing as too many commas.
01:25
That's a hard sentence to punctuate. Do it wrong and you will be misunderstood.
@Cerberus Are they really so warm as Greece?
And he'd already done a "sounds that," with a comma. You have to have variety.
@tchrist I think perhaps they can be?
"Too many commas, what's that mean? / It's like too much money, there's no such thing."
Surely Crete is hotter than Neopatras? But I do not know.
> Television offers a delicious and, as I have said, original alternative
to all of this. We might say there are three commandments that form
the philosophy of the education which television offers. The influence
of these commandments is observable in every type of television
programming—from "Sesame Street" to the documentaries of "Nova" and
"The National Geographic" to "Fantasy Island" to MTV.
Can't but crack a spine and you'll trip over it.
@tchrist That one sounds less bad than the others. Not sure why.
It sounds much worse if the "which" is subject in the relative clause: "the television which offers education" is awful.
> To say it still another way: Entertainment is the supraideology of
all discourse on television. No matter what is depicted or from
what point of view, the overarching presumption is that it is there
for our amusement and pleasure. That is why even on news shows which
provide us daily with fragments of tragedy and barbarism, we are
urged by the newscasters to "join them tomorrow."
01:33
Yeah that one sounds quite bad to me.
On the other hand, I am OK with the informal omission of "that/who" in subject position, as in:
> Here I pause, having carried you, reader, from gate to gate - from
the locked and fog-shrouded gate of our necropolis to this gate
with its curling wisps of smoke, this gate which is perhaps the
largest in existence, perhaps the largest ever to exist. It was by
entering that first gate that I set my feet upon the road that
brought me to this second gate.
> I met a guy says he knows you.
The skilled writer varies his manner of expression and choice of words in a fashion crafted to keep his reader's attention without boring them with dull repetition of phrasing.
> It was my father did most of the talking.
Those sound OK to me, albeit very informal.
WHy was Iberia so powerful?
01:36
By banishing from your own tongue the ability to freely vary which which or that which you've chosen, you impoverish our language and needlessly cripple yourself at others' expense.
@tchrist It just sounds wrong. I don't need to try to banish it.
It is funny, though, that their 'Council of Flanders' should have thought that it administered the Dutch Republic.
@Cerberus It's always a shock to realize that all of South America lies east of Michigan.
Hmm I believe you.
The Treaty of Tordesillas, signed in Tordesillas, Spain, on 7 June 1494, and ratified in Setúbal, Portugal, divided the newly discovered lands outside Europe between the Portuguese Empire and the Spanish Empire (Crown of Castile), along a meridian 370 leagues west of the Cape Verde islands, off the west coast of Africa. That line of demarcation was about halfway between the Cape Verde islands (already Portuguese) and the islands visited by Christopher Columbus on his first voyage (claimed for Castile and León), named in the treaty as Cipangu and Antillia (Cuba and Hispaniola). The lands to the...
Inter caetera ('Among other [works]') was a papal bull issued by Pope Alexander VI on the 4 May 1493, which granted to the Catholic Monarchs King Ferdinand II of Aragon and Queen Isabella I of Castile all lands to the "west and south" of a pole-to-pole line 100 leagues west and south of any of the islands of the Azores or the Cape Verde islands.It remains unclear whether the pope intended a "donation" of sovereignty or an infeudation or investiture. Differing interpretations have been argued since the bull was issued, with some arguing that it was only meant to transform the possession and occupation...
01:43
Ah, the Pope, of course.
Remember when the Pope got to do cool things, like decide who owns half of the planet?
@Cerberus Well, by "vastly inferior" you would have to include those opponents without stealth or stealth countermeasures. Suffice to say that fighters like the F-22 and F-35 are invisible to other US aircraft in the air, which pretty much makes them invisible to any other country's air forces. Or ground forces, for that matter.
But any single technology is not necessarily going to get all of the jobs done all at once. What is needed, and which NATO countries possess, is strata of offensive and defensive weaponry and tactics to fight a conflict on multiple fronts.
That's really why the two Gulf wars were so lopsided.
Stealth warfare was just one component in that conflict.
02:08
@Robusto Hmm no, I meant and first or second rate country, like a larger European country, India, China, Russia, etc.
So far, absent nuclear strikes, there is no other first-rate country. Whatever you may think of the US, the military is second to none.
That's not to say that the leadership is always top-notch. But the capabilities are vast and powerful.
Me, I wish we spent less on the military and more on peaceful, constructive undertakings. But sadly that is not the way things are.
@Robusto Why do you say this?
Because it is true?
Is that enough reason to say any thing?
@Robusto Is it really true that stealth fighters cannot be seen by other aeroplanes? I thought modern countries had various counter-measures to at least 'penetrate' some of the stealth?
@Cerberus I'm not seeing your point in asking that question.
@Cerberus What I'm referring to is reports by US non-stealth fighter pilot about these abilities in combat practice.
02:16
@Robusto I didn't see the point in your saying this.
@Cerberus It was in direct response to your assumption that there were other countries that match the US in military technology.
By "first-rate country" I mean when considering military might alone.
If the US were to fight Russia and nukes were off the table, it would be a very quick and lopsided victory. If nukes are on the table, everybody loses that war.
Same with China, although China is working very hard to match and even exceed the US naval forces.
@Robusto But I didn't assume that at all?
That would be silly.
> I meant and first or second rate country, like a larger European country, India, China, Russia, etc.
That's why I mentioned that, militarily speaking, there are no other first-rate countries.
@Robusto Everybody knows this. Do you think I am some child, who has never read a newspaper?
Please. You know that is not my intention or my attitude.
Sorry if I ruffled your feathers by stating the obvious.
02:24
@Robusto Depends on how you classify countries. But that is really just a tiny detail of my formulation, it doesn't really touch upon the point I wanted to make.
Which was?
@Robusto This isn't totally unquestionable. We just lost a two-decade war against the Taliban, after all. We seem to already be running out of HIMARS ammo. The military is struggling to come close to reaching recruitment targets.
Russian minefields would be hard for even NATO to clear. You can't easily use airpower to take out a minefield.
@alphabet As I said, the leadership is not always top-notch.
@alphabet No, but you can use it to leapfrog such minefields.
2 hours ago, by Cerberus
@Robusto I wonder, has modern stealth ever been used seriously against an opponent who wasn't vastly inferior?
This was my question.
The Iraqi army was vastly inferior when it was fighting modern stealth planes.
@Robusto Honestly, I don't think the US could have beaten the Taliban even with perfect leadership.
02:27
@Cerberus And my response was that compared to the US, all other countries are vastly inferior militarily. And you yourself just said that was so true that my bringing it up was a condescension.
I do not think that is true in the given context.
There's also a lot of grift in military spending, though of course this affects every country.
If there are detection systems capable to countering stealth planes to some degree, they will not have been in Saddam's possession in 1991. But they may have been possessed by another country outside America at some point in the three decades hence.
@alphabet That is not the point. We are speaking only militarily. The US, for all its military might, lost the war in Vietnam because of poor leadership and colossal misunderstanding of the situation.
But seriously: the Taliban is a kind of opponent that the US and similar militaries are incapable of fighting effectively. Ultimately, the war in Afghanistan ended because our side decisively lost.
02:31
@Cerberus OK, then what you're referring to is varying degrees of stealthiness. Which there are. But that doesn't mean that the "less stealthy" craft are unable to fulfill their missions successfully.
@Robusto I have a somewhat controversial take on this. We lost because the Viet Cong decisively defeated the US military in the field. They did this the usual way: by making the cost of victory so high that the US gave up. Military defeat doesn't always involve the enemy marching into your capital.
@alphabet No, it ended because we didn't want to spend another 20 years and trillions of dollars fighting a worthless war.
@Robusto Yes, and why would it have taken 20 years and trillions of dollars? Because the Taliban made it that costly.
This is very frequently what military victory looks like: you make the cost of success for the other side so high that they're unwilling to bear it.
I think it goes without saying that the Taliban were the primary cause of the Taliban victory.
@alphabet I don't think you know what you're talking about. Read The Generals: American Military Command from World War II to Today by Thomas Ricks.
@Robusto I just asked a question.
But it may not be easy to know.
02:36
@Robusto Here's the thing. You can, of course, find plenty of flaws in American leadership. But there is very little reason to think that fixing these flaws would have led to a different outcome. After all, the Taliban had terrible leadership, and they won.
Do you think that the Taliban were better led than the Americans?
@alphabet You are conflating military with politics, which, despite the von Clausewitz cliche, are separate issues.
@alphabet Can you say that termites are defeating homeowners militarily?
Because that's about the same thing.
@Robusto Well, if the homeowners had to abandon the house because the termites made it impossibly expensive to repair, then I would say that the termites won.
I didn't offer the analogy so that you could torture it to death.
In any case, whatever. Have a nice night.
@Robusto But that's exactly what happened in Afghanistan. The Taliban made occupying Afghanistan so expensive and difficult that no reasonable American government would be willing to do so.
We're done here.
02:42
'Night.
I do always dislike this whole attitude of "well, technically we weren't defeated, because we could hypothetically have expended every possible resource on the war, so technically we chose this outcome."
In particular, the whole "we could have won in Vietnam if we used nukes" argument, which I've heard before. If there was a big building labeled "Viet Cong HQ, please do not nuke" we would have destroyed it with conventional weapons; nukes would kill lots of civilians but it's unlikely that they would have won the war, unless you destroyed the entire country.
We wouldn't have won Vietnam, we'd have won the giant radioactive wasteland where Vietnam used to be.
In a war, your ultimate aim isn't just to win. It's to win with a certain amount of resources, within a specific timeframe, in ways that ensure a specific outcome. If you can't do that, you lost; any reasonable theory of victory won't include an infinite expenditure of resources.
Anyway, thank you for coming to my TED talk.
I everyone agrees with that.
At least with respect to nukes.
I've had people who should really know better tell me "we could have won in Vietnam if we had used nukes," as if it were an obvious truth.
There's also a tendency to see groups like the Taliban as having no real agency or military competence, which is rather absurd.
03:02
@alphabet Umm I can hardly believe that, I absolutely know noöne who would say that.
@Cerberus I've heard that line from a number of people (one of whom was a history teacher, of all things).
What world do you live in?
'Murica, where our military is undefeated in hypotheticals.
Of course the US did "win" the war in Iraq, if you define "winning" to include failing to achieve any strategic goals and destroying the country you were trying to liberate.
03:43
@alphabet That's not the point I was making, though you appear to be trying to force-fit me into that. In fact, I never defended the US posture in Vietnam or Afghanistan or anywhere else it chose to thrash about like an elephant in a swamp. My point is, and remains, that the US is still the top military in the world—for whatever that's worth. I take no pride in saying that. So please don't seek to apply a few off-the-rack expostulations where they don't belong.
03:59
@tchrist I think native speakers know when they prefer a restrictive which (over that); they just don't know why exactly. But one reason, I find: when that is an object, weak and omittable, and you're still upset about whatever took place and want to put a big strong WHICH in the middle of all of it. If that counts…
I think you're right that we don't know why we prefer it when we do so. It just sounds better.
I'm not sure if omittable is a bona fide word yet.
In lieu of omissible?
OED does not have it.
04:04
It's never good when Wiktionary is the first definition to pop up.
Good morning. In EST.
No, it is not morning in EST.
It is morning in EDT.
It was morning an hour ago in EST.
I just wish they'd stop futzing with the clocks. It's so annoying.
Wow, I never knew that…but I did notice they were still mowing my yard at 8 pm...with only natural light.
Like…'I want you to mow the areas WHICH you omitted last time!' Something like that…
04:29
Why did a big giant helicopter just now overfly me so close it shook my house? AT NIGHT! I thought only military flew at night.
And no, I couldn't see any but its lights. Night.
@Robusto I'm not attributing that argument to you; those last few messages were me expressing my exasperation with how some Americans talk about those wars.
Sorry for the confusion.
My main point is that accounts of these wars tend to focus exclusively on the domestic politics of the losing side, rather than on the military success of the winning side.
I think it causes people to mistakenly see those wars' outcomes purely as political decisions, rather than as military defeats.
When in fact, those decisions were only necessary because of the military situation.
@tchrist I think pretty much everyone uses "EST" to mean "ET," i.e. EST or EDT depending on the season.
Much to the chagrin of those who insist on the correct terminology.
05:19
>The W.H.O. advises consuming less than two dozen cans of diet soda per day. How do you measure up?
@Xanne Isn't two dozens per day already too much?
05:33
@Vikas The New York Times is making fun of the World Health Organization’s research report that aspartame may cause cancer.
But do be careful with those diet Cokes.
 
1 hour later…
07:04
@Xanne some drug monographs recommend that you do not drink more than 4 liters of grapefruit juice per day while taking the drug
Grapefruit actually seems interact unfavorably with quite a few drugs. But I limit myself to three liters a day.
Wordle 755 3/6

⬜⬜⬜🟩🟨
🟩⬜⬜🟨⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
 
1 hour later…
08:11
@M.A.R. This morning, she said that my C-peptide 2 hours after a 75g glucose load is "ideal", at 8.2, and "you have no diabetes, at least at this moment".
Three more days of tracking my blood sugar level with the Libre, and she is discharging me.
She said "it would have been great to run some genetic tests, but the budget does not provide for this".
Frankly, I feel like I'm lacking some.. "drive" when I'm not insulin.
I will probably still be injecting a little of it.
For some reason it made me feel alive in 2011-2018.
08:26
@Xanne drug doses are adjusted for how fast the drug is cleared from the body. There are enzymes in the liver that natural compounds in grapefruit juice irreversibly bind, that are responsible for the clearance of many drugs. Sometimes the interaction is strong (those enzymes are primarily responsible for the metabolism of a certain drug) and sometimes it's very important (such as in drugs with considerable toxicity). I can't drink grapefruit juice for the rest of my life at all.
When the interaction is weak, they have to calculate what amount of juice it will take until it's going to be clinically significant, so you end up with >2 or >4 liters or similar figures
09:10
One is MSN, the other is The Weather Channel (IBM). Not sure who to trust.
When I've shared messages here about my town's weather during last six months, I was following the Weather Channel. But it could be inaccurate.
"Storms likely to end" never makes sense. There are no storms and it always reports like that.
Also, when I reported "39 C" here in past, it could be significantly more actually. Maybe app was showing less.
> Chandrayaan-3: India launches rocket to land spacecraft on moon
The Chandrayaan-3 mission is designed to deploy a lander and rover near the moon’s south pole around August 23.
09:54
@Vikas This is great.
Chandrayaan-3 (transl. "mooncraft"; pronunciation ) is the third lunar exploration mission by the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO). It consists of a lander and a rover similar to Chandrayaan-2, but does not have an orbiter. Its propulsion module behaves like a communication relay satellite. The propulsion module carries the lander and rover configuration until the spacecraft is in a 100 km lunar orbit. It launched on 14th July 2023, at 14:35 IST Following Chandrayaan-2, where a last-minute software glitch in the soft landing guidance software led to the failure of the lander's soft landing...
 
2 hours later…
12:03
@Cerberus welcome to the club. I had a hurricane named after me. It killed millions. I had very little to do with those deaths
@Xanne after a liter, grapefruit juice loses its punch. I switch to lime juice for the last few liters.
13:05
@Mitch Mitch killed millions
@Vikas It seems that I exaggerated. Only ~19,000 died.
Hurricane Mitch was the second-deadliest Atlantic hurricane on record, only after the Great Hurricane of 1780 which killed at least 22,000 people. Hurricane Mitch caused 11,374 fatalities in Central America in 1998, including approximately 7,000 in Honduras and 3,800 in Nicaragua due to cataclysmic flooding from the slow motion of the storm. It was the deadliest hurricane in Central American history, surpassing Hurricane Fifi–Orlene, which killed slightly fewer people there in 1974. The thirteenth named storm, ninth hurricane, and third major hurricane of the 1998 Atlantic hurricane season, Mitch...
But that was all in the past. I think we should move on.
@Mitch I will remember this!
@M.A.R. Is it just grapefruit that is special like that, or do most citrus fruits also have a similar effect?
@Vikas It's a really good excuse.
"Yes, I committed an awful crime, but it was only once, and is in the past. Past performance is no guarantee of continued behavior. We should all look to the future."
@Mitch All criminals should be given at least two years before they are arrested. And when the time arrives, forgive them because it happened two years ago.
But if it were something like "Hurricane Mitch miraculously saved millions of people from death by malaria", I would spin that as "Past performance is the best predictor of future behavior. You can expect more miracles like that in the future"
@Vikas That would be a great defense. "They've learned their lesson. They were so filled with guilt over those two years, that's more than enough punishment"
13:20
No one is going to agree with this logic 🤣
If we repeat it enough, people will just accept it as the usual way.
sounds like rote memorization
@Mitch the only commonly mentioned one is grapefruit juice. But I wouldn't be surprised if there's some weird citrus hybrid with similar compounds. The usual ones are okay (orange, lemon, lime etc.)
@Mitch look at it, constantly tossing dad jokes all over the Atlantic
@alphabet Then they deserve to suffer for lying to the computer when they set their alarm clocks. It's infuriating that they tell us to do the wrong things and then blame us when we do what they tell us to do.
13:36
#Worldle #539 1/6 (100%)
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🎉
⭐⭐
https://worldle.teuteuf.fr
Meh.
🌎 Jul 14, 2023 🌍
🔥 29 | Avg. Guesses: 4.44
🟧🟨🟥🟧🟩 = 5

globle-game.com
#globle
Wordle 755 3/6

⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛
🟨⬛⬛🟨🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
I'm starting to believe I'm on to something
@tchrist You could make a case for EST being the standard for whatever time is being use in the ET zone.
But that would be a case for unsufferable idiots who need help tying their shoes in the morning. The government testing is so deficient that they give them drivers' licenses? Like how do they manage to make toast for themselves without burning down the house?
@MetaEd You're welcome. I can't take all the credit though.
@Mitch EST never means EDT. It cannot. Those are different time zones, and different times.
I'd mostly like to thank my 3rd grade science teacher.
@tchrist If people were computers then yes. Since people aren't computers, ergo post propter hoc, they ain't. That's logic.
13:52
I have lost too many months of my life to people fucking up time zones. I have no patience for idiots.
@tchrist Solution: ask them to make toast.
And lock the doors from the outside.
The sort of confusion described in this answer is typical. Most people do not grasp that the three-letter acronyms like PST and AST and IST and so on describe UTC offsets, not geographical timezones. As a Brit, I regularly encounter people who are surprised to learn that the UK is not on GMT the whole year round. — Mark Amery Dec 6, 2018 at 16:30
It is seven o'clock in Los Angeles right now, and it is also seven o'clock in Phoenix right now. But they are not in the same time zone. Los Angeles is in Pacific Time and Phoenix is in Mountain Time. Hope this helps and have a nice day.
Once upon a time there was a certain phone company who lost tens of millions of dollars one year due to stupid time zone bugs. They never got that money back. End of story.
@Mitch Oh, I totally understand.
Surely a little flooding wouldn't kill people.
Hurricane Mitch was the second-deadliest Atlantic hurricane on record, only after the Great Hurricane of 1780 which killed at least 22,000 people. Hurricane Mitch caused 11,374 fatalities in Central America in 1998, including approximately 7,000 in Honduras and 3,800 in Nicaragua due to cataclysmic flooding from the slow motion of the storm. It was the deadliest hurricane in Central American history, surpassing Hurricane Fifi–Orlene, which killed slightly fewer people there in 1974. The thirteenth named storm, ninth hurricane, and third major hurricane of the 1998 Atlantic hurricane season, Mitch...
14:09
@Cerberus I think that is the main cause of death.
Or should I say... I think which is the main cause of death.
wow that hurts
I think I broke one of my ears
and the other one is barely hanging on.
👂🏽👂🏽 A new pair for you.
@Mitch Mitch not Witch.
@Vikas Thanks! My old ones were getting ... well... old.
14:28
@Mitch I remember Mitch. I was vacationing in the Bahamas and there was an impressive tropical storm for a couple of days. Nothing like a hurricane though, we were far from the path of it.
Wordle 755 6/6

⬛🟨🟨🟨⬛
⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛
⬛⬛🟨🟨🟨
🟨⬛⬛⬛⬛
⬛🟩🟨🟨🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Daily Quordle 536
7️⃣6️⃣
9️⃣5️⃣
m-w.com/games/quordle/
Daily Octordle #536
6️⃣🕚
🔟5️⃣
9️⃣8️⃣
3️⃣🕛
Score: 64
A yukky one.
14:46
Wordle 755 3/6

⬜⬜🟨🟩⬜
⬜⬜🟩⬜🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
I quickly found a word I never heard before :-)
Daily Quordle 536
6️⃣7️⃣
5️⃣8️⃣
m-w.com/games/quordle/
Daily Octordle #536
🕚🕐
🕛3️⃣
🔟6️⃣
7️⃣9️⃣
Score: 71
🌎 Jul 14, 2023 🌍
🔥 1 | Avg. Guesses: 6.24
🟧🟩 = 2

globle-game.com
#globle
Yay!
-36
Q: Proposal to (legally & technically) merge StackExchange, YouTube, Twitter, Quora, Reddit, Medium/Substack/Blogger/dev.to, Discord, GitHub and LinkedIn

Twister21I've been thinking that it would be a great idea to merge these platforms into one open-source & open-data company to unify product design & governance principles across all of its services. They are currently owned & operated by many different people & companies (with Microsoft and Google being ...

@M.A.R. ambitious
15:34
@Mitch Take some inspiration from me:
The Vikas (a portmanteau from initials of VIKram Ambalal Sarabhai ) is a family of liquid fuelled rocket engines conceptualized and designed by the Liquid Propulsion Systems Centre in the 1970s. The design was based on the licensed version of the Viking engine with the chemical pressurisation system. The early production Vikas engines used some imported French components which were later replaced by domestically produced equivalents. It is used in the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV) and the Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle (GSLV) series of expendable launch vehicles for space launch...
15:47
Vikas does have a nice ring to it
16:20
There's no way a hurricane or a rocket engine is ever going to be called jlliagre. Maybe changing my nickname would be a good idea after all...
17:10
@tchrist I use "EST" and "PST" this way, to be honest. They're more recognizable as time zones and everybody uses them to mean "ET" and "PT" anyway. Feel free to hate me for this.
In anything computing-related, you use UTC everywhere, which is unambiguous. The usage of any other time zone (outside of a UI) is a bug waiting to happen.
@M.A.R. My username is boring. I shoulda been more creative.
17:55
@alphabet Is it not short for "alphabet mafioso"??? :p
(I guess that's a term that might not be reclaimed for everyone but I personally find it amusing :p)
@Vikas 🔥
literally
18:39
@alphabet Explain Phoenix and Los Angeles. Good luck.
One is in MST and the other is in PDT right now. Later one will still be in MST and the other will be in PST. Then their times will differ by an hour, but Phoenix will then match Denver not Los Angeles. Yes, I'm going to hate anybody whose language makes this easy to screw up.
Phoenix is not in Pacific Time. It's in Mountain Time. So is Denver.
But Denver and Los Angeles never have the same time. Sometimes Phoenix has the same time as Los Angeles and sometimes it has the same time as Denver, and that's because it's always in the same MST time zone, unlike the other two that bounce around MDT and PDT for some parts of the year.
If this gives you a headache, then it's only fair because people screwing up time zones has given me more headaches over my lifetime than you can ever imagine.
And yes, I construe people screwing up time zones to be a gerund and thus in the singular, not a dangling participle off of a plural head.
The same thing is happening with New York City and Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands. The first is in EDT and the other two are in AST, which means that their clocks all report noon at the same time. But during the winter they will not, because NYC will now be in EST instead, and THAT HAS A DIFFERENT UTC OFFSET.
I know the world is complicated, and I'm sorry. But please don't make it worse.
19:07
@tchrist If I had to, I would just say "Phoenix time." Most people wouldn't consistently understand me if I used the "right" terminology, since most people don't understand the MT/MST/MDT distinction.
Now I'm gonna keep using "EST" just to annoy you.
Clodhoppers that spend their entire lives on their own farm never talking to anybody else outside their property lines have no need of correctness in their own speech.
Because they'll never talk to Puerto Ricans. It wouldn't work out well.
19:41
@alphabet I have my actual clock set to UTC. I just have to remember to go to bed at 4 am.
3
That will do, until I figure out how to get my system to report Mean Solar Time.
or maybe even True Solar Time, although I'd certainly have to rewrite NTP if I wanted to do that.
20:33
@MetaEd pfft. I use confabulated Galactic Rotational Coordinated time, plus a pocket cesium clock (yes, it does get hot!).
The tide comes in. The tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can't explain that.
 
1 hour later…
21:33
@Mitch And heavy, when you factor in the lead B.V.D.'s
 
1 hour later…
22:47
@alphabet don't worry, I'm pretty sure Google has done plenty of evil shit at this point

« first day (4628 days earlier)      last day (589 days later) »