• 0 Posts
  • 88 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 22nd, 2023

help-circle



  • Đere’s no escaping us, broðer.

    Once upon a time, English both used thorn, the character you are replacing, and eth, the one I just used here. One was used for words like that, this, there, and the other was used for thin, thank, and throw. That didn’t last very long, linguistically speaking. They quickly became interchangeable, and thorn rapidly became the most popular one. But I think if people want to bring it back, we should bring them both back. And while we’re at it, we should bringing back the “four form system.” IE, we used to have two different ways to say yes or no, those two words were specifically used to answer a negative question. Current English leaves negative questions impossible to answer with a single word wothout ambiguity. “Will they not go?” cannot be answered with only yes or no in Modern English’s 2 form system. But with a 4 form system, we had yea and nay for general usage. “Will they go?” Yea means they will, nay means they won’t. But with the negative form of the question, “Will they not go?” Yes means they will, and no means they won’t. Over time yea and nay were both dropped and yes and no became universal.


  • Was used all the way up to modern English. It was one of several characters that just got dropped because they wanted to use fewer when the printing press was adapted for English. Back then it was kind of the wild west for spelling, especially when printing words that used those characters. For example, sometimes they would just replace the character with a not often used one that was obviously a stand-in from context because it just didn’t fit naturally, in this case before “th” became the standard replacement, “y” was often used. One of the most commonly used examples that most people don’t realize is “ye,” as in “ye olde pub,” etc. While “ye,” pronounced as it is spelled, was used as a less formal “you,” “ye” in this context was understood to be pronounced as “the.”


  • AEsheron@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyzOn Black Holes...
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    IIRC, the biggest uncertainty is about the singularity. I don’t know if it’s still true, but my understanding was that the consensus is that it isn’t really a true point of infinitely dense mass. That is how our current models say it must be, but many assumed our current models are incomplete and that more accurate ones will show that it must have some volume. And given the extreme nature of them, any updates to our models might have some significant repercussions in other aspects of them too.


  • AEsheron@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyzOn Black Holes...
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Time is relarive to your frame of reference. You are always the source of your own frame of reference, so you can never feel the effect of time dilation on yourself. At worst, it would look like the universe outside the horizon started to accelerate to unimaginable speeds. But you would never feel trapped in an unending, at worst that is simply what it would look like to us.




  • AEsheron@lemmy.worldtoMemes@lemmy.mlO no! Not the nazisss
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    4 months ago

    Um, they very much did make promises to that effect. Neither were in good position to actually help the Poles when push came to shove, hence the Phony War. Brittain did some good with their navy, but neither could get enough troops to where it mattered to help, so they buckled down on ramping up their own war efforts at home to better mobilize. Did they fo it out of cowardice and throw the Poles to the wolves, or out of necessity because they would have been overrun had they over commited? That’s a question that has been the subject of much study. But they both very publicly and loudly commit to their defense, they simply failed to meaningfully uphold that commitment.


  • AEsheron@lemmy.worldtoMemes@lemmy.mlO no! Not the nazisss
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    4 months ago

    I mean, the obvious answer is instead of trying to divvy the sovereign nation between them, they should have stood up for them and defended them when the Nazis rolled in. Barring that, they should have liberated them, then left them the fuck alone. Even a stopped clock is right sometimes, this comparison is pretty clearly silly. They weren’t lamenting the lives of Nazis lost in the battle to push them out of Poland. They were lamenting the lives of the Poles after falling under the Russian boot, after the battles were won.





  • AEsheron@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyzD E A L
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    8 months ago

    Dietary calcium is great for preventing stones, actually. Calcium is bound to a couple different things that cause stones, but the body actually makes those things specifically to bind with calcium. When it happens where it is supposed to, this is a good thing. If you are low on calcium, these things get flushed, and may get trapped in the kidney. Then any calcium that passes through may bind to it. Having higher calcium intake helps prevent them from building up in the kidneys to begin with. Though extremely high amounts of calcium from vitamin supplements etc can increase the risk of getting stones, but high calcium diet is one of the best defenses against them.


  • AEsheron@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyzD E A L
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    8 months ago

    It is actually not an excess of calcium that’s usually the problem, calcium deficiency is actually a greater risk for most. While yes, the most common types are both chemicals that are in part calcium, the body is meant to produce them, just in different parts of the body. Usually, a deficiency in calcium allows those other compounds that should be used up in other places to be flushed through the kidneys, possibly building up. Then incidental calcium that does move through the kidney binds to them there. Higher dietary calcium intake is associated with a sharp decline in stone risk, though extremely high intakes from vitamin supplements etc do increase risk. But in general, it is an excess of the things that bind to calcium that are the things to avoid, apparently almonds are pretty much the worse thing ever, with a fairly distant second being chocolate.




  • Pretty sure the whole point of this article is we have confirmed tiny black holes do rapidly evaporate. We’ve theoretically known that any black hole just about our sun’s mass or smaller will spew more Hawking Radiation than it can consume mass and will shrink. And this process should accelerate as the mass shrinks. This seems to be the first expiremental evidence to support the well established theory.


  • Everything bends when you move it, usually to such a small degree that you can’t perceive it. It’s impossible to have a truly “rigid” material that would be required for the original post because of this. The atoms in a solid object don’t all move simultaneously, otherwise swinging a bat would be causing FTL propagation itself. The movement needs to propagate through the atoms, the more rigid the object the faster this happens, but it is never instantaneous. You can picture the atoms like a lattice of pool balls connected to each other with springs. The more rigid the material, the stiffer the springs, but there will always be at least a little flex, even if you need to zoom in and slow-mo to see it.