Stack Exchange
log in

ruakh

 Discussion on answer by TimR: In gene…

Imported from a comment discussion on ell.stackexchange.com/qu...
ruakh
Jul 22 03:39
@TimR: I'll have to think about that. FWIW, I do agree that ago is used a bit flexibly in practice (especially in speech).
ruakh
Jul 22 03:39
@JanusBahsJacquet: Yes, you're right, that version is more natural.
ruakh
Jul 22 03:39
(I think the most normal way to express this is actually "In general, girls don't date guys a few hours after meeting them", but that sidesteps the tense issue. If we need a finite verb form for purposes of choosing its tense, I'd suggest "In general, girls don't date guys a few hours after they've met them.")
ruakh
Jul 22 03:39
I agree that "ago" requires the simple past tense, but "ago" doesn't actually work in this sentence. "A few hours ago" means "a few hours before right now when I'm speaking"; it's not a general way to say "a few hours before X". (In linguistic terms, it's deictic.) If we set aside the "ago", a clause of this form normally uses the present perfect, e.g. "guys they've just met", except in forms of English where the present perfect is regularly replaced with the past tense.
 

 Discussion on answer by T.E.D.: What …

Imported from a comment discussion on history.stackexchange.co...
ruakh
May 21, 2024 14:54
@Zeus: Whoa! When I posted my comment, the links in the answer had both. (Also on a desktop.) I wonder if Stack Exchange has some logic to eventually remove nofollow in answers that are highly upvoted and/or stay on the site more than some amount of time? Either way -- thanks for letting me know!
ruakh
May 21, 2024 14:54
I don't think you need to worry about that: the StackExchange software automatically adds rel="nofollow noreferrer" to such links, and Google interprets the nofollow as telling it that the current page is not endorsing the linked page at all. [link] I assume other search engines do likewise. But if you're still concerned, I think it would be fine to post the URL in backticks, so that anyone can copy-and-paste it, rather than creating an actual link.
 

 Discussion on question by Nahid Hossa…

Imported from a comment discussion on academia.stackexchange.c...
ruakh
Dec 9, 2023 04:28
vsz didn't express his/her comment very well, but (s)he's quite right that the use of singular they with a definitely known antecedent (such as a person's name) is quite new. "Someone left their coat" has been around for centuries; "Dr. Brown left their coat" has not, and many people are not yet used to it.
 

 Discussion on question by benjamin: T…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
ruakh
Nov 10, 2023 00:21
@KateGregory: I've also heard "lottery factor".
 

 Discussion on question by Amianas: Ev…

Imported from a comment discussion on worldbuilding.stackexcha...
ruakh
Aug 16, 2023 17:09
@fredsbend: You're right about what they typically do, but there are certainly exceptions, such as VHEMT, and science fiction has successfully considered such things, as in Asimov's "The Last Shuttle". Since the OP's premise doesn't include any information about who's doing this, there is a whole universe of possibilities.
ruakh
Aug 16, 2023 17:09
Your question provides a lot of details about how this works, and some of the existing answers rely on your protagonist knowing those details; but your telepathic message doesn't provide those details. Can you clarify your expectations on this point?
 

 Discussion on answer by Dale M: Admit…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
ruakh
Feb 24, 2023 20:36
Per your quotations, the situation in England and Wales seems to be quite different from the situation in the United States! (Specifically, the "it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court" bit wouldn't fly in the U.S.)
 

 Discussion on answer by Don Hosek: Wh…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
ruakh
Sep 20, 2022 01:10
@mbomb007: Re: "There are ultrasound providers that give free ultrasounds to women considering abortions": Those providers are against abortion. If a law were passed that required women to get an ultrasound before getting an abortion, such that free ultrasounds would suddenly be helping women to get abortions, then those providers would stop giving them! (Unless they found some way to give free ultrasounds without satisfying the legal requirement. But either way, those providers aren't evidence for what you suggest.)
 

 Discussion on answer by Weather Vane:…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
ruakh
Aug 16, 2022 20:46
@Rick: I'm sure that there are defenses in New York law that the court may need to consider, but the defenses in the law of England and Wales aren't directly relevant here. :-)
 

 Discussion on question by crlb: Prosp…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
ruakh
Mar 11, 2022 13:19
@TonyK: Nonsense. Unless negotiating salaries and identifying management flimflam are actually part of the job, someone who's "stupid" about those things deserves no less pay than someone who's "smart" about them.
 

 Discussion on answer by Grade 'Eh' Ba…

Imported from a comment discussion on money.stackexchange.com/...
ruakh
Dec 1, 2021 12:51
@user4574: That seems solvable by allowing asset-holders to use a later date for valuation of an asset that was held continuously from before end-of-year. More generally . . . if a wealth tax were actually going to be instituted, there are smart people who will be working on all issues like this and making sure that wealthy people weren't arbitrarily screwed over.
 

 Discussion on question by JonathanRee…

Imported from a comment discussion on space.stackexchange.com/...
ruakh
Jul 29, 2021 14:06
@CarlWitthoft: The people upvoting this question most likely just find it interesting or thought-provoking. I see literally no reason to assume that they support massacring innocent people.
 

 Discussion on answer by JJJ: Why are …

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
ruakh
Jul 17, 2021 19:31
The Mayo Clinic quotation in this answer seems to have a wording problem in the second paragraph: it says conflicting things about the threshold population. The overall meaning is clear enough (though I still don't know the correct definitions of the terms it tries to define), but some [sic]-s or whatnot are probably warranted.
 

 Discussion on answer by Tetsujin: I w…

Imported from a comment discussion on cooking.stackexchange.co...
ruakh
May 25, 2021 21:09
@Nelson: I believe that Mark is correct, because microwave ovens don't convert 100% of their power draw into microwave radiation. The specs sticker on my microwave, for example, says that its "input" is 1800W and its "output" is 1000W. So my microwave would be described as a "1000W microwave", but on a 120V circuit it presumably draws 15A. (Disclaimer: I have not tested this.)
 

 Discussion on answer by jakebeal: How…

Imported from a comment discussion on biology.stackexchange.co...
ruakh
Apr 1, 2021 21:36
@uhoh: You may not see a convincing argument, but your initial comments implied that you literally didn't see any argument. (For example, you wrote: "Your answer is based on the idea that if two (or more) biologies exist, one will have some advantage over the other"; but in fact, the answer explicitly covers the possibility that that's not the case.) Now that you know better, there's no shame in deleting those comments and posting a new one with your current question.
ruakh
Apr 1, 2021 21:36
@uhoh: If you don't believe in that example, feel free to ignore that sentence. It's just an example; the argument doesn't depend on it.
ruakh
Apr 1, 2021 21:36
@uhoh: This answer directly addresses that: it raises the question in the second half of the second paragraph (giving that exact example!), and dedicates the third paragraph to answering it.
 

 Discussion on answer by Dan Romik: Te…

Imported from a comment discussion on academia.stackexchange.c...
ruakh
Mar 15, 2021 15:31
@Barmar: Ah, but would a less-experienced dev have an easier time imagining the thinking that led to that mistake? If so, then yes, it's the curse of knowledge; if not, it's just the curse of a non-telepathic species where everyone starts out confused in different ways, and takes different paths to understanding.
 

 Discussion on question by fredsbend: …

Imported from a comment discussion on skeptics.stackexchange.c...
ruakh
Feb 1, 2021 20:39
@iono: So, I think you've now recognized that, when you actually know something about someone, the fact that they refer to black people as "Blacks" does not necessarily mean that they're racist. Now, armed with that information, please re-read your comments and my replies. At that point -- if you're honest with yourself -- you'll realize that I've given you no reason to think I'm a racist, but rather, that you've made a bunch of unfounded assumptions about me.
ruakh
Jan 31, 2021 19:00
@iono: For example, will you call this man a racist? : twitter.com/egaly/status/1336450648334868482 . He's a Black neuroscientist focusing on equity in clinical research. Are you going to police his language, too?
ruakh
Jan 31, 2021 18:26
@iono: That's circular reasoning: your reason for thinking I'm a racist is that I don't think "blacks" has racist connotations, and you conclude that of course I don't think "blacks" has racist connotations because I'm a racist. Has it occurred to you that maybe you're simply mistaken about this, and that language and racism are both more complicated than you realize?
ruakh
Jan 28, 2021 19:16
@iono: Nonsense. I live in the U.S., and have lived here almost my whole life; and the term "blacks" does not have racist connotations in the places I've lived. (But, thank you for finally making an actual claim, however wrongheaded, instead of just making demands and pretending that everyone must already know what you mean.)
ruakh
Jan 28, 2021 04:22
@iono: My educated guess is that you've decided the term "blacks" sounds pejorative, probably because you've absorbed racist associations from the society you live in; and instead of interrogating your own racism to understand why that term has negative associations for you, you've decided to just plow ahead with demanding that other people avoid it. (And maybe you've even managed to convince yourself that they're the racist ones for using this term that you've decided is pejorative.) Am I close?
ruakh
Jan 28, 2021 04:22
@iono: Whhhhhhhy not?
 

 Discussion on answer by Erik Hart: Wh…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
ruakh
Jan 14, 2021 08:14
@jamesqf: The answer itself doesn't mention early voting, but the first comment on it is entirely about early voting, and all subsequent comments (including yours) have been replies to either it or each other.
ruakh
Jan 14, 2021 08:14
@jamesqf: Re: "I don't think we're talking about in-person early voting vs mail-in": That is literally what this entire comment-thread has been about. Maybe you're confusing it with a different thread on this page?
ruakh
Jan 14, 2021 08:14
@BenVoigt: Even accepting your overall premise . . . you're comparing your early-voting experience to your grocery-shopping experience, whereas the risk assessment for an at-risk person would instead compare the worst likely early-voting experience (it's not like they want to show up and see how it looks before deciding whether to vote by mail instead) to their grocery-shopping experience (many elderly people are doing contactless curbside pickup or even delivery; but even for those doing in-person shopping, there may be special at-risk hours, etc.).
 

 Discussion on answer by jakebeal: Are…

Imported from a comment discussion on academia.stackexchange.c...
ruakh
Oct 2, 2020 16:16
@jakebeal: Re: your last comment: I understood your first paragraph the same way that Davor did. As currently worded, the rhetorical question seems to be implying that we can't know. If you instead meant to suggest that the next paragraph would tell us how we know, I'd recommend changing "How could you even know if [...]?" to something like "How can we tell when [...]?"
 

 Discussion on answer by Chromatix: Wh…

Imported from a comment discussion on retrocomputing.stackexch...
ruakh
Sep 14, 2020 15:27
@supercat: I think that quote shows the opposite of what you're using it to argue. It's using "assembler", in scare quotes, to express the idea of "machine-specific": not that C would be a "portable assembler", but that C would be an "optionally-portable high-level language".
 

 Discussion on answer by Meg: How can …

Imported from a comment discussion on interpersonal.stackexcha...
ruakh
Aug 15, 2020 21:53
@OwenReynolds: This answer leads with that point; it's a major aspect of the first paragraph, and is the entirety of the second paragraph. So it doesn't "bury" it at all IMHO.
 

 Discussion on question by Tom Bowers:…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
ruakh
Jul 24, 2020 22:37
Relatedly, accidentally killing someone is considered a more serious crime than accidentally doing something harmless, even though the intent is the same in both cases.
 

 Discussion on answer by Daniel R Hick…

Imported from a comment discussion on skeptics.stackexchange.c...
ruakh
Jul 15, 2020 21:38
Re: "the oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations within N95 masks fell below workplace standards set by [OSHA]": This is a very confusing sentence IMHO; I guess the carbon dioxide concentration "fell below standards" in that the concentration was higher than the standards allow!
 

 Discussion on question by Jeremy X: A…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
ruakh
Jul 3, 2020 07:27
@JeremyX Well, clearly people are talking about it (so it's almost an open secret), and you've posted this. If it came to it, are you sure everyone would happily commit perjury over this?
ruakh
Jul 2, 2020 18:03
It doesn't matter that they could have legally done the same thing if only their motivation had been legal. (It's like how discrimination law doesn't say "you're allowed to discriminate as long as you loudly claim that you're not discriminating while quietly informing colleagues that you actually are".)
ruakh
Jul 2, 2020 18:03
@JeremyX : In the question, you wrote: "X was proposed to 3 other team leaders, all refused to add X: all have put forward technical/technological reasons, but the real motivation is this story." Their real motivation makes this illegal (with the caveats that I'm still not a lawyer and you still haven't named a jurisdiction).
ruakh
Jul 1, 2020 17:45
@Lilienthal: Re: "why not talk to X and get their story?": Sorry, but I think that's a bad idea. "Employees who complain about discrimination or harassment are protected from retaliation. An employer may not punish employees for asserting their rights." IANAL, and the OP hasn't named a jurisdiction, but it seems likely that the "3 other team leaders" have broken the law, and that the OP is contemplating doing the same. Telegraphing that to X can only aggravate the situation.
 

 Discussion on answer by Paul Draper: …

Imported from a comment discussion on skeptics.stackexchange.c...
ruakh
Jun 29, 2020 09:40
@jeffronicus: Indeed, one could argue that the too-brief lockdowns actually reduced some of those costs, by tricking people into trusting the reopenings. ("The governor says foo is safe now!")
 

 Discussion on answer by DJClayworth: …

Imported from a comment discussion on skeptics.stackexchange.c...
ruakh
Jun 11, 2020 05:12
@DJClayworth: LOL! I see that either I've pissed you off, or you're trying to piss me off -- either way, this conversation will no longer be productive. If I pissed you off, I apologize; that sincerely wasn't my intention. Take care. :-)
ruakh
Jun 11, 2020 05:12
@DJClayworth: If PNAS published a complex mathematical forecast of the economy that predicted event E at future time T, I'd hope that Skeptics.SE would not blithely say "E will happen at time T", but would instead mention basic caveats, e.g. that the model is a maximum likelihood estimate, that it makes various assumptions, and/or that people's reactions to the paper itself can affect the outcome. (The paper itself will surely point some of these things out, as will press interviews about it, so this doesn't require original research.)
ruakh
Jun 11, 2020 05:12
@DJClayworth: I'm not asking you to offer a meaningful criticism of it. But some sanity-check is warranted beyond "This study was published in a journal that's above discussion or debate." (I mean, to be clear, this answer isn't bad: it's good that you checked that the study really does make this claim, and it's good that you pointed out that this is a high-quality journal. But it's a bit high-handed to not check if other scientists seem to accept the results, and not mention how the results were obtained, and not -- well, anything else. Show a little skepticism, man!)
ruakh
Jun 11, 2020 05:12
@Will: Skeptics usually consider multiple pieces of evidence, rather than deeming one piece of evidence to be "the best available" and refusing to even check if there's any other evidence to strengthen or weaken the case. (It's fine if the result of that check is "no one else seems to have examined this", or better yet, "studies by other authors in this area have cited this result without comment, so it seems to be accepted by experts in the field". But the very question is about whether this paper's result is correct, so simply citing the paper without any skepticism? Madness.)
ruakh
Jun 11, 2020 05:12
@DJClayworth: If you're not qualified to read the paper and briefly describe its methodology, then you shouldn't have posted this answer. shrug
ruakh
Jun 11, 2020 05:12
@Will: I'm not saying "Skeptics.SE should find the real answer! We can do better than published research!". I'm just saying "Skeptics.SE should present more information than just 'yes, one paper in a high-quality journal said that, so it must be true'". Your suggestion -- scrutinizing the study's methodology -- is also a valuable approach; if you'd like to post an answer that does that, that'd be great. :-)
ruakh
Jun 11, 2020 05:12
Even papers in high-caliber journals often turn out to have gotten things wrong. (This should be no surprise: journals, almost by definition, publish cutting-edge science. The magic of science is that errors get corrected over time; cutting-edge science hasn't had much chance yet to benefit from that magic.) It would be good to check if other papers have addressed this question, and if so, whether they reached similar results.
 

 Discussion on answer by Lorendiac: Bo…

Imported from a comment discussion on scifi.stackexchange.com/...
ruakh
May 28, 2020 05:13
@Anomaly: That's a great story, but to be clear, I don't think she "ran into legal trouble". Rather, she gave the Department of Transportation some legal trouble. ;-)
 

 Discussion on answer by Lag: Can a pe…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
ruakh
Apr 22, 2020 01:16
@akostadinov: See irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/…. The U.S. federal government, at least, does consider Bitcoin to be actual property (at least for purposes of taxing it). Your claim that "There are some numerical values in a public database that is not formally ruled by anything" requires some support.