"Implicit" vs. "inherent" - do you know the difference?

you would think incorrectly (i do know czech)
looks more like polish (as in, language of poland, which sounds, in my opinion, highly unpolished) or ukrainian/serbian or something like that.
or just random nonsense, very similar :-D

sh_code

thank you for noticing
do believe, trying to use english more correctly than native speakers is one of my hobbies, it's so much fun to bash them for it (usually in youtube comments though, where it's not too hard. there's not many things as satisfying as telling to a troll "btw, you should be ashamed that a foreigner is correcting your grammar ;)")
is "more correctly" correct? it sounds weird so i'm never sure.

(discourse wtf: i haven't managed to catch it on screenshot, but for a while here the list was "1, 2, 3" in edit window, and "1, 2, 1 nested under 2" in preview and actual post. whaaa?)

Dragnslcr

@sh_code said:

3. is "more correctly" correct? it sounds weird so i'm never sure.

If you're talking about "I did that thing more correctly than the idiot that did it before me", then yes, that is correct. If you're describing a thing (you aren't describing how a thing was done), then it would be "My way is more correct than the idiot's way".

EvanED

Agreed here.. note that "more" doesn't even make much of a difference: "I did it correctly" and "I did it more correctly [than whatever]" versus "That way is correct" and "That way is more correct [than whatever]".

Though it does remind me of a joking comment from one of my high school teachers, which was about the phrase "less lethal." How is something "less lethal"? It's lethal, or it's not lethal! What's it going to do, leave someone partially dead?!

(Of course, one definition of lethal is something along the lines of "more likely to be lethal.")

Gąska

@sh_code said:

you would think incorrectly (i do know czech)
looks more like polish (as in, language of poland, which sounds, in my opinion, highly unpolished)

Swap around Polish and Czech and you get what I'd say.

@sh_code said:

do believe, trying to use english more correctly than native speakers is one of my hobbies, it's so much fun to bash them for it (usually in youtube comments though, where it's not too hard. there's not many things as satisfying as telling to a troll "btw, you should be ashamed that a foreigner is correcting your grammar ")
is "more correctly" correct? it sounds weird so i'm never sure.

It must be pretty tough to write correctly if your keyboard has no Shift key.

@EvanED said:

Though it does remind me of a joking comment from one of my high school teachers, which was about the phrase "less lethal." How is something "less lethal"? It's lethal, or it's not lethal! What's it going to do, leave someone partially dead?!

I'm pretty sure a nuclear explosion is more lethal than snake venom. Both with a single person and a group of million.

abarker

@EvanED said:

note that "more" doesn't even make much of a difference: "I did it correctly" and "I did it more correctly [than whatever]" versus "That way is correct" and "That way is more correct [than whatever]".

I disagree. First, let's restate the comparison you are making for clarity:

"I did it correctly" and "That way is correct" vs. "I did it more correctly [than whatever]" and "That way is more correct [than whatever]"

In the first set of constructs (without more), it is implied that there is only one correct way to complete the specified task. The second set of constructs (with more) implies that there are multiple sets of correct ways to accomplish the desired task, but certain approaches are somehow better than other approaches.

Here are a couple of examples to illustrate:

Simple integer addition, such as 2 + 3. While there are a few different techniques that can be used (simple memorization, counting on fingers or a number line, etc.), none is inherently¹ better than another as long as the technique used gets the correct answer. In this case, as long as you get the correct answer of 5, you can say "I did it correctly."
Coding complex algorithms. Most high level languages are complex enough that there are multiple approaches to completing the same task². As long as the task is completed without error, the approach used is correct. However, as has been shown many times here on TDWTF, many correct approaches trigger a reaction. If a solution can be simplified, sped up, or in general improved, the improved solution can be considered "more correct".

In addition to the above, the use of the "more correct" constructs also leaves room for the possibility that there is an even better solution/approach. The "((?<!more\s)correct)" constructs do not implicitly¹ suggest such a possibility.

¹ See how I worked those in there?
² If you really need an example, think of foreach. If foreach were deprecated, every instance of it could be replaced with a standard for loop.

Gąska

@abarker said:

((?<!more\s)correct)

Doesn't compile.

tarunik

@EvanED said:

Though it does remind me of a joking comment from one of my high school teachers, which was about the phrase "less lethal." How is something "less lethal"? It's lethal, or it's not lethal! What's it going to do, leave someone partially dead?!

It's shorthand for "less likely to be lethal" ;)

abarker

Works in my regex tester:

And I've found if it works there, it works in .NET 99.9%* of the time.

* Actually, I've yet to have an issue with it working in EditPad Pro and not work in .NET, but I figured I'd give myself some wiggle room.

Gąska

Ah, .NET. That changes alot. I was confused by the "<!" part.

abarker

It's valid regular expression syntax, even outside .NET. See http://www.cheatography.com/davechild/cheat-sheets/regular-expressions/

Gąska

TIL regex assertions. It's hard to google it if you don't know about them (my usual regex cheatsheets don't include those).

Dragnslcr

@abarker said:

1. Simple integer addition, such as 2 + 3. While there are a few different techniques that can be used (simple memorization, counting on fingers or a number line, etc.), none is inherently<sup>1</sup> better than another as long as the technique used gets the correct answer. In this case, as long as you get the correct answer of 5, you can say "I did it correctly."

Honestly, if you can't think of any ways of doing addition that would be "more" or "less" correct, you aren't trying very hard.

Begin the Rube Goldberg contest... now!

Bort

@Gaska said:

I'm pretty sure a nuclear explosion is more lethal than snake venom (venom of one snake). Both with a single person and a group of million.

The venom of one snake spread over a million people?

A single person and a group of a million nuclear explosions? That would be a lot of explosions.

A single person and the venom from each of a group of a million snakes?

Also, what if you extract the venom of a snake over the course of it's life? That would be a lot venom.

Also, what if the nuclear explosion is on the other side of the planet? Or the universe? What if it's only the energy released by two particles in a particle accelerator? It would still be a "nuclear explosion".

Also, what if they don't have the venom injected into their veins, what if it's just sitting in a vial on a table?

It's really hard to compare lethality with all these unanswered questions.

@EvanED said:

Though it does remind me of a joking comment from one of my high school teachers, which was about the phrase "less lethal." How is something "less lethal"? It's lethal, or it's not lethal! What's it going to do, leave someone partially dead?!

Maybe it would only kill part of them and so they are then "partially dead".

Like if gangrene rotted your foot off, your foot would be dead. Your foot is a part of you, therefore you are partially dead. Whereas, if you got shot in the face, all of you would probably die, so that would have been "more lethal".

Or like if you spend too much time reading this forum, you begin to realize that parts of you are becoming dead. Not as lethal as getting shot in the face, but part of you is still dead every time you engage in a pointless argument like this one.

I think I'm about 83.253653% of the way there, now.

Well, 84.2135643% now that I've written this post.

Or is it 84.2135644%?

Might as well round up, I guess.

After a while, you start to wish someone would just shoot you in the face already. With a cannon that shoots anvils.

abarker

@Dragnslcr said:

Honestly, if you can't think of any ways of doing addition that would be "more" or "less" correct, you aren't trying very hard.

Generally, the preferred technique varies from person to person (as demonstrated in the common core thread). Overall, an individual's preferred technique is no more correct than another individual's. That is what I was getting at.

HardwareGeek

@abarker said:

In addition to the above, the use of the "more correct" constructs also leaves room for the possibility that there is an even better solution/approach.

It also leaves room for the possibility that none of the solutions is actually correct, but one is better than another. Consider, for example, two students taking a math test (say, algebra or something, not basic arithmetic). One student uses the correct technique to solve a problem, but makes a simple error, like misplacing the decimal point, and gets a wrong answer. Another student takes a completely wrong approach to the problem. Although neither are correct, the first student's solution is more correct, or at least more nearly correct, than the second's, and might even get partial credit.

Bort

@Dragnslcr said:

Honestly, if you can't think of any ways of doing addition that would be "more" or "less" correct, you aren't trying very hard.

Begin the Rube Goldberg contest... now!

One night, you go out and murder 2 homeless guys, harvesting their penises and storing them in a ziploc bag in your refrigerator.

The next night, you go out and murder 3 more homeless guys, also harvesting their penises and storing them in the same ziploc bag.

Then, dump out the jar into a pot and saute in olive oil with diced onion and garlic. Sprinkle rosemary and thyme and salt to taste. Force-feed to tied-up high school crush who wouldn't talk to you because you were too "creepy". How many penises did she just eat?

WHO'S CREEPY NOW!?

sobs

cries

laughs hysterically

@abarker said:

Overall, an individual's preferred technique is no more correct than another individual's. That is what I was getting at.

aliceif

int add(int a, int b){
    while(a != 0 ? a --> b/b++ : false);
    return b;
}

Bort

Now that's weird.

aliceif

Is it?
Think about it logically: You have two piles of stuff. If pile1 is empty, you have everything in pile2. Otherwise push a thing from pile1 to pile2 while pile1 has at least 1 item. It's written a little weirdly, but makes sense if you are creative/weird/insane.

See the -->? It's supposed to signify the pushing

Actually, this might be clearer:

int add(int a, int b){
    while(a != 0 ? a -->++ b/b : false);
    return b;
}

Bort

@aliceif said:

See the 8===D()? It's supposed to signify the pushing

snicker

No, no, I'm sorry, go on about your computer stuff.

abarker

@Bort said:

One night, you go out and murder 2 homeless guys, …

I said simple integer addition, nothing about word problems. And if that's how you do integer addition in your head, you need to see a shrink.

@aliceif said:

@Dragnslcr said:

Begin the Rube Goldberg contest... now!

int add(int a, int b){
    while(a != 0 ? a --> b/b++ : false);
    return b;
}
```</blockquote>

Now you're pushing my examples together. This is no longer an individual doing simple integer addition. It is a person coding an algorithm to achieve integer addition. Doesn't really negate my point.

Dragnslcr

@abarker said:

Generally, the preferred technique varies from person to person (as demonstrated in the common core thread). Overall, an individual's preferred technique is no more correct than another individual's. That is what I was getting at.

I know, I was just going for some snark points.

HardwareGeek

@abarker said:

And if ~~that's how you do integer addition in your head~~(TRUE), you need to see a shrink.

FTFY

Gąska

@Bort said:

The venom of one snake spread over a million people?

A single person and a group of a million nuclear explosions? That would be a lot of explosions.

A single person and the venom from each of a group of a million snakes?

Sorry, I forgot the default subject doesn't work in English all that well.

@Bort said:

Also, what if you extract the venom of a snake over the course of it's life? That would be a lot venom.

Still less lethal than a nuke.

@Bort said:

Also, what if the nuclear explosion is on the other side of the planet? Or the universe? What if it's only the energy released by two particles in a particle accelerator? It would still be a "nuclear explosion".

You got me there.

@Bort said:

Also, what if they don't have the venom injected into their veins, what if it's just sitting in a vial on a table?

Crazy scientists, medicine students and necromancers aside, snake venom doesn't happen to sit in vials. It doesn't sit at all to start with.

@Bort said:

It's really hard to compare lethality with all these unanswered questions.

I'll rephrase my original statement then - a nuclear explosion is more lethal to the humans in its proximity than snake venom injected in their veins with about the same density distribution as the energy distribution, if the mass of nuclear material and the mass of snakes is the same.

@Bort said:

Like if gangrene rotted your foot off, your foot would be dead. Your foot is a part of you, therefore you are partially dead. Whereas, if you got shot in the face, all of you would probably die, so that would have been "more lethal".

But if some crazy scientist/medicine student <necromancers don't do this> cut your head immediately after, fixed the blood vessels and kept the rest of body fed up, I guess the percentage of body damaged would be less than in the first scenario. So which one is more lethal is disputable in this case.

Gąska

@abarker said:

I said simple integer addition, nothing about word problems.

I think you should fix your word problems anyway.

Bort

@Gaska said:

I'll rephrase my original statement then - a nuclear explosion is more blah blah blah than snake blah blah with about the same blah blah energy distribution, if the mass of nuclear material blah blah blah of snakes is blah.

THE SNAKES HAVE THE BOMB!? WE'RE DOOMED!

Gąska

EvanED

@Gaska said:

I'm pretty sure a nuclear explosion is more lethal than snake venom. Both with a single person and a group of million.

That is a good point, there's another dimension, which is the number of people killed.

I guess another dimension is how long it takes; if it takes 1 second off the end of your life, was it really lethal?

I did say that it was mostly a joke.

@abarker said:

In the first set of constructs (without more), it is implied that there is only one correct way to complete the specified task. The second set of constructs (with more) implies that there are multiple sets of correct ways to accomplish the desired task, but certain approaches are somehow better than other approaches.

I'm not saying the meanings are the same, just that the grammar works out the same: you use the same form of "correct" regardless of whether you say "more."

Gąska

@EvanED said:

That is a good point, there's another dimension, which is the number of people killed.

I have a strange feeling that you skipped over some words in my sentence you've quoted. Specifically, the part where I was saying about a single person.

abarker

@EvanED said:

I'm not saying the meanings are the same, just that the grammar works out the same: you use the same form of "correct" regardless of whether you say "more."

Eh, reading the entire conversation is a barrier to pedantry.

Gąska

The best kind of pedantry is when you point out that someone's words don't line up with something they said 530 posts and 2 months ago.

EvanED

@Gaska said:

I have a strange feeling that you skipped over some words in my sentence you've quoted. Specifically, the part where I was saying about a single person.

I was responding to the "group of a million" part. The "single person" is covered by what I said originally. The nuclear blast is either lethal to that person or not. The snake bite is either lethal or not. There's not really "more or less" about it.

(I can't believe I'm arguing about something that was said in jest...)

abarker

@Gaska said:

The best kind of pedantry is when you point out that someone's words don't line up with something they said 530 posts and 2 months ago.

That sounds like work.

My favorite pendants are the ones I've earned for telling someone they're wrong by copy-pasting a definition from an online dictionary and then adding two sentences to explain why I'm right. Total time spent: 15 seconds.

Gąska

@EvanED said:

The nuclear blast is either lethal to that person or not. The snake bite is either lethal or not. There's not really "more or less" about it.

Yes there is. Compare the body of someone killed by snake venom to someone killed by nuclear explosion.

@abarker said:

That sounds like work.

Just good memory.

EvanED

@Gaska said:

Yes there is. Compare the body of someone killed by snake venom to someone killed by nuclear explosion.

The snake venom guy is more likely to become part of the zombie apocalypse because he's less dead?

abarker

@Gaska said:

@abarker said:
That sounds like work.

Just good memory.

To-may-toe, to-mah-toe.

Gąska

Random fact: Polish language has separate words for general ability to memorize things, and ability to memorize bad things other people have done so you can call them out on it years after.

blakeyrat

Awesome.

Because I am an expert at the latter, and not so good at the former.

Does it have a single word for, "really embarrassing stuff you wish you didn't remember, but your brain inexplicably brings it up about once a week anyway"?

tar

What is this topic even about any more? I just skim read a whole load of stuff about random Polish facts, bad math and sautéed dicks...

Gąska

@blakeyrat said:

Does it have a single word for, "really embarrassing stuff you wish you didn't remember, but your brain inexplicably brings it up about once a week anyway"?

But of course - moralniak. Short for "kac moralny", ie. "moral hangover". The name comes from fact that both regular and moral hangover are usually preceeded by two bottles of vodka.

blakeyrat

That's not quite the same, this doesn't involve getting drunk. It just comes up when my brain feels like I might be too cheerful. Because my brain hates me.

Gąska

Well, in Poland, embarrassing stuff always involves getting drunk.

HardwareGeek

@tar said:

What is this topic even about any more?

What is any TDWTF topic about?

@tar said:

random Polish facts, bad math and sautéed dicks

That's as good a summary as any. Well, strictly speaking, there was only one post about sautéed dicks, so that probably isn't worth including in the summary.

tar

@HardwareGeek said:

strictly speaking, there was only one post about sautéed dicks, so that probably isn't worth including in the summary.

It was one of the more memorable posts of the topic though....