Also, by your coöperative pronunciation example, people would be mispronouncing reëlect.
I’m not sure what you mean.
It’s pronounced co-operative and re-elect. Coöp needs it to not sound lime “coop” as in chicken coop. Reëlect needs it to not sound like “reel” as in fishing reel.
It’s vowels only, and that’s funny. I hadn’t thought about it for my hypothetical “lineofsite” word.
I like to use them when words create a unit of thought. Like line-of-sight, and such. It really helps readability. It prevents people from having to think too hard about certain sentences when it’s ambiguous which words belong to what part of the sentence. Especially when the expression contains function words like “of”.
However, I’m a fan of just making multiple words into compound words, like bumblebee. That doesn’t work well with something like lineofsight, though.
As a side note, I wish we would being back the diaeresis in favor of hyphens in words like co-op. It used to be coöp, and that so much more fun. Or words like reëlect. Even when it’s not abbreviated, the diaeresis makes it more obvious to readers how coöperative is pronounced. Or any other time where two vowels in a row are pronounced separately.
The power required to do it is impressive to say the least.
That’s not how the attack worked. He didn’t drown out the tower. He simply overrode the the studio-to-transmitter link signal. The studios used microwave line-of-sight transmitters to communicate a signal from the studio to the tower. All the attacker had to do was override that signal. That signal was 50W max. You could override it with maybe 200W as long as you were also in line-of-sight of the microwave receiver. Probably less since some microwave trasmitters were as weak as 1W. They don’t need to be strong since they are line-of-sight directional transmitters. So, that’s not particularly impressive.
“Ice rain” is ambiguous and I’ve never heard it before yesterday. It sounds more like it would mean sleet.
I’ve never heard it called “ice rain” before. Only “freezing rain”. Are you and OP making this up?
Those are some queer exclamation marks.
Testing automation:
https://github.com/LinkSheet/nightly
Well, that’s not very useful. The “open” automation option just opens the URL in the top item in the dropdown, which for chase.com turns out to be the ticket master app…? That’s just one example, but the behavior is just not predictable. There doesn’t seem to be a way to use a particular browser to open the specified URL.
People should use the nightly builds since the stable builds are like two years old. They can be installed with Obtanium.
Oh, interesting. I have that installed, but didn’t realize it could be your default browser. 😅 I had been sharing links to it manually like you have to do with Léon the URL Cleaner. Using it as your default browser is really cool.
Turns out, you can also add automations to URLCheck. Maybe it can be programmed to open OP’s bank links in a certain browser with zero interaction, and then open every other link in their normal browser, again, with zero interaction. EDIT: This doesn’t seem possible. See my comment reply.
Alternatively, someone in this thread recommended LinkSheet, which seems nice since it is similar to the standard “choose and app” UI in Android, and lets you choose a specific browser. Some people might prefer the familiar UI, although it seems to require a double tap to choose a browser, not a single tap.
Here’s Linksheet’s UI:
This next screenshot is URLCheck, for those who haven’t used it, with my own modifications by turning certain modules off and changing others. For one, you can make the Cleaner module auto-apply instead of having to tap it manually. This is great for removing YouTube tracking tokens and such. Now that I figured out you can set it to auto-apply, I’m going to probably stop using Léon and just use URLCheck.
It’s nice that it supports opening links in apps that are set to handle such links instead of only showing general web browsers. I’m gonna start using URLCheck more, and try it as my default browser for a while, and maybe set up some automations. I learned a lot while writing this comment!
My musket says otherwise!
Brits who say “Microsoft are doing a thing” are poking knitting needles into my ears every time!
It’s not plural. Microsoft is a company. A. One!
It doesn’t matter that it’s a company of individuals. Next your going to tell me my person is plural because I’m made from many cells. “CrayonRosary are mistaken about language!” No!
Bonus: Math is singular, too, because mathematics is singular. It’s not the plural of mathematic!
We overthrew your rule specifically because of this one language issue!
But there is a smallest unit, which is called a bit. Data can be broken down into smaller, countable units.
That’s not a particularly compelling argument. There’s a smallest unit of sand, too, but we still use a mass noun for it.
Besides, dictionary researchers agree it’s both a mass noun and a plural noun. People use it both ways. Here’s what Merriam Webster says about it. (I’m going to rework it to reduce the wordiness because it was so dense!)
Data leads a life of its own quite independent of datum, of which it was originally the plural. It occurs in two constructions:
- as a plural noun (like earnings)
- taking a plural verb and plural modifiers (such as these, many, a few), but not cardinal numbers
- serving as a referent for plural pronouns (such as they, them)
- as an abstract mass noun (like information)
- taking a singular verb and singular modifiers (such as this, much, little)
- being referred to by a singular pronoun (it).
Both constructions are standard. The plural construction is more common in print, evidently because the house style of several publishers mandates it.
So OP’s post is only half right, if even that much. In common speech, data is a mass noun, but many scientists and publishers still treat it as a plural noun. I would even venture most do.
Working as a programmer, most people I’ve interacted with use it as a mass noun, but not all. Language evolves, and the mass noun version is just as acceptable in most circles, but it certainly isn’t worthy of a “you should know” or “today I learned it’s actually a mass noun.”
What’s a tree?
It’s not about being normal. This data is for scientists. The denomination was a deliberate choice given the various sizes of the data. It might be as low as single digits in some cases.
We use decimals all the time. We’re not dumb. But when making direct comparisons of values, it’s a simple fact that comparing 5 to 20 is easier than comparing 0.05 to 0.2. This is a scientific fact. It’s easier for your brain to parse. You can’t deny that. Go ask a psychologist. In addition, the data is cleaner. It’s easier to print “5” than “0.05”, and then you mention the denominator under the graph or table of data.
Every engineer and scientist in the US uses metric, and it doesn’t matter what the average person uses. Proper home cooks find bread recipes with metric weights for ingredients, for example. Woodworkers use feet and inches. People who use the Imperial system are just people using what they know. It’s entirely moot to this conversation. I don’t know why you keep bringing up fractions and the Imperial system as if that adds any weight to your argument about the actual topic at hand. The topic being scientists using a deliberate unit of measure to make it easy to print values and compare them at a glance.
I wear size 15 XX-Wide (6E) shoes and buy them online. It’s not really a problem for me. There are plenty to choose from, and sites let you filter by size.
Good catch. I fixed it.