Delta1212

I never took notes on a laptop, but I know people who did. One thing to keep in mind is that there are a lot more people who are good at typing without looking at the screen than writing without looking at the paper. Typing, for many people, is also significantly faster. So it's entirely possible to keep detailed notes on what the professor is saying while only minimally and occasionally breaking direct focus on them, which can be more difficult when writing with pen and paper. It does work better in subjects other than math, though. It's not a skill I ever had, mind, but I was an awful note taker in general. I always learned better by paying maximal attention in class, and rarely read what notes I did take, anyway. There are a couple of exceptions where note taking was absolutely essential to a particular class, but in general I traded "I understand how all this fits together and will help you with it" for access to other people's notes on anything I didn't remember well enough myself and/or that wasn't in the text. (I've got a very good memory for information but nobody's perfect).

Yes, although that seems to work with any verb I can think of rather than being something unique to 'put' or some limited subset of verbs in the way that using the present tense form as a past tense form seems to be limited to most single-syllable words that end in 't'. This is interesting, I wonder if it's considered a distinct grammatical construct from the normal future tense. I'll have to look that up.

'I do travel to Birmingham every Wednesday' means 'I am presently in the habit of traveling to Birmingham every Wednesday' 'I did travel to Birmingham every Wednesday' means 'In the past, I was in the habit of traveling to Birmingham every Wednesday.' It's not the opposite meaning any more than any past tense verb is. Incidentally, future tense if that expression would be 'I will travel to Birmingham every Wednesday' which would be 'In the future, I will be in the habit of traveling to Birmingham every Wednesday.' You're really talking about aspect, rather than tense, which I realize can be confusing.

It's present tense (compare "I did travel to Birmingham every Wednesday"), but, I believe, imperfect aspect, as it's referring to a repeated action.

Apparently there hasn't been a dedicated future tense for verbs dating all the way back to Old English. They just used the present tense with the timeframe being understood based on the context. That's probably why a verb that would commonly be used to express events in the future (e.g. I will [want to] do it) got generalized to simply forming a future tense. Actually, I can see "Tomorrow I put down the bottle and never pick it back up" as valid usage. It's slightly different than "Tomorrow I will put down the bottle" in tone, though. It's far more declarative. "Tomorrow I put this all behind me" that sort of thing. It definitely works as a future tense but seems to be better used as referring to more metaphorical putting of things than mundane physical action.

And actually, this just occurred to me, the use of "will" as future tense is derived from the (now infrequently used) meaning of the word as something along the lines of "want." As in "willing something to happen." So "We will eat at the restaurant tomorrow" would originally have meant something more along the lines of "We want to/plan to eat at the restaurant tomorrow" before eventually coming to simply mean that it was going to happen in the future. There's no such thing as a "perfect" form of a language. Everything has history and most language is derived from some other word or construction that originally meant something slightly different but was adapted to a new purpose.

And lastly, I wouldn't say the length of time it takes for the last pixel to show up is how long it took to create the picture. An artist doesn't spend years on a work, add the final brush stroke seconds after the penultimate stroke and then say "This painting took but a few moments to create."

Actually, that is exactly how language works. So yes, it does. Unless you're going to tell us that "girl" should actually refer to a young person of either gender, and everyone using it to refer exclusively to females is misusing the word.

Why even put in that effort? I know it's not precisely weather, but I hear it's already the case that when an American sits down, there's an earthquake in China, no genetic engineering of extra parts required. It's known as the butterball effect.

How did the HIV virus evolve? It's likely the result of a mutation of the Simian Immuno-Deficiency Virus that crossed over into humans as the result of contact between human hunters and apes they were killing, butchering and eating, especially chimpanzees, that were infected with SIV. ...I'd ask if you were seeking help with homework questions, but this doesn't seem particularly well posed for an academic question.

Assuming there is a trend, it may be the result of the fact that diversification is the result of numerous varying selection pressures on sub-populations. If a particular population does not diversify, it is likely because there is some selection pressure to maintain the form it has and preventing any off-shoots from flourishing. That situation is certainly more likely to result in an organism that resembles its ancestors stretching back across many generations than a situation that promotes extensive diversification. I'm not sure this is a real trend but there is certainly a mechanism that would lead to both preserving ancestral traits and lack of further speciation, so I wouldn't be surprised to find some examples where those two qualities are correlated.

Distance isn't constant for a number of reasons.

You're going to feel very silly when you realize that Popcorn Sutton is actually, himself, an AI.

That looks like a pretty standard chatbot conversation.

When your baby is killed or left permanently scarred by an easily preventable childhood illness, or worse, gives it to someone else's child who is killed or left permanently scarred and who wouldn't have otherwise been exposed, please make sure she understands whose fault it is. Refusing to vaccinate should be considered child abuse.

But since this strikes a chord with so few people, I'd go with pictures of babies hacking up a lung thanks to whooping cough.

If everyone in the world had brown hair, no one would describe themselves as a brunette. In fact, the whole concept of 'brunette' would probably not exist for these people. That doesn't change the fact that, by the definition of the word brunette that we currently use, all of these people would be brunettes.

Fitness isn't really fuzzily defined. The more offspring you have that survive to reproduce, the more fit you are. That's pretty straightforward and easily quantifiable. What specific traits and circumstances contribute to a particular individual's reproductive fitness, and by how much, is less easily quantified, although you can do a pretty good job of estimating the average impact of a given trait on fitness by looking at a population in aggregate. Edit: And being woolly doesn't mean it's "fake." It means it's vague and difficult to draw precise conclusions from, which is exactly how you describe it, yourself.

Although that would seem to argue against genetics being the likely root of your different experience unless you're adopted.

It is fine, I suppose, to be proud of your country, and I'm even a fan of the way Switzerland does certain things, but try not to fall into the same trap as the people you are criticizing.

If they're wearing a fully enclosed suit of power armor, it's not really open air anymore. I mean, you've effectively just created a less aerodynamic, detachable cockpit module at that point.

Horses have faded away as a means of transport, therefore no one rides horses anymore. Just because something gets replaced in areas it used to dominate does not mean that it is definitely going to disappear completely. That happens to some things, sure, but not everything. Paper and pen still maintain a few advantages over digital devices in certain situations, and at the very least, the lack of need of batteries is one that will probably never be eliminated completely. I can see the use of pen and paper continuing to dwindle, but I just don't see it disappearing completely. Definitely not anytime soon. If that's not enough to keep you happy, well, *shrug*

Ok, what makes it untestable?

I don't think that claiming RoS isn't testable is strictly true. We can certainly have measurements taken from two different frames that calculate the simultaneity of distant events differently. Perhaps it might be better to say that whether any two events separated in space can ever "really" be described as simultaneous or happening in a particular order isn't testable? As a phenomenon of observation it's certainly testable, but as with most of physics, "what is really happening" behind those observations is not.

Actually, if the video camera is in the box, it'd also be part of the same "superposition" as the cat. So you have a box with a cat that is simultaneously alive and dead, and a video camera that simultaneously has a recording of a car dying and a cat not dying. When you open the box, the wave function collapses and you either have a live car that was recorded being alive the whole time by the video camera, or a dead cat that was recorded dying by the video camera. And, of course, the whole thing is still silly and impossible to actually perform as a practical experiment.