Random Thoughts 7

[Mayhem]

Got an A on my final exam. Now it's just projects and thesis work for the next year and half. Still want to pursue a Ph.d but my grade average isnt that great.

 

[WWGD]

Wow, a new AI that scans your assignment and prints out an answer. Also charges $47 for lifetime use. Lucky I'm not teaching/grading at this point.

 

[WWGD]

Got an A on my final exam. Now it's just projects and thesis work for the next year and half. Still want to pursue a Ph.d but my grade average isnt that great.

Undergrad thesis?

 

[Mayhem]

Undergrad thesis?

In principle master's. System here is bachelors -> master's -> Ph.d

i.e. a masters is required by law to come into consideration for a Ph.d position.

 

[WWGD]

Would Godel have been a member of SAA; Society Against Abbreviations?

 

[fresh_42]

Would Godel have been a member of SAA; Society Against Abbreviations?

Probably not.

 

[fresh_42]

Can you write this: ... are cum grano salis all from the last century. in English? Or should I say more or less?

 

[Tom.G]

Welll... I suppose you could. Doesn't seem to make much sense as presented, Google translates 'cum grano salis' as 'with a grain of salt', which is a perfectly useful phrase here in the States.

The phrase implies that (what was just presented/ is about to be presented) is of questionable veracity; rather in the same way as salt being used to cover the taste of slightly spoiled food, often meat.

Cheers,
Tom

 

[fresh_42]

Doesn't seem to make much sense as presented

The entire sentence is

The main contributions from Steinitz, Galois, Artin, Noether, Zariski, Hilbert, van der Waerden, Grothendiek, and not forget Andrew Wiles, are cum grano salis all from the last century.

I intend to say "all but a one", 99%, or "mainly". But "mainly" and "more or less" don't express "all but one". We use the Latin version since "mit einem Korn Salz" doesn't sound well in German. However, we don't have a problem with the Latin word for "with" because we pronounce it as it should be as [u̟], a short form of "oo" and not [ɑ].

 

[jack action]

Lately, I've seen a lot of nasty debates between electric and gas-powered cars. Apparently, one offers more for less money and the other can actually take you where you want in a timely fashion. People driving the other type just love wasting money or just don't expect to go where they want, when they want.

How come we never heard such strong emotive debates about electric vs gas-powered mowers?

If you are satisfied with what you have, how does it matter what others have chosen? Why try to laugh at them or humiliate them?

 

[fresh_42]

If you are satisfied with what you have, how does it matter what others have chosen? Why try to laugh at them or humiliate them?

I bet most if not all of them have forgotten ...

Gustave Trouvé, 1881, electric car.

And I have still no idea why that one ...

didn't become a trend!

 

[Ibix]

If you are satisfied with what you have, how does it matter what others have chosen? Why try to laugh at them or humiliate them?

We live in uncertain times. People seek certainty. So people who are worried about Russia or China or climate change or the other political party or whatever clutch at trivial decisions as Absolutely Objectively Right. Only a fool would disagree with my choice of car, even if their circumstances were completely different.

That's my theory, anyway. And if you disagree that's obviously a moral failing on your part.

 

[fresh_42]

This is why I like Scottish football fans!

 

[OmCheeto]

Lately,...

Lately?
Ah! Hahahahaha!

You should start a thread on this topic. I'm sure it would get thousands of posts and last for years.

I can think of several reasons off the top of my head.
1. They were raised that way.
2. This is normal in their society.*
3. They are very old. ie, that's the way people treated each other in the olden days.
4. They have insecurity issues.
5. etc, etc, etc.

*The other day, one of the late night talk shows commented about the jury members of a recent New York City felony trial and said something to the effect that if they don't use the f-bomb as a noun, verb, and adjective against you in a single sentence, then they probably like you.

Example;
"You stupid [bleep]ing [bleep]head, how the [bleep] could anyone [bleep] something up as [bleep]ing much as you, you tiny brained, [bleep]-faced moron."
{Spoken with the voice of Joe Pesci}

 

[Tom.G]

The entire sentence is

The main contributions from Steinitz, Galois, Artin, Noether, Zariski, Hilbert, van der Waerden, Grothendiek, and not forget Andrew Wiles, are cum grano salis all from the last century.

It looks like you want to say that their contributions were based on the knowledge available in their time.

Or maybe that they made some small contributions, and therefore are not very important.

Or maybe that considering the state of scientific knowledge they had to work with, they were true giants in history.

As you can tell, based on the information you have posted so far, I can not really tell what you are trying to express.

Cheers,
Tom

 

[fresh_42]

The main contributions = subject
are from the last century = predicate
all = object

Note: all but one, namely Hilbert's Nullstellensatz von1893, the rest was > 1900

"cum grano salis" means for me

Der Ausdruck wird im Deutschen heute meist verwendet, um eine Aussage einzuschränken und darauf aufmerksam zu machen, dass das Gesagte möglicherweise nicht in jeder Hinsicht wörtlich zu nehmen ist.

The expression is mostly used in German today to limit a statement and to point out that what is said may not be taken literally in every respect. [Hilbert was outside last century, but only him and only by 8 years.]

My question is whether I can use it the same way in English.

 

[Ibix]

My question is whether I can use it the same way in English.

No, I don't think so. The expression is used in English (not usually Latin) to mean "you should maintain a healthy degree of skepticism about this". E.g. "the weather forecast says it's going to be sunny today, but the clouds look very black out of my window so I'd take that with a grain of salt" (or a pinch of salt, or a very large pinch of salt, depending on how much emphasis you want to put on the skepticism).

I don't think we have an idiom meaning "...well, nearly", which is what I think you are trying to say here.

 

[fresh_42]

I don't think we have an idiom meaning "...well, nearly", which is what I think you are trying to say here.

I once told a student who was about to write his diploma thesis: "Write it down so that you can understand it, and then erase every third line." A kind of predetermined breaking points for the professor's nitpicking, but easily to fill.

I guess I will write "all in the last century" waiting for the nitpickers here to complain about.

 

[Ibix]

I guess I will write "all in the last century" waiting for the nitpickers here to complain about.

"All but one in the last century"? (Or all but two, or whatever).

 

[fresh_42]

"All but one in the last century"? (Or all but two, or whatever).

That would be the bigger trapdoor because it is "all but the one I know of". An invitation for an off-topic discussion.

Decision made: plus minus a decade.

 

[fresh_42]

However, it is interesting how the same idiom has so different meanings.

 

[jack action]

Cum grano salis ("with a grain salt") is a Latin phrase. The expression is mostly used in German today to limit a statement and to draw attention to the fact that what has been said may not be taken literally in every respect but is partly inaccurate, exaggerated or sarcastically formulated and is therefore only to be taken seriously with cuts. The sentence is also used more rarely that a previous assertion does not have to be true in every respect, but does contain “a grain” truth.

@fresh_42 You seem to want to use the "used more rarely" meaning. Not only it is not used in English for this meaning, but the German version seems to be more about "inaccurate information" whereas the English version is more about "untrusted source":

To take something with a "grain of salt" or "pinch of salt" is an English idiom that suggests to view something, specifically claims that may be misleading or unverified, with skepticism or not to interpret something literally.

I was ready to tell you that in French, we have the same meaning as in English, but then I read the French Wikipedia page that explains how French Canadians are influenced by the sea of English people surrounding them:

Linguistic nuances​

The term is less widespread in France than in English-speaking countries, where it is literally translated with with a grain of salt The e20th-century Larousse states that in cum grano salis "the word salt has the figurative meaning of play, of drunkenness, and that one uses to make it clear that what one says must not be taken seriously", like the Dictionary of Latin Words in French, for which this formula means "what one says wants to make people smile and must not be taken litteraly". The nuance of humor seems less present in the English language, more clearly focused on the idea of reserve, of scepticism.

Fredelin Leroux fils adds: "In Canada, Latin expression is rare. We are happy to use the French turn, most often with the meaning of "English". It also notes that most of the occurrences he has studied are between the two.

 

[fresh_42]

@fresh_42 You seem to want to use the "used more rarely" meaning.

No, I wanted to use it as ...

The expression is mostly used in German today to limit a statement and to draw attention to the fact that what has been said may not be taken literally in every respect.

It fitted perfectly in that meaning: "all examples but one which was almost an example, too" means "with a pinch of salt all in Latin" means "don't take it literally" means "don't mislead the debate by nitpicking on unimportant and marginal exceptions".

I used it for years that way, and I wouldn't even have asked if it wasn't for the word "with" in Latin that collides in its false English pronunciation with another quite vulgar word. I thought that especially Latin is even more distributed in English than it is in German so I didn't even think about a translation either.

Anyway, I should post this in TIL and decided to follow ...

I don't think we have an idiom meaning "...well, nearly", which is what I think you are trying to say here.

... and wrote nearly.

 

[collinsmark]

Lately, I've seen a lot of nasty debates between electric and gas-powered cars. [...]

Coincidentally, yesterday's xkcd has some thoughts on this.

Electric vs Gas

(Source: https://xkcd.com/2948/)

 

[jack action]

Coincidentally, yesterday's xkcd has some thoughts on this.

Electric vs Gas
View attachment 347179

(Source: https://xkcd.com/2948/)

It's actually this comic strip that made me write the random thought. I have previously seen a lot of nasty debates - "social media" style - in the last few weeks. They were all initiated by electric car people stating how much electric cars are so cheap compared to ICE cars. Now, with xkcd, it makes it more "official" (compared to social media trolls) that apparently the electric car is such the obvious choice that anyone not buying one is just throwing money down the drain to get less. For the last 100 years or so, people were just stupid to not use the electric car that existed all along.

There was this Facebook post about Tesla lasting 300,000 miles on the same battery pack and thus comparing maintenance costs that lead to dozens - yes, dozens! - of thousands of dollars in economy when using an electric car vs an ICE car.

Not even wanting to fall into the trap of arguing with the numbers, a simple logic test is the following: I never heard a single person saying «I have to buy an electric car because I'm not rich enough to buy an ICE car.» Come to think of it, I only see people with larger-than-average means buying electric cars, even with government rebates and tax-free electricity (i.e. not paying the taxes on gasoline).

According to all this hype: "more efficient", "more powerful", "more torque at a standstill", and - apparently now - cheaper, why don't we see more of those on the race track leaving the ICE cars in their dust? I'm not even sarcastic, I genuinely ask the question. Even considering a possibly shorter range, it seems to be the ideal vehicle for a ¼-mile drag race. Where are they? I never heard of a racer holding to deprecated technology for nostalgia.

I like electric cars. I think they do offer certain advantages in certain situations, even though I don't believe they will "save" us in any way, shape, or form. My point is why does it matter so much to put in the face of others - especially in a condescending way - that you made the right choice for yourself? (That addresses the ICE car people as well.)

 

[gmax137]

Even considering a possibly shorter range, it seems to be the ideal vehicle for a ¼-mile drag race. Where are they?

Top fuel dragsters make about 12,000 hp. I've seen 10,000 hp electric motors, not something that would fit on 4 wheels, lol. Those motors will run for decades. I don't know what a hot rod electric motor looks like. If the mission statement for an electric motor is 10,000 hp for 4 seconds, how would that be done?

 

[PhDeezNutz]

So I was watching a History Channel short on the “scissor takedown” and one of those random sciencey looking equations came up across the screen

It makes zero sense to me (I’m not even sure it’s supposed to make sense to anyone)

Angular velocity, angular acceleration, and angular jerk are all functions (the same function) of KE and PE?

 

[jack action]

Top fuel dragsters make about 12,000 hp. I've seen 10,000 hp electric motors, not something that would fit on 4 wheels, lol. Those motors will run for decades. I don't know what a hot rod electric motor looks like. If the mission statement for an electric motor is 10,000 hp for 4 seconds, how would that be done?

I don't know about Top Fuel drag racing but there are other classes. The guy in the next video put a Tesla powertrain in an otherwise stock 1972 Plymouth Satellite. Very cool car. You should watch the whole video to see how it is built. The video below starts near the end where he races it against his other car, a 1969 Dodge Dart with a 340 ci engine, modified with a turbo, producing 700 hp. The electric car just leaves it in its dust. From a standstill or starting at highway speed.

​

So how come there are not more people doing mods like this, or even bringing original Tesla to the track, and just saying "OK grampa, nice car. Now let's see what real sports cars can do!" I'm not talking about the "I want to try my Tesla" kind of guy but true racers who are in for the competition. As I said, racers usually are ready to sell their family to get a few tenths of a second advantage: modified camshaft, exhaust, oversized carburetors, fuel injection, NO₂, turbo, supercharger, etc. Any modification is welcome. They even accept swapping a more powerful modern Corvette or Hellcat engine to replace their obsolete original engine. Why not electric conversions like this guy did? The previous video - which I already knew existed - was found with the search "electric muscle car" and it is about the only video of such conversion I could find.

 

[Astronuc]

Top fuel dragsters make about 12,000 hp.

I could see 1200 hp, maybe. Back in the 1970s/1980s, the standard railroad locomotive was 3000 hp (2,200 kW), e.g., EMDs GP40/GP40-2 (4 axle) and SD40/SD40-2 (6 axle) with a V16 turbocharged 16-645E3 diesel motor. Competitors were GE's U30B/U30C and ALCO's C430/C630, respectively.

 

[Astronuc]

Majorca hit by ‘mini-tsunami’ with mega wave swallowing streets in tourist area

https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/t...wallowing-streets-in-tourist-area/ar-BB1oEgWp

The phenomenon, known as a meteotsunami, involves rapid changes in sea levels caused by atmospheric events such as storms and squalls.