Driving safely and smart is essential for other reasons, it does prevent additional bottlenecks (you mentioned one, wreckages), and it reduces the impact of the unavoidable bottlenecks (because the cars won't waste so much time re-accelerating after them). But if my reasoning is correct, most of the time there isn't much that drivers can do against traffic besides "don't use the car".
I believe that it should still reduce the likelihood of spam calls - because you don't advertise where you aren't selling stuff, and if you're selling stuff you don't want to piss off the local government.
For reference: where I live the "do not call" list is from the state. Most of those spam calls come from people in other states controlled by the same republic, thus not subjected to the rules of my state - and yet the "do not call" list still does its job.
It's over the head of everyone. That's why I shared it here.
Likewise would 0.888… be .9?
No, but 0.899... = 0.9. This only applies to the repeating sequences of the last digit of your base. We're using base 10 so it got to be 9.
If I have 100 dogs, and I split them into thirds I’ve got 3 lots of 33 dogs and 1 dog left over. So the issue is with my original idea of splitting the dogs into thirds, because clearly I haven’t got 100% in 3 lots because 1 of them is by itself.
Then you split the leftover dog into 10 parts. Why 10? Because you use base 10. Three of those parts go to each lot of dogs... and you still have 1/10 dog left.
Then you do it again. And you have 1/100 dog left. And again, and again, infinitely.
If you take that "infinitely" into account, then you can say that each lot of dogs has exactly one third of the original amount.
Because it isn't 0.9; it's 0.999... with the ellipsis saying "repeat this to the infinite" being part of the number. And you don't need to round it up to get 0.999... = 1, since the 9 keeps going on and on, so their difference is infinitesimally small = zero.
Another thing showing that they're the same number is that there is no number between them. For example:
0.9 (no ellipsis) and 1 are different because 0.95 is between them
0.95 and 1 are different because 0.97 is between them
there's no number between 0.999... (with ellipsis) and 1, so they are the same. inb4 no "last nine" because it's infinite.
Based on a game I think that the root issue is that there are multiple bottlenecks, unavoidable for the drivers, like turning or entering/leaving lanes, forcing them to slow down to avoid crashing. Not a biggie if there are only a few cars, as they'll be distant enough from each other to allow one to slow down a bit without the following needing to do the same; but once the road is close to the carrying capacity, that has a chain effect:
A slows down because it'll turn
B is too close to A, so it slows down to avoid crashing with A
C is too close to B, so it slows down to avoid crashing with B
[...]
There are solutions for that, such as building some structure to handle those bottlenecks, but they're often spacious and space is precious in a city. Or alternatively you reduce the amount of cars by discouraging people from using them willy-nilly, with a good mass transport system and making cities not so shitty for pedestrians.
The game in question is OpenTTD. This is easy to test with trains: create some big transport route with multiple trains per rail, then keep adding trains to that route, while watching the time that they take to go from the start to the end. The time will stay roughly constant up to a certain point (the carrying capacity), then each train makes all the others move slower.
It's really similar to the fundamental attribution error, though, as you can see if phrased this way: "I value $foo by a certain amount because I'm a human being, thus other human beings value $foo as much as I do".
That "..." means "it continues to the infinite". And yet when you show this reasoning to people, they keep "looking" for the last 9, to claim that 0.999... is not the exact same as 1.
And that applies to all humans. You might counter it rationally, you might train yourself to recognise "it's infinite, so theoretically it'll behave in a certain way", but you don't grasp it. I don't, either.
The offence existing or not can't depend solely on the listener, because existence is an objective trait and feeling offended is subjective. Your parentheses get it though - it includes the audience (the linguistic community, not just the listener). I'll use a silly example to show that.
Let us suppose that someone ("Bob") got offended by your usage of the word "listener", claiming that you're insensitive towards people who communicate through sign languages, and since they're mostly deaf that you would be ableist. (It's insane troll logic, but bear with me.)
Bob can certainly feel offended by that. But that won't change anything, if other people do not consider it offensive. At most they'll tell Bob "you're making shit up, touch grass" and call it a day.
The picture however would change if Bob got offended by something and people around him agreed with him.
Whether any action (a simple “sorry” or more severe) should be expected is the complicated part.
However, the determination of offensive speech is not in the hands of the speaker, but rather in the reception by the listener.
Descriptively speaking, I think that it's more complex than it looks like - the determination depends on the linguistic community, not just the listener.
Note: this depends a lot on which governments you pay taxes to (country, state/province, city). With that in mind:
Check if there's a "do not call" list where you live - i.e. a gov-enforced list of numbers that you are forbidden to call for advertisement. If there is one, put your number there.
Do not answer spam calls at all. Usually it's easy to identify them, but there are some applications for this, like this (it's in F-Droid so likely available for CalyxOS). By simply not answering those calls, your number gets marked as "inactive" by the advertisers/spammers/telemarketers, so the frequency of the calls gets lower over time.
Get a new phone number, redirect all legitimate contacts to your new number, and trash away the old one.
Odds are that such a list won't ever exist. Insensitivity and bias depend on meaning, and meaning depends on context. As such, we [people in general] need to pay attention to what we're saying, and to whom, in to avoid both things. No easy way.
Canonically the "D" in the acronym is understood as "doubt", as you can see here, here (2 of 2), here. Division and infighting play no direct role here.
Uncertainty and doubt are synonymous.
They do overlap but complete synonymous are extremely rare. And I believe that, in this context, they refer to different things - the uncertainty as lack of knowledge on how something works, and the doubt on the outcome itself. (@DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.com offers an alternate explanation, where the doubt is ideological.)
The site feels faster, the notifications are more reactive, and moderator view is a godsend.
As for now, the only new bug is fairly minor, markup-related. Examples here and here, screenshot: \
Before the update, "há" "a" and "haver" would use a plain highlight colour (they were using the code markup); "dog**'s**" and "cat**'s**" had bold face.
I believe that it's more used in dialects spoken in Brazil than elsewhere, but even in Brazil it's considered poor grammar. Specially given that both nós conjugations¹ and the synthetic future² are falling into disuse, so it sounds like trying to speak fancy and failing hard at it.
EDIT: now it clicked me why you likely said so; it's common in European dialects to use "a enviar" (gerundive infinitive) instead of "enviando" (traditional gerund)³. The phenomenon that I'm talking about can be used with either, e.g. "estaremos a enviar"; for me it's the same issue, people would say "estaremos a enviar" instead of "enviaremos" to throw the event into a distant future that might never happen.
They're still fairly used by older people in speech, but there's a clear gen gap with younger folks using "a gente" almost exclusively.
almost completely replaced by conjugated ir + infinitive.
Note that "enviando" is still fairly used in Alentejo and the Algarve.
Technically not an error but still annoying is to append an apostrophe and an s to a name to indicate the genitive.
Even technically I'd consider it an error - the genitive/"possessive" apostrophe in English highlights that you're dealing with a clitic, attached to the end of the noun phrase; e.g. the dog**'s** food` → the dog and the cat**'s** food. In German however it doesn't behave like a clitic, it's a plain declension; e.g. das Futter des Hundes → das Futter des Hundes und der Katze - you're switching words, not moving them.
I wonder if that's because most people nowadays use von+Dative instead.
Yeah, if copia sputata is so old there's no way that it's from those machines.
Digging further on the expression it seems to be old in English too, attested in 1689. And the only explanation that I've seen to account to Italian and English both having it is religious in nature - while not biblical it seems common the idea that God spat into the clay to create Adam.
Speaking on Italian: people (often native speakers) messing with the apostrophe bug me a bit, it's a good example for this thread. Specially un' followed by a masculine word; e.g. un'altro for un altro. It tilts the autocompletion inside my brain, expecting a word and getting another in place. I'm not native speaker though so this likely plays a role.
This. I was struggling to convey the aspect, but you got it right IMO. And, pragmatically, it's more like "we might be sending", with that might highlighting that it probably won't.
Lvxferre @ lvxferre @lemmy.ml Posts 17Comments 1,115Joined 4 yr. ago
Driving safely and smart is essential for other reasons, it does prevent additional bottlenecks (you mentioned one, wreckages), and it reduces the impact of the unavoidable bottlenecks (because the cars won't waste so much time re-accelerating after them). But if my reasoning is correct, most of the time there isn't much that drivers can do against traffic besides "don't use the car".