Fattie

I am sure @NigelJ has given the very definitive answer here!

Pablo, it's unclear if you're asking "How do I read them out?" (ie, when spoken) - or something else ?

You would usually say the whole word ("magnesium salt"). But it's totally commonplace to say (for example) "h 2 o" rather than "water". Saying "m g salt" would be totally normal and OK.

re. You just state things and the ubiquitous AI systems everywhere will supply all the quotes, references etc :O Just MO !

t finally regarding references. purely IMO (others may disagree) the era of citing references is gone. You know how when we were kids you would say something like "I recommend hotel X in that city, you can google up the address and phone number! ..." (I suppose for our grand parents, you would say something like "I recommend hotel X in that city, let me get the number for you from my notes and write it down! ...") In my opinion the formulation "I recommend hotel X in that city, you can google up the address and phone number! ..." is now as archaic as bakelite; nobody mentions facts any mo

.. stackoverflow.com/questions/746670/… there's no sense at all in which "references" or other logic are involved, it's just "opinion, logic, presentation"; someone else can and often does come along with a better opinion, logic, or presentation.) Anyway there is no way whatsoever for me here to "prove" (what would that even mean) something being pointed out like "Uh guys lace is a normal word with a direct meaning that is used ubiquitously to mean 'lace'". I don't really know how to "prove" such an exposition, observation. Jus

@Mari-LouA I generally agree with those points (as has been sort of hashed out in the discussion). I feel that my comment above beginning "Indeed ..." (which indeed you quoted!) is pretty much the summary of the situation. Note that (as always on this site) things like "references" are largely meaningless / antithetical to the site; 90% of the questions on this site are "in spoken English what is.." to which the only possible answer is "I am a native speaker and in my opinion...". {It occurs to me it's surprisingly like the S.O. site! When a wide and handsome SO'er answers a question, eg,

Indeed: my guess would be that most eg. commentators using it have no idea of the early sense, and, think they are just using it in the threaded, perfect-placement sense, now morphed in to "just really fast" - moreover - I bet you a survey of 100 commentators using it, a good number would assume like @MichaelHall that it has something or other to do with laces/stitching.

@SvenYargs yes your comment beginning "To describe .." makes perfect sense.

Come to think of it @ZachSaucier the "correct, erudite" answer, as it were, to this question is probably indeed "a 'correct', early sense is whipped, lashed". However my guess would be that most eg. commentators using it have no idea of that, and, think they are just using it in the threaded, perfect-placement sense, and they are accidentally, as it were, using the correct, early sense!

@Sven - "Ohtani laces a screamer up the middle, and [the centerfielder] cuts it off on one hop" (btw .. 50-50 !!) But surely that commentator was literally saying Otani laced it between them, Otani found the gap, got it through exactly where he needed to (as mentioned, for me laced is synonymous with "threaded that one up the middle to centerfield..." which indeed you hear) :O

Nevertheless, I appreciate that (just) 100+ years ago, a sports dictionary asserted that it means "whipped", so .. fair enough.

r, archaic). - ! so there! :)

I appreciate that Sven's outstanding info is making the point "there is an old (1615) usage which meant something like whip". However in (say) literally the example given (by Barry Popik, in the almanac, in the OP), Barry Popik obviously means it as laced (ie, totally normal modern usage, as I am suggesting, and indeed as in the gazillion examples you can find, even in print, of it being used in sports to mean laced, ie the normal way every single human alive has, ever, used "laced!"), not to mean, "laced oh I mean 17th century whipped". (ie yes I'm saying the almanac in question is wrong, o

@Zach your question "does it mean". I'm surprised you haven't heard it used a zillion times, but I included many examples to give the sense. (To which your conclusion as to "what it 'means'" is as good as mine, or the OEDs, based on the evidence of usage.) Regarding use in baseball, when you say "correctly used .." people don't use metaphors flawlessly or "exactly", but I get your point for sure. It would "more properly" be used in sports when the object (say, a running back, baseball, or the many examples I quoted) involves something (let's say) wiggling past obstacles.

@ave that is an incredibly good point, well done. I didn't think of that due to the whole residency thing. You're totally right.

"The US is considered "safe" for many airports, I don't know about Dubai." It's sounding like "a few" incoming countries have this astounding "free flow" system amongst arrivals. I had no idea, TY. Also, hammering it down, it seems like the idea you can go to departures is simply not the case. There's nowhere on Earth you can arrive (international) and skip to a departure (international) without security. (Whereas, as mentioned numerously, it's trivial/commonplace to do that concept with domestic. Domestic arrivals/departures are freely mixed as a normal matter,)

you can literally see the dep./arr. boards here, viennaairport.com/en/passengers/arrival__departure/arrivals yes! for example there's a 2x weekly from Korea etc. most are "domestic" (Euro.)

(PS I had no clue Vienna had flights from overseas !)

@Hilmar - cheers; I guess I'm losing my mind, that's amazing. one thing to clarify, can meet with any passenger departing from Z (or B) who has checked in and cleared security and exit immigration. TBC that is not relevant to the issue at hand. The issue is can I meet with others who have just arrived, ie, exactly as I have just arrived ... ? Hence, you fly EWR (eww!) to Frankfurt, I arrive on EK45 from Dubai, and you and I are milling around together before any sort of security?

parture terminal" concept. So, it could be the whole thing is (entirely mine) confusion. the process I describe here is "not possible". You "can't" (to talk plainly) (pun) "meet someone in the SHSMP-BS and fly off together" {which for me is the spirit of the question "after I arrived place 2, can I just wait at the gate and take flight B?". (To repeat you absolutely CAN do that domestic, international, simply "no" except maybe in some theoretical sense of gaming the SHSMP-BS.). So I think this is the (100% my fault) confusion. Cheers! Sorry for your time!

side). You and I could then go through one of the two or more varieties of high security one-way checkpoint (hence leaving the SHSMP-BS). We could I guess then proceed in various ways to the various departure procedures. ie after waiting the usual 1-3 hours to get through one of those two or more security concepts, to leave the SHSMP-BS. We could then as a unit go take some other flights (ie that would involve "departure area", totally unrelated to the SHSMP-BS area) and so on. This is nothing like the idea of "meeting and flying off in a domestic 'open' mixed-everyone mixed arrivals/de

cheers @jcaron. I think the confusion may be this. Sure, arriving at HK, you and I could (with exquisite timing) meet in the area I will describe as the: staggering high security area, with mixed passengers, arriving from various international world locations, before security (I will refer to this area as the SHSMP-BS area!). [Aside. If one "hung about" for an hour in the SHSMP-BS area, once would be arrested, and if one's excuse was "oh I'm trying top meet someone from another flight in the SHSMP-BS!" they would also be cheerfully arrested, in any airport I know of, but set that a

Note, you can be in international departures, and you're in "shopping and departure gate area N", and you're about to fly to Dubai, and you're drinking booze and waiting, and you suddenly instead have to go to Sydney, and as it happens the gate next to your Dubai flight is a Sydney flight, so sure you book the Sydney flight (politely and carefully cancelling the other flight, of course), walk 20 feet to the "Sydney" gate, and away you go. But that's completely different from what's being asked, I think ???

Just TBC when you say "but you won’t cross the border or go land side" yes, of course, obviously (I'm not THAT senile :) ) But the Q has no connection at all to that. With domestic flights you can trivially "come and go as you please" airside (ie the answer to the OPs question is "for domestic, yes, trivially and commonly") but for international I have never, ever seen that to be possible - but maybe I'm just going nuts

f I had a ticket walk on to the plane now returning to frankfurt (obviously, once the arriving passengers got off, it was cleaned etc) and fly to frankfurt - again I must be losing my mind, getting senile, or just completely fail to remember these common occurences! Or there ius somne confusion of terms or something, IDK!

cheers @jcaron you may need to go through transit security, but you won’t cross the border or go land side Yeah I'm probably just old and confused eh :) I'm tring to think, landing at, random example, haneda 3, so I step out the plane .. youse guys are saying that I can now actually see the other gates (ie, so next to me, planes arriving direct from seattle, frankfurt / mingle with humans from said planes, ie, I get off a flight from LA, I step out the airramp and I can see touch and shake hands with humans who just stepped out of the airramp from frankfurt/etc aircraft, and I could now i

Perhaps I'm losing my mind or have lived in the US too long, I'll have to think about that.

"If both your flights are international, place 2 has to allow airside transit without a visa, meaning you can go to flight B without passing through immigration" I have never seen such a thing

I would just state "it's not possible" in the international case. I can't think of one airport where this could happen, or, country that would allow this. (Maybe some obscure faux-international corner-case like "CH to FR at Geneve" or such._

@JW the topic you mention "too old. That's a limiting belief ..." etc. I don't really know the case in academia, but in software engineering for money, unfortunately old == un-hirable, it's sort of a dirty little secret. Just like being, I dunno, a sportsperson or such, you get rapidly worse with age. Yes, for the truly elite and the most elite fields, it's different. (A bit like with musicians. Old studio musicians get left by the wayside, excepting, the ultimate elite dudes, if you're time pierce or joe walsh or whatever who are dinosaurs :) ) Anyway, in Academia, IDK.

As @StubbornSnail says, you surely wouldn't be getting an "entry level" position in cybersec. !!! note though that particularly in that field (eg survey.stackoverflow.co/2024 ) for better or worse, basically you make far more blunt money in the Usa. (of course, there are other tradeoffs; and of course, cost of living varies incredibly within the Usa.)

I have never heard this idiom in India, having lived and worked there for years.

@nvoigt - this answer is confusing because ........ the situation described is surreal, a private party can't issue a "ticket". Discussing the subtleties of ticket issuing by the government, ie police only serves to confuse this confusing question.

Why doesn't someone simply telephone the ICAO and/or EASA and ask them for clarification of whether they mean aerodynamic lift here they say that - ? Youse guys are all pilots, you could easily phone.

@ocirocir. if you define the sentence that way, then, sure, literally every single thing that has ever been in the air or near the air is an aircraft. "reactions" has a pretty clear sense in physics/engineering though.

@Chris - that's wrong. Missiles are simply rockets.

{ Setting aside the types of missiles that have aerodynamic wings, and hence aren't missiles but are sometimes referred to as missiles or missile variants. }

Any machine that can derive support in the atmosphere from the reactions of the air But missiles don't do that. They get no support whatsoever from the air.

@Didier lol yes that's enough of a comment chain, cheers :) it is 101°F here ATM so, such is life.

@Didier as you said re the question ".. was an excuse to ask the following question.." yes, you're totally right, it could be OP was asking a "mathematical" question, using one of the usual (totally idiotic) analogies like "in a hotel with an infinite number of rooms .. etc". You're right, that may be the case regarding the question.

-um being "In conventional established mathematics, those words have useful and well established meanings and you may be interested in some results from that, but, reminder that the answer to the question in your headline is unequivocally 'Yes, it's utterly invalid and totally, completely meaningless'".

@Didier exactly, what you say here: I (and [others]) consider mathematics as a language, in which it is absolutely possible to pick and element in an infinite set, the latter being a totally valid, well established notion in this language. (1) Precisely what I said at length to Barmar. (2) Exactly as you say the ascii tokens "infinite set" have (certain) "well established notions" in the certain set of humans, yourself and others. (3) OPs actual question is "Is [blah] an invalid premise to begin with?, answer "Yes, it's utterly invalid and totally, completely meaningless", with addend

I imagine with some very special countably infinite sets you can choose a subset (for example, possibly "ordered" sets speaking loosely) but that evidently has nothing to do with what the OP is saying. (And again it's totally impossible to randomly choose one from such an infinite set; this is just a side discussion about being about to choose one at all.)

.. the limit concept, which is kind of congruent to other similar uses with abstract concepts, so lets do that" and I say "huh that's a nice idea, let's define that probability in B-F infinite sets just as you said, let's write a book about that and deduce things about B-F infinite sets". That's all FANTASTIC but .... as the OP asks "If the question is indeed valid...". There is a two word answer to that "It's not.".

@didier, I'm sorry I'm not sure if you're "agreeing with me humorously" or "pointing out that I'm wrong humorously". Take any countably infinite set; take me what set you took, now show me how you chose one randomly - you cannot. Next, show me how you chose any one item (ie not randomly, you can choose). The only way to do so is to take a finite subset, and choose one from that. Which is simply equivalent to saying "oh obviously you cannot choose one from an infinite set".

@Barmar well, but this is what I'm saying (note my answer). Say we're mathematicians discussing the philosophical construct "infinite sets". We're then discussing the idea "huh, here's a thought, from these philosophical constructs, what could it mean to 'choose' one item, let's discuss some ideas on that and pick the idea we like, and we'll call those B-F infinite sets and then we can work with those rules." Similarly if you're going to say "given that choosing an item is meaningless, but we're making up a definition, let's also define the probability of choosing one, hey, i suggest we use

@QiaochuYuan , you mention So, there's no such thing as choosing a random element of a countably infinite set uniformly at random which is surely true. But isn't it further the case that So, there's no such thing as choosing an element of a countably infinite set. How could you? I guess, you could choose from a partial set of the set but that's just saying you can't do it. I don't see how you can choose 1 item from a countably infinite set. Of course, I may be wrong.

@HappyIdiot - it's my life's work.

corporation. Never, ever.