Scientific Science

[topspin]

@cvi said in Scientific Science:

@topspin Somebody needed a cool marketable name and aether was already taken.

Well, so was quintess… oh, whatever.

[TheCPUWizard]

1. All things are "as observed" - nothing is absolute....
2. If something "is", there is no requirement that it "always was" or "always will be"
3. There is no requirement for time to be a monotonic forward entity at all

[Gribnit]

@TheCPUWizard the C concurrency model

[boomzilla]

[HardwareGeek]

@boomzilla Flowers have ovaries, placentas, embryo sacs and egg cells. However, the end product is generally called a seed rather than an egg.

[Bulb]

@boomzilla That's the problem with your English speaking folks. Two source languages and you still can't procure properly different words for different concepts.

[dcon]

@Bulb said in Scientific Science:

Two source languages

Oh puhleeze. We've stolen from a lot more languages than that.

[Bulb]

@dcon Every language appropriated from many other languages. But English was created by straight out mixing two languages (there should be three, really, but not much seems to be left from the first one).

[PleegWat]

@Bulb said in Scientific Science:

@boomzilla That's the problem with your English speaking folks. Two source languages and you still can't procure properly different words for different concepts.

And I'm sure blubistanian has no homonyms whatsoever.

[Gribnit]

@PleegWat said in Scientific Science:

@Bulb said in Scientific Science:

@boomzilla That's the problem with your English speaking folks. Two source languages and you still can't procure properly different words for different concepts.

And I'm sure blubistanian has no homonyms whatsoever.

Well there's blub, but that's the only one.

[Zecc]

@PleegWat said in Scientific Science:

And I'm sure blubistanian has no homonyms whatsoever.

I want to smack the person who proposed and the people who approved the Portuguese Language Orthographic "Agreement" of 1990.

"Let's make the spelling in Portugal closer to the spelling in Brazil" they said. Never mind that they removed letters and accents which deeply affect how the word is pronounced if normal rules are used.

"Para a pessoa" used to unambiguously mean "to the person", but know they've remove the accent in "pára a pessoa" (stop the person) so you can't tell. And yes, sometimes it matters.
(the talk about homonyms is what me)

Never mind that the languages are still different and many times the words or grammar used aren't even quite the same, so who cares about spelling?

And they didn't even import the ü in "freqüente", which would have made perfect sense and remove an annoying exception in the pronunciation of the "que" syllable.

I'm not saying their intentions were bad or that Brazilian Portuguese is worse than Portuguese Portuguese. But a lot of the changes they introduced make no sense.

</rant>

[MrL]

@Zecc said in Scientific Science:

"Para a pessoa" used to unambiguously mean "to the person", but know they've remove the accent in "pára a pessoa" (stop the person) so you can't tell. And yes, sometimes it matters.

You can have my ąs, I don't use them online anyway. Pąrą ą pęśśóą. Oh, sorry, overdone it.

Pąra a pessoa

There.

[Kamil Podlesak]

@Zecc said in Scientific Science:

@PleegWat said in Scientific Science:

And I'm sure blubistanian has no homonyms whatsoever.

I want to smack the person who proposed and the people who approved the Portuguese Language Orthographic "Agreement" of 1990.

"Let's make the spelling in Portugal closer to the spelling in Brazil" they said. Never mind that they removed letters and accents which deeply affect how the word is pronounced if normal rules are used.

Those are homographs instead of homonyms, aren't they? https://grammar.yourdictionary.com/vs/homonym-vs-homophone-how-remember-difference

The "blubistanian" problem is actually strictly opposite: there are almost no homographs and very few true homonyms, but a (metric) ton of homophones. One particular example is the "Hamlet's dilemma" (to be or not to be), which is, in the standard language, 100% equal to "Teacher's dilemma" (to beat or not to beat).

[Zecc]

@Kamil-Podlesak said in Scientific Science:

Those are homographs instead of homonyms, aren't they?

Correct. "para"/"para" are (strict) homographs now. They weren't before.

We have a few homographs and homophones unfortunately (though nothing like in English).

[kazitor]

@Zecc said in Scientific Science:

But a lot of the changes they introduced make no sense.

@Zecc also said:

realized

Filed under: realistic, realism, reali_ed

[LaoC]

@boomzilla said in Scientific Science:

[BernieTheBernie]

@MrL said in Scientific Science:

You can have my ąs,

which are actually os with that comma at the end. But those could be mistaken for common as, so ancient poles decided to add the commas toa.

[robo2]

@MrL said in Scientific Science:

You can have my ąs

Why did I read this initially with an additional s? Wish I didn't, what was read can't be unread.

[LaoC]

@BernieTheBernie said in Scientific Science:

@MrL said in Scientific Science:

You can have my ąs,

which are actually os with that comma at the end. But those could be mistaken for common as, so ancient poles decided to add the commas toa.

That's beyond the pąle.

[MrL]

@robo2 said in Scientific Science:

@MrL said in Scientific Science:

You can have my ąs

Why did I read this initially with an additional s? Wish I didn't, what was read can't be unread.

You think that because you don't know how desirable my ąs is.

@BernieTheBernie said in Scientific Science:

which are actually os with that comma at the end. But those could be mistaken for common as, so ancient poles decided to add the commas toa.

Well, they are pronounced like something between o and a, so there's something to it.

We also have ó, which is pronounced exactly like u. And ż, which has nothing to do with z. But of course there's also rz, which is just ż. Obviously.

[Zecc]

@BernieTheBernie said in Scientific Science:

which are actually os with that comma at the end. But those could be mistaken for common as, so ancient poles decided to add the commas toa.

õ

[Kamil Podlesak]

@MrL said in Scientific Science:

And ż, which has nothing to do with z.

It's palatized z (palatization pairs are the most characteristic feature of Slavic linguistic group). And you forgot that there is also ź(now that one is AFAIK special for Polish).

But of course there's also rz, which is just ż. Obviously.

Many Polish native speakers pronunciate that as [r̝]

[MrL]

@Kamil-Podlesak said in Scientific Science:

@MrL said in Scientific Science:

And ż, which has nothing to do with z.

It's palatized z (palatization pairs are the most characteristic feature of Slavic linguistic group). And you forgot that there is also ź(now that one is AFAIK special for Polish).

No idea what palatization means, but ż sound is completely different from z, while ź is somewhat close.

But of course there's also rz, which is just ż. Obviously.

Many Polish native speakers pronunciate that as [r̝]

That difference, if it exists, must be very subtle - too subtle for me to know about it.
Poles from Cracov, on the other hand, hilariously pronounce trz as cz. And they constantly 'go to the field' for some reason, but that's another story.

[BernieTheBernie]

@MrL said in Scientific Science:

'go to the field'

To the town of Opole?

[MrL]

@BernieTheBernie said in Scientific Science:

@MrL said in Scientific Science:

'go to the field'

To the town of Opole?

I always thnink they mean Pola Mokotowskie, but that's in Warsaw.

[Bulb]

@MrL said in Scientific Science:

No idea what palatization means, but ż sound is completely different from z, while ź is somewhat close.

The sound for ź is between z and ż, so they are similarly related. And most languages that have ź or ż (Polish being unusual in having both) write it in a way that is derived from z, and so does IPA (ź = /ʑ/ and ż = /ʐ/).

For palatization, it roughly—wikipedia makes it Complicated™—forming of the ‘soft’ sounds of some consonants. Polish is unusual in that it has two from each of c (ć and cz), z (ź and ż) and s (ś and sz) and that some are written with accents and some with digraphs.

[MrL]

@Bulb said in Scientific Science:

@MrL said in Scientific Science:

No idea what palatization means, but ż sound is completely different from z, while ź is somewhat close.

The sound for ź is between z and ż, so they are similarly related. And most languages that have ź or ż (Polish being unusual in having both) write it in a way that is derived from z, and so does IPA (ź = /ʑ/ and ż = /ʐ/).

For palatization, it roughly—wikipedia makes it Complicated™—forming of the ‘soft’ sounds of some consonants. Polish is unusual in that it has two from each of c (ć and cz), z (ź and ż) and s (ś and sz) and that some are written with accents and some with digraphs.

Ah, softening. Yeah, we have a lot of that.

But it must be more than that - I wouldn't say sz is softened s, or cz is softened c. Related yes, but how far do you have to go to not be derived from and just a separate sound (like with z -> ż)?

[BernieTheBernie]

@Bulb Because the sounds corresponding to the digraphs exist also in german (sz => sch, cz => tsch), which lacks (most) palatalization.

[Bulb]

@BernieTheBernie That's what I am … unsure of. I always thought German sch corresponds to Czech š (and upon looking up appropriate ‘orthography’ pages Wikipedia seems to agree), which is neither exactly Polish ś nor sz, but probably closer to the first. Except the variation between Polish dialects is larger than the difference between the sounds, so some dialects pronounce one or both that way (probably; I don't know Polish and couldn't tell any dialects apart myself, but Wikipedia says so in the /ʃ/ page).

[HardwareGeek]

@MrL said in Scientific Science:

Ah, softening. Yeah, we have a lot of that.

My spam folder tells me there are pills to fix that.

[boomzilla]

@HardwareGeek said in Scientific Science:

@MrL said in Scientific Science:

Ah, softening. Yeah, we have a lot of that.

My spam folder tells me there are pills to fix that.

Sounds more interesting than discussing letters with fly specks.

[Gribnit]

@boomzilla said in Scientific Science:

@HardwareGeek said in Scientific Science:

@MrL said in Scientific Science:

Ah, softening. Yeah, we have a lot of that.

My spam folder tells me there are pills to fix that.

Sounds more interesting than discussing letters with fly specks.

At least we wouldn't still be talking about letters.

[LaoC]

@boomzilla said in Scientific Science:

@HardwareGeek said in Scientific Science:

@MrL said in Scientific Science:

Ah, softening. Yeah, we have a lot of that.

My spam folder tells me there are pills to fix that.

Sounds more interesting than discussing letters with fly specks.

If your Pole makes fricative sounds …

[topspin]

@LaoC have you tried lube?

[LaoC]

@topspin said in Scientific Science:

@LaoC have you tried lube?

Tašteš štransz

[Kamil Podlesak]

@MrL said in Scientific Science:

Ah, softening. Yeah, we have a lot of that.

But it must be more than that - I wouldn't say sz is softened s, or cz is softened c. Related yes, but how far do you have to go to not be derived from and just a separate sound (like with z -> ż)?

Well, you cannot strictly say what is derived from what, it's just a convention. We can also say that z is derived by "hardening" from ż and n is hardened ń/ñ/ň. it's completely relative.

Only in inertial frames, of course.

[Kamil Podlesak]

@BernieTheBernie said in Scientific Science:

@Bulb Because the sounds corresponding to the digraphs exist also in german (sz => sch, cz => tsch), which lacks (most) palatalization.

There is a strict palatization rule: s before p and t at the beginning of the word (ie /\bs[tp]/) is always palatized. Sport is a very nice example (being a loanword from English). sk is not an official rule (or is it?), but ski is IMHO rather eggregious example (the k is lost somewhere, so the result is just like english "she").
Also, sometimes it's palatized in the middle of the word too, like in Kiste == Kischte (but that's a dialect).

But yeah, it's just this single one. tsch is extemely rare and unrelated to z; palatized d t n are missing completely, as is žźż.

[LaoC]

@Kamil-Podlesak said in Scientific Science:

@BernieTheBernie said in Scientific Science:

@Bulb Because the sounds corresponding to the digraphs exist also in german (sz => sch, cz => tsch), which lacks (most) palatalization.

There is a strict palatization rule: s before p and t at the beginning of the word (ie /\bs[tp]/) is always palatized. Sport is a very nice example (being a loanword from English). sk is not an official rule (or is it?), but ski is IMHO rather eggregious example (the k is lost somewhere, so the result is just like english "she").
Also, sometimes it's palatized in the middle of the word too, like in Kiste == Kischte (but that's a dialect).

Or not at all, but that's also considered a dialect (even though it's they who have the navy)

[topspin]

@LaoC angry @Rhywden noises

[Rhywden]

@topspin said in Scientific Science:

@LaoC angry @Rhywden noises

What's there to be angry about? All the others are doing it wrong!

[Gurth]

@MrL said in Scientific Science:

We also have ó, which is pronounced exactly like u. And ż, which has nothing to do with z. But of course there's also rz, which is just ż. Obviously.

Don't forget ł. I know a Polish-born guy who grew up in the Netherlands; his family name starts with Ł but in his email address, he replaced it with W.

[LaoC]

@Rhywden said in Scientific Science:

@topspin said in Scientific Science:

@LaoC angry @Rhywden noises

What's there to be angry about? All the others are doing it wrong!

Ssure, they can all suv their palatalization where the sun don't sine!

[Kamil Podlesak]

@Gurth said in Scientific Science:

@MrL said in Scientific Science:

We also have ó, which is pronounced exactly like u. And ż, which has nothing to do with z. But of course there's also rz, which is just ż. Obviously.

Don't forget ł. I know a Polish-born guy who grew up in the Netherlands; his family name starts with Ł but in his email address, he replaced it with W.

That one has a special place in Unicode Hell, because it's (still AFAIK) missing the proper decomposition info. Which means that when you strip all the diacritics, you still get ł in the middle of plain ASCII

[BernieTheBernie]

Back to SCIENCE.
Let's talk about super conductors.
Those working at room temperature....
Nature retracts a paper, though the authors still disagree with the retraction:

Castelvecchi, Davide  /  Sep 27, 2022

Stunning room-temperature-superconductor claim is retracted

Nature - Retraction undermines the bold claim by physicists who said their material conducted electricity without resistance at 15 ˚C.

and a comment on that topic in Science:
https://www.science.org/content/article/something-seriously-wrong-room-temperature-superconductivity-study-retracted

[dkf]

@BernieTheBernie Either the authors have found something real, in which case they should be able to make a lot of money from their discovery (yes, they've formed a spin-off company) or they haven't, and then they'll deserve the brickbats.

[BernieTheBernie]

@dkf said in Scientific Science:

(yes, they've formed a spin-off company)

Do they accepts crypto moneys as investments?

[topspin]

@dkf said in Scientific Science:

@BernieTheBernie Either the authors have found something real, in which case they should be able to make a lot of money from their discovery (yes, they've formed a spin-off company) or they haven't, and then they'll deserve the brickbats.

According to the commentary article, the claim was room temperature but still “2.6 million times greater than atmospheric pressure”, and there’s been previous results at above 0°C / high pressure. So it doesn’t sound that revolutionary even if it’s correct, and also not too far fetched to be plausible.

[jinpa]

@BernieTheBernie said in Scientific Science:

and a comment on that topic in Science:
https://www.science.org/content/article/something-seriously-wrong-room-temperature-superconductivity-study-retracted

It's pay-walled, so a summary or extract would be appreciated.

[BernieTheBernie]

@jinpa Just read up the Nature article above that.

[jinpa]

@BernieTheBernie I never would have thought of that! That will tell me exactly what's in the Science article!