StringJunky

If we had remained a common market instead of towards a common government, Brexit wouldn't have happened.

Aitch derives from French. Posh people follow that, hence the derision by them for haitch. The structural form of the letter H is derived from Latin, pronounced haitch, therefore, I would say the 'correct' pronunciation, if one is to be originalist, is haitch.

Pretty fruitless to proactively try to regulate language on others outside of a professionally-regulated setting. You are farting against the wind... it'll just come back at you.

You have to find it first and you may have to do significant disassemby, which you have to do covertly. Even an owner/leaser does not know where it is in commercial cars and diggers, for example. There may be more than one installed.

Professional or otherwise critical settings where it is imperative the language needs to be unambiguous and specific.

No, perdant.

Being a pedant in social settings is a fool's errand.

I would imagine that a would-be thief's compatriots would consider it a treasonable act, considering how valuable these are to their war effort. It doesn't compute. The manufacturer will know where it is as well at the login of a computer. Hidden trackers are in many vehicles as standard. At $7.5m each I think it's pretty likely.

GPS trackers. Smells like propaganda to dispirit their enemy. These are gold to the Ukrainians and they don't have enough. The leadership will be monitoring the positions of these vehicles constantly to keep them in useful positions. Got a six-man crew as well that you need to get to conspire together. It's BS.

It's snobbery. My favourite is "More bigger". Generally, I accept people are as they are... c'est la vie. Language constantly evolves, so correct usage is period-sensitive.

Here's me looking for a post by Janus! LOL!

I also noticed that what is considered slang or dialectic in the East Midlands and East upwards are often Scandanavian in origin.

Think of the police using "zero, alpha, tango" and all that jargon... for the same reason.

I think potential ambiguities are well scrutinzed for before standardizing mission-critical parlance in the armed forces and other safety-sensitive bodies. e2a. modified for clarity

Cheers

@CharonYThanks. @Endy0816 Good thinking, Batman. @CharonY Thinking about Endy's thought: are coronaviruses naturally zoonotic?

I haven't got a clue. It looks like they were co-dabbling in bat viruses.

Prof. Andrew Sachs (economics), who was on the Lancet's Covid 19 Commission, and Prof. Neil Harrison (molecular pharmacology) jointly suggest covid-19 may have originated in a US biotechnology lab and the technique shared with Chinese researchers, who then accidently let it out into the wild. PNAS paper by them: Do SFN biologists think they have a case? I felt this was more about politics, even though it's technically biology, so I put here because I think this conversation may well head in that direction.

Its all down to "consciousness" and our not appreciating its pivotal importance in understanding life, the universe and everything.

You don't know what you don't know, very much applies to you.

Do you need to know how a computer works at the hardware/software interface in order to use it? Why do we need to understand consciousness in order to do science?

Try actively creating or picturing in your mind what the words suggest. Words in themselves are just abstract symbols that are meant to trigger the same thoughts or pictures that the author intended. Act out or create in your mind what the contents and narrative suggests to you. With practice the words will disappear, to be replaced by images, emotions, actions etc, depending on what you are reading about. These times you will remember much more because you are applying more of yourself. Read aloud to yourself if necessary as that engages more of yourself to the task and creates more pathways for remembering in meaningful ways. This becomes a memorable experience, instead of a mindless drudge of rote learning by repetition of the abstract symbols laid before you.

I like that idea, gravity is totally reliable.

How about using the best tools for describing consciousness and start with cognitive neuroscience/biopschology. That's where the nuts and bolts are. Philosophy is only useful in the sense of how one approaches the subject.

Proof is for maths. The best can science can do is supporting evidence with varying degrees of mathematically-derived probability; confidence interval.