:fa_calendar: :fa_plus: :fa_plus: What's Fucking Up Today: 2016
-
-
My mistake there, the bacteria domain should be recognized.
And now you're leaving out fungi!
Amoeba say
"fuck you"nothing. They don't talk.Viruses don't give a fuck. They're ageless.
What the hell are archaea?
-
Amoeba say
"fuck you"nothing. They don't talk.TBF, the original definition did say "animals", and amoeba are considered animals, so …
What the hell are archaea?
You can simplistically think of them as prokaryotic bacteria – bacteria without any internal membranes to keep things organized. Oh, and they don't keep their DNA in a nucleus.
-
I have a watch with a digital DD.MM.YY display. I wonder what's going to happen in 2100 ...
Well, you're lucky in one way. There isn't room for it to do the classic one from, gods, more than 16 years(1) ago now, when sites printed "19100" as the current year.(1) 16 years and two months is more than 16 years, duh.
-
Exactly what it sounds like. A calendar year is 365 days. A solar year is 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, 45ish seconds and, crucially, because orbital dynamics are a bitch, varies slightly and chaotically.
Leap days go a long way towards correcting the difference, but we have to add seconds here and there to cover the rest.
We just need to switch to Galactic Time! None of this local orbital BS. Besides, once we colonize Mars, those Martians aren't going to want to use Earth time.
-
That was unexpected.
-
No one expects the Linguistic Inquisition.
-
The linquisition!
-
I keep reading the topic title as an enthusiastic greeting.
"What's fucking up, bitches?!"
-
"What's fucking up, bitches?!"
I think we have a new tag line for the site. Let Alex explain that to his family
-
And now you're leaving out fungi! Will your biases know no bounds?
I said "domain", not kingdom.
What the hell are archaea?
I fucked up on those myself, I crammed plants in there for some reason instead of under eukarya. Oh, no, wait, I know the reason: I suck at biology.
-
-
Aren't they eukarya?
Also, no thanks, tall enough already, if you got one of those fire flowers though...
-
Aren't they eukarya?
Sorry, I forgot for a minute that the Woese system introduced Domains in 1990. When I took biology in middle school, Domains still hadn't been accepted into popular taxonomy, and I haven't really been back since.
Yes, fungi are Eukaryotes, as are Animals and Plants. But you have not mentioned the domain Eukaryote. You objected to the definition based on its exclusion of the Plant kingdom, and then on my initial challenge you acceded that the Bacterium Domain should be included as well. But what about the Fungi Kingdom? Shouldn't the whole of the Eukaryote Domain get to be included as well? Even then, you would still be excluding third of the Domains of life. WIll this ever end?
-
WIll this ever end?
Considering that we can reach species and subspecies level where even biologists throw their hands in the air and say "fuck if I know!", I'd guess no.
-
The linquisition!
var chiefWeapons = new List<Weapon> { new Weapon {"Surprise"}, new Weapon {"Fear"}, new Weapon {"Ruthless Efficiency"}, new Weapon {"An almost fanatical devotion to the Pope"}, new Weapon {"Nice red uniforms"} }; IEnumerable<string> GetOurChiefWeapons() { foreach(var i in Enumerable.Range(1, chiefWeapons.Count) { var ourWeapons = chiefWeapons.Take(i); yield return ourWeapons.Accumulate($"Our {i} chief weapons are ", (ourWeapons, next) => ourWeapons + next + ", "); } yield return "Oh, Damn!"; }
<don't even begin to think that I tested this. Also, why have I never seen a SO post suggesting to use LINQ to concatenate strings? LINQ is the best thing ever for all situations, so why not use it there??>
?
-
Shouldn't it be recursive, getting one weapon more on each iteration?
-
yield
-
That's what I get for trying to sound smart while tired and reading a language I don't know much about...
I'm a moron, carry on.
-
Well, before I made my not-so- edit it would print all of the weapons, so you may have been on to something.
-
“Several years ago, some scientists suggested scheduling a leap hour for the year 2600. This idea was abandoned as impractical, given that the instructions would have to be left for people six centuries hence.
How is that impractical? We simply stop worrying about leap seconds and let the people in the future sort it out, if they want to.
By that time we're either living on the moon and Mars, in which case we might need new (even more complex) calendar systems, or back in the medieval age, in which case we don't give a shit.
-
when sites printed "19100" as the current year
I have no idea where it was, but I'm certain I last came across the current year being displayed as "191xx" in this decade.
-
Oh... just the usual...
We can create a new CRUD programme for a category in a single day
-
@Yamikuronue said:
"What's fucking up, bitches?!"
I think we have a new tag line for the site. Let Alex explain that to his family
"The Daily WFUB"?
-
So I guess a lot of people in the U.S. are up for the Muslim badges.
-
@Steve_The_Cynic said:
when sites printed "19100" as the current year
I have no idea where it was, but I'm certain I last came across the current year being displayed as "191xx" in this decade.
The conceptual error knows no bounds of decade or even century. When (for whatever reasons) I was looking at some documents from the 1850s in the British Library, I noted a Y185X error. A pre-printed, pre-electronics form featured a space for writing the date. There was a space for the day, one for the month, and one for the year. The year space was carefully pre-printed185___
. This particular example had been filled out on a date that I no longer recall, except that it was in 1859. (OK, so it wasn't a Y185X error at the exact moment the form was filled out, but they only missed it by a few months.)
-
OK, so it wasn't a Y185X error at the exact moment the form was filled out, but they only missed it by a few months.)
The difference is that they may have had a supply of forms printed 186_, ready for the next decade. In which case it would have been an error not to use the 185_ forms for the remainder of the 1850s. Alternatively, they may have been finishing off the last of the 185_ forms before they started in on the new 18__ forms which would see them through to the end of the century. You can't claim it's a conceptual error when it is not actually an error.Even assuming the error, at least it's not hard to turn a printed 5 into a 6. :)
-
@Steve_The_Cynic said:
OK, so it wasn't a Y185X error at the exact moment the form was filled out, but they only missed it by a few months.)
The difference is that they may have had a supply of forms printed 186_, ready for the next decade. In which case it would have been an error not to use the 185_ forms for the remainder of the 1850s. Alternatively, they may have been finishing off the last of the 185_ forms before they started in on the new 18__ forms which would see them through to the end of the century. You can't claim it's a conceptual error when it is not actually an error.Even assuming the error, at least it's not hard to turn a printed 5 into a 6. :)
The conceptual error of having fixed pre-printed text for the century (or decade, as the case may be) and being near the end of the said century (or decade, as the case may be). That conceptual error.And somehow I don't see the 19th (or any other) century British civil service being remotely keen on throwing away otherwise perfectly good forms just because it's a new decade now.
-
And somehow I don't see the 19th (or any other) century British civil service being remotely keen on throwing away otherwise perfectly good forms just because it's a new decade now.
“If the form was good enough for my predecessor, it's good enough for me. Changing forms is more than my job's worth.”
-
@Steve_The_Cynic said:
And somehow I don't see the 19th (or any other) century British civil service being remotely keen on throwing away otherwise perfectly good forms just because it's a new decade now.
“If the form was good enough for my predecessor, it's good enough for me. Changing forms is more than my job's worth.”
That's more or less my point, yes.
-
Printed forms typically have a known usage rate and are procured with that in mind. Meanwhile, in software, the code can be executed unlimited times and therefore has an unbounded end of life.
-
Exactly what it sounds like. A calendar year is 365 days. A solar year is 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, 45ish seconds and, crucially, because orbital dynamics are a bitch, varies slightly and chaotically.
Leap days go a long way towards correcting the difference, but we have to add seconds here and there to cover the rest.
Absolutely not. Leap seconds, unlike leap days, have nothing to do with the rotation of the Earth around the Sun.
-
Absolutely not. Leap seconds, unlike leap days, have nothing to do with the rotation of the Earth around the Sun.
Stop pushing your non-heliocentric worldview on people. #AllEarthModelsMatter. Teach the controversy. You're literally worse than Hitler when he executed Galileo for his differing Earthview.
-
-
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
Educate yourself.
I looked up heliocentricism, just to check I wasn't going insane, and it means what I thought it meant. Unless you're merely objecting to the word rotation used for orbit, there is presumably something in your post that I am missing: would you be so kind as to explain?
-
Not sure if pendantry or ...
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
Stop pushing your non-heliocentric worldview on people.
He's right though. Leap seconds are there to correct the length of the sidereal day, while leap days correct for the length of the solar year.
-
-
You say that as it should be surprising to me to write off another erroneous thing I paid several vanloads of cash to Penn State to edumacate me with. I accept you are most likely more correct then I.
-
I took it as a standard joke about SJWs. Apparently heliocentrism isn't inclusive enough or something.
-
I took it as a standard joke about SJWs. Apparently heliocentrism isn't inclusive enough or something.
He said 'stop pushing your non-heliocentric worldview', though. I got the SJW bit, but it's the 'rotation of the Earth around the sun' = non-heliocentric bit that I'm struggling with. Unless it's intentionally wrong and that's the joke.
-
Unless it's intentionally wrong and that's the joke.
It doesn't matter for the purpose of the joke.
-
@CarrieVS said:
Unless it's intentionally wrong and that's the joke.
It doesn't matter for the purpose of the joke.
Facts are a to JUSTICE.
-
Ah I see. I ed because it isn't actually funny. Unless it's a reference to something specific, in which case I ed because I haven't seen whatever it is.
-
The conceptual error of having fixed pre-printed text for the century (or decade, as the case may be) and being near the end of the said century (or decade, as the case may be). That conceptual error.
Today while browsing through a book I noticed a photograph of a pre-printed form from 1940 (to be precise: army discharge papers), in which the year 1940 was printed in full after a space for the date to be written. In the space, someone had stamped the date, making it “10 June 1940 1940”.The worst part of it is that it that made me think of your post in this thread.
-
Unless it's a reference to something specific
Rotation vs. revolution, perhaps? Strictly speaking the Earth rotates about its own axis and revolves around the Sun. Most people would consider this an unnecessary level of , but this is WTDWTF.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
You're literally worse than Hitler when he executed Galileo for his differing Earthview.
Worse than something that didn't happen? That's bad.
-
-
Considering that we can reach species and subspecies level where even biologists throw their hands in the air and say "fuck if I know!", I'd guess no.
Is it still the case that wasps are speciating faster than we can enumerate them? I recall reading that a few years ago.