Page 110 of 110 FirstFirst ... 1060100108109110
Results 3,271 to 3,282 of 3282

Thread: Read that again?

  1. #3271
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Depew, NY
    Posts
    12,191
    Quote Originally Posted by schlaugh View Post
    I recently bought something from Costco and received the now-standard "please review your product for our web site" plea.

    It's a fire extinguisher.

    So...no, I don't think I'll be trying the product any time soon. Or hope not anyway.
    Over at the auto parts store, I bought two jack stands. They asked me if I wanted the extended warranty, which covers any kind of breakage.

    I asked, "Do you think they'll break? Because I don't want to be under there if they do..."
    Solfe

  2. #3272
    Quote Originally Posted by Solfe View Post
    Over at the auto parts store, I bought two jack stands. They asked me if I wanted the extended warranty, which covers any kind of breakage.

    I asked, "Do you think they'll break? Because I don't want to be under there if they do..."
    While working at the call center I got a call from a woman who said that he will be late because a car fall on his hand. He was changing a tire and it fall.
    From the wilderness into the cosmos.
    You can not be afraid of the wind, Enterprise: Broken Bow.
    https://davidsuniverse.wordpress.com/

  3. #3273
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    14,408
    I know this is a bit of a nitpick, but I saw some articles this morning about the possibility that medication for high blood pressure might prevent severe cases of COVID-19. But I was surprised by one of the lines in the press release, which was picked up by some of the news outlets.

    Researchers studied 28,000 patients taking antihypertensives - a class of drugs that are used to treat hypertension (high blood pressure).
    To me, that makes it sound either like antihypertensives are one type of drug used to treat hypertension, or that antihypertensives are a single class of drugs. In fact, the study (a metaanalysis) found that two (related) classes of antihypertensives, i.e. ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers, are associated with a lowered risk of severe disease.
    As above, so below

  4. #3274
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    No longer near Grover's Mill
    Posts
    5,314
    Headline in today’s paper, “Home of Rosa Parks on display in Italy”. Wait, what?

    *Reads article* Yup, her house has been on display in Germany and now Italy.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I may have many faults, but being wrong ain't one of them. - Jimmy Hoffa

  5. #3275
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    14,408
    This is pretty bad, and I expect they will correct it soon. But I saw this headline from this article on my Yahoo news feed...

    Nick Cordero's widower Amanda Kloots says America 'should have been prepared better' for COVID-19
    I know that gender is becoming more fluid, but that's a bit much...
    As above, so below

  6. #3276
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    14,408
    I'm a bit flabbergasted at this. It's not what a journalist wrote, but rather what they corrected. In this article about convalescent plasma therapy:

    https://www.salon.com/2020/08/25/tru...al-convention/

    There is a sentence that reads:

    "What I should have said better is that the data show [sic] a relative risk reduction not an absolute risk reduction."
    What in the world is that "sic" in there for? I realize that a lot of people use data as a singular, and I don't think it's necessary to correct, but to take the plural as incorrect is going a bit far...
    As above, so below

  7. #3277
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,215
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    What in the world is that "sic" in there for? I realize that a lot of people use data as a singular, and I don't think it's necessary to correct, but to take the plural as incorrect is going a bit far...
    Of course I had to research this a bit. From this site:

    http://www.grantcentral.com/data-sho...ch-is-correct/

    is an argument that data can’t show anything, but a person can use data to show something. Going by that argument, “data show” or “data shows” would both be wrong. On the other hand, it is a type of shorthand in common usage. The post also goes into the plural vs singular issue. Personally, I would typically say the “data shows” and that is what I suspect the article writer was thinking, but I agree it isn’t something I would comment on. I very rarely use “sic” when I’m quoting someone. I usually reserve that for something particularly egregious. After all, I rarely manage perfect grammar myself, even if I am making a real effort. I’ve forgotten most of the rules I ever learned, at least at the conscious level. I typically check my grammar and spelling using the pattern recognition method: I only make changes if something looks wrong. Of course, speaking is worse, since one doesn’t have a chance to go back and proofread.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  8. #3278
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,215
    On another topic, I don’t subscribe to Discover magazine, but I saw an online link to this article:

    https://www.discovermagazine.com/tec...will-look-like

    which discusses how amazing the future “quantum internet” should be. Among other things, it is claimed early in the article that:

    Capable of sending enormous amounts of data over vast distances, it would work not just faster than the current internet but faster than the speed of light — instantaneously, in fact, like the teleportation of Mr. Spock and Captain Kirk in Star Trek.
    What? Sadly, I found no discussion in the article about what research has demonstrated relatively theory to be wrong. It’s sad this got past the magazine editors, but it is a good argument not to get a subscription. I expect they will be getting a lot of emails on this one.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  9. #3279
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    14,408
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    Of course I had to research this a bit. From this site:

    http://www.grantcentral.com/data-sho...ch-is-correct/

    is an argument that data can’t show anything, but a person can use data to show something. Going by that argument, “data show” or “data shows” would both be wrong. On the other hand, it is a type of shorthand in common usage. The post also goes into the plural vs singular issue. Personally, I would typically say the “data shows” and that is what I suspect the article writer was thinking, but I agree it isn’t something I would comment on. I very rarely use “sic” when I’m quoting someone. I usually reserve that for something particularly egregious. After all, I rarely manage perfect grammar myself, even if I am making a real effort. I’ve forgotten most of the rules I ever learned, at least at the conscious level. I typically check my grammar and spelling using the pattern recognition method: I only make changes if something looks wrong. Of course, speaking is worse, since one doesn’t have a chance to go back and proofread.
    I hadn't thought about the possibility they were using "sic" to point out the issue about data "showing," and kind of doubt that it was. It us true that data can't show anything, but like you say, I think it's very typical non-precise language, like when we say that a book "tells the story of" when a book can't really tell anything. Or that "the paper argues that," when a paper is completely incapable of arguing and it should be "the author of the paper argues..." Also, just to add, like you, I think that I would typically say "the data shows" but would certainly not correct "the data show."
    As above, so below

  10. #3280
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Great NorthWet
    Posts
    15,939
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    On another topic, I don’t subscribe to Discover magazine, but I saw an online link to this article:

    https://www.discovermagazine.com/tec...will-look-like

    which discusses how amazing the future “quantum internet” should be. Among other things, it is claimed early in the article that:



    What? Sadly, I found no discussion in the article about what research has demonstrated relatively theory to be wrong. It’s sad this got past the magazine editors, but it is a good argument not to get a subscription. I expect they will be getting a lot of emails on this one.
    Quantum entanglement?
    Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.

  11. #3281
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,215
    Quote Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
    If you’re asking if quantum entanglement allows FTL communication that we could use, no, not by any experiment ever done, and not per theory. If someone actually managed it, it would be massive news, since it would overturn much of physics as we understand it. Also, there is no such thing as “instantaneous” in relativity. As the old line goes: FTL communication, relativity, causality - pick any two. If FTL communication existed, either relativity would have to be wrong, or effect could precede cause. The author’s claim is a common misunderstanding, but something they should have checked, and failing that, something the editor should have caught.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  12. #3282
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    19,626
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    What in the world is that "sic" in there for? I realize that a lot of people use data as a singular, and I don't think it's necessary to correct, but to take the plural as incorrect is going a bit far...
    I have to say I'm not surprised. The singular use of data is now so common that a lot of younger people hardly ever encountered the plural usage, and imagine it to be an error when they do. I know this because for twenty years I used to give a regular tutorial on data presentation, and I routinely treat data as a plural. It was increasingly common to see puzzled frowns, exchanged glances and head shaking going on when I said things like, "These data are ..." And I'd stop and ask people what was bothering them, and it was always because of the plural usage of data. When I pointed out the Latin origin, and the pairing of datum with data, the responses used to vary from incredulity to stunned enlightenment. It did wonders for my reputation as an eccentric font of obscure information, but it got a little tedious.
    So I'd bet the person who marked the usage with [sic] was just flagging what they thought was a typo in the original text, rather than pursuing a more sinister agenda. Sorry, agendum.

    Grant Hutchison

Similar Threads

  1. Im sorry! But please read!
    By Ticket To Heaven in forum Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 2009-Feb-10, 08:18 AM
  2. What to read first?
    By mgladstonez in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 2007-Jan-26, 12:47 AM
  3. How does this read?
    By Glom in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2006-Mar-01, 03:01 AM
  4. Read this
    By skywatcher in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 2003-Jun-14, 03:10 AM
  5. Must Read!!!
    By Deep_Eye in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 1970-Jan-01, 12:00 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •