"The reason 'Maverick' is unrealistic is that nobody has a cool callsign like that. 'Maverick', 'Iceman'? You don't get callsigns like that. Every callsign is going to be unique or weird about you, or something you did that is embarrassing or borderline humiliating. If you went into someplace and said 'I want my callsign to be Maverick', you would be hazed to the point of death."
Source: Jag officer talks about laws broken in "Top Gun". (A lot of them...)
A "natural horn" is a brass instrument that relies almost exclusively on control of harmonics to change pitch, but were substantially replaced when instrument valves enabled greater pitch control.
Few know that there also exist sharp and flat horns, which are created through the judicious application of a whetstone and steam roller, respectively.
I had a problem with that 'that that' post, until I had had a revelation that 'that' had had multiple grammatical functions within that 'that' sentence.
Now, I do understand that that "that that" that post complained about was upsetting to people.
But personally, I think that that "that that 'that that' that" that that "that that" post inspired was woefully insufficient.
Rather, I think that that "that that 'that that' that" that that poster posted should have been "that that 'that that' that that" instead.
My planetary scientist friends are as interested in Titan as they are in Pluto as they are in Mars (some are obviously easier to get to). For some reason, "planet" ended up as a value-laden term.
Mind you, I do call Pluto a planet to tweak my astro friends, but it is kayfabe. I generally think "Pluto is a dwarf planet" is more terminologically useful than "Ceres is a planet".
There is place to argue over semantics and terminology. The issue is that these things inexplicably end up as reified statements of "quality".
The IUCN criterion used to exclude Pluto and the other dwarf planets–that they don't clear their orbits–is very useful if you're studying how stellar systems form and evolve. From that perspective, the eight major planets really are in a different class from any other bodies in the solar system, and probably deserve their own name. But if you're doing "planetary" science–i.e. studying the bodies themselves–then it's completely irrelevant. As far as anyone knows, the size you have to be to clear your orbit doesn't form any kind of natural boundary where the dynamics of geology or atmospheric chemistry abruptly change. For that matter, one of the other IUCN criteria, that you have to be orbiting the sun directly, is also not that relevant.
This is the crux of why terminological conventions shouldn't be treated the same as other kinds of scientific knowledge. Even if you can make the claim that the convention is in some sense objective, it will still be contextual. Statements about utility always are. Statements of scientific fact, on the other hand, should at least be true (if not relevant) in any context, regardless of by what means or within what discipline they were discovered.
Fascinating analysis, (I wish I didn't have to look up quite so many of the furigana, although that is on me...). I definitely use it both like an adjective and verb without thinking about it.
違う is the only い-adjective in Japanese that doesn’t end in い
As America contemplates entering another Cold War, it's important to remember the lessons of the last one: supporting brutal, unpopular tyrants (as long as they're our brutal, unpopular tyrants) will always work out with no downsides whatsoever.
Fascinating video about how modern digital camera technology is much worse at handling rocket launch footage than old school film, because an oversaturated region in film will affect mainly that spot on film, where as an oversaturated digital pixel can cause the entire image to white out.
youtube
I bet the person who took this picture of Apollo 11 had a hard-on about it for weeks.
Related to the story, but, in my family we have kind of a neurosis about having pictures straight. So, my dad is visiting my sister's house, and has this dialogue:
Dad: This picture is crooked.
Sister: Yup.
Dad: *adjusts picture to make it level*
Dad: That's weird. The walls are actually off-square and now it looks somehow worse.
Sister: Yup.
they used to make smackable technology. you used to be able to hit your tv when it didn't work good.
God I hate the trope of "I know you're big and famous now, but if you really love me, you'll not go do this thing you planned for months. This is your last chance."
I do not understand how we ended up with the alto and tenor clefs. They could have just transposed an octave and everyone could have read it fine. But no, a bunch of instruments have to learn two additional, slightly different, clefs that are off from treble clef by a single half-line (plus an octave).
On the flip side, apparently 50 years ago the French musical tradition made its musicians learn 7 different clefs (bass, tenor, alto, treble, and then 3 different soprano clefs). Which seems super irritating. And then my baroque music teacher could take a piece of music, mentally switch the clef marking (and maybe pretend the key was an all-sharp or all-flat version of itself) and he could sight-transpose to any key.
We had a concert where the ensemble played a Bach organ concerto. The ensemble was playing at baroque pitch (a half-step down from A440 concert pitch), but the organ itself was at concert pitch. So the professor just played a half-step down. And naturally was, by far, the best and most accurate performer.