This is an amusing question. I was thoroughly confused by what this meant.
In my country, I keep my socks in a completely different room from my shoes. So when I put on clothes, I first have to put on socks, then leave the room, and then put on the shoes. I've observed the same in Germany, France, Austria, Poland, and Spain (off the top of my head).
As a separate issue, the habit of walking in shoes within your house is still utterly baffling to me. I've seen people not walk in shoes even at the office (because it's uncomfortable). Can't imagine the smell of feet after walking in shoes the whole day.
> In my country, I keep my socks in a completely different room from my shoes. So when I put on clothes, I first have to put on socks, then leave the room, and then put on the shoes. I've observed the same in Germany, France, Austria, Poland, and Spain (off the top of my head).
From Latvia here, more or less the same.
Then again, i really like wearing woolen socks everywhere, especially when it's cold outside, so they're on my legs most of the time anyways. Though i do have to change them often, or sometimes just put one pair on a radiator and wear another one, so that once i need to switch the new pair is warm.
It's actually really comfortable.
Agreed, I can't imagine wearing shoes all day.
The most pleasant footwear for me is Birkenstock Arizonas with socks, at home or office or when driving or running errands. This is the classic model with two straps over your foot and no back strap. I only switch to shoes when I will be walking some distance.
With the Birkenstocks, most of your foot is ventilated even while standing or sitting, and every time you take a step the bottom of your foot gets some air.
Don't over-tighten the straps. You should be able to slip your feet in and out of them without reaching down. Have at least two pair on hand, so you can easily slip out of one pair and into another.
In the summer I may leave off the socks to stay cooler, so it is especially nice to switch to another pair of sandals to let them dry out. With socks in cool weather, I'm comfortable wearing the same pair all day.
If you get these, be sure to get the "soft footbed" version. They are much more comfortable than the originals. And I like the suede version for the softer straps.
You may look geeky wearing them, but face it, you're already a geek!
Add Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Iceland and Holland.
Pretty sure it's an American thing to constantly wear shoes, which is weird considering how little walking they appear to do (compared to driving).
I carry my socks over to my shoes and then put them on. But of course, it's socks first, then shoes.
Sock shoe sock shoe...who would do such an atrocious thing??
Someone who's old or infirm enough that reaching their feet is an ordeal, so they minimize the number of "trips".
A more recent example of "how the heck do I pronounce this word" is Bazel, the build system.
I've always pronounced it like "hazel", but many of my colleagues rhyme it with "dazzle".
The Bazel website even has an FAQ entry about it, but they managed to completely confuse the issue:
> How do you pronounce “Bazel”?
> The same way as “basil” (the herb) in US English: “BAY-zel”. It rhymes with “hazel”. IPA: /ˈbeɪzˌəl/
Your poem does the subject justice. Just in case you have not seen it before, one who writes bad poetry is a poetaster, which the OED  defines as:
A petty or paltry poet; a writer of poor or trashy verse; a rimester.
I should very much like to be known as a rimester. It sounds adventurous.
 Oxford English Dictionary, 1989. No link; it's a handy 20 volume set.
I appreciate that it sounds like a misspelling of potater.
potater or potahter?
Most wholesome GH thread I have read in a while. I for one appreciate your most terrible poetry.
I've always pronounced it the same as Basel, the city in Switzerland.
Uh, the way the Swiss pronounce Basel, or the way the English do?
Or just call it blaze :)
Co za bajzel
I know MS Azure is Aah-zhur, but I hear it called uh-Zhur more often than not.
Don’t even get me started on the fourteen incorrect ways to say Omicron…
Out of curiosity, how do you know that it's Aah-zhur? Does Microsoft offer any guidance on the topic?
(Honest question, I'm confused myself. An authoritative source would be awesome.)
So do you pronounce the "Aah" like the "o" in "otter", or like the "a" in "apple"?
Isn't it fun trying to describe pronunciation with contrived spelling? :-)
Indeed. Much easier to use IPA here, but the likelihood people can write/read it is pretty low. I'm out of practice, but should be /æʒər/. Could also copy-paste that into here: http://ipa-reader.xyz/
My main hobby is choral singing. Learning IPA is insanely helpful; at a high level the pronunciation of words really really matters and making sure the choir place the vowels (and turn the dipthongs) in the same way is a big deal (think of Anthea Turner singing 'fire' in a pop song compared to a baroque English 'fire').
I've noticed consistently that more British people are familiar with IPA, even passingly or badly, than Americans. I've never quite known why -- unless you do a language degree here you're never taught it formally, but it's usually in the dictionaries (e.g. the Oxford English dictionary) by every word, often with multiple forms for different geographic regions. I've never actually seen a real physical en-us dictionary -- does Marriam Webster (sic) do the same?
Emphasis on the first syllable. Short A as in apple. 
The Azure difference at my company very closely aligned with office location relative to the Atlantic Ocean.
Aah-zhur to the west, uh-Zhur to the east.
It also doesn't help that in the recommend setup that running bazel actually runs bazelisk which would give it the dazzle pronunciation.
Funny you mention that. My company just switched to Bazelisk; it was the first time I'd heard of it. Or I should say, read about it, because I've never heard it pronounced out loud.
Even though I say BAY-zuhl, my inner mind reads Bazelisk as BAZZ-uh-lisk. No doubt because I knew the reference to Roko's Basilisk, which I'd always pronounced BASS-ihl-isk. Again in my inner mind, because I don't think I've ever heard that word pronounced either.
So I might say "We run BAY-zuhl using BAZZ-uh-lisk." And my mind doesn't put a red flag on the inconsistency, it seems perfectly natural.
Just like I eat sea bass and listen to bass guitar!
Not BUH-zel, as some of us affectionately call it?
Now we should start spelling it "Buzzle"!
But then it wouldn't be an anagram for "Blaze" any more. (That's Google's internal build system that Bazel is derived from.)
The most stunning outcome here is the apparent internet consensus that Star Wars is better than Star Trek.
This is indefensible.
A Star Wars fan will tell you there are, at most, four good Star Wars movies. A Star Trek fan will tell you there are 6-7 good Star Trek movies, depending on whether you count Galaxy Quest. This might leave us with some room for debate about whether the cultural impact of Star Wars episodes 4 and 5 outweigh Star Trek's larger amount of quality material.
Except that Star Trek is a TV show.
For the movie franchise to not even be the better movie franchise is just... there's... it's not even a question.
I also thing that the maybe the reason why Star Wars wins today has to do with the age of the fanbase but also with dilution of movies ability to attract due to TV series.
Even if both of them started in almost the same period, it seems to be that Star Trek was more active (in the sense of promoting it) early (11 movies launched before 2010, only 2 launched after) so it probably has a fan base older.
Also somehow Star Wars seems more modern, in the sense that watching Star Wars seems more 2020 than watching Star Trek even if both of them launches movies (2 Star Trek and 3 Star Wars) in the last 10 years or so (2010-2020).
I know a lot of young people who saw Star Wars, but not many that watched Star Trek.
I am not saying Star Trek is better, but I am saying that maybe a lot of the fan base is not active or does not care enough to vote or contribute to this debate :)
Also even if I am a big fan of Star Trek I also really enjoy Star Wars. Both of them brings me different things like for example: Star Trek is exploring more what humans can become while Star Wars explores more the effects of human flaws on politics, culture and societies.
I think both of them explore current events or are influenced by current geo-political events or cultural shifts.
I also think that Star Trek should try to be back to its visionary origin and not try to compete with Star Wars on apocalyptical events.
It's just because those first couple of Star Wars movies were just so exciting/imaginative etc. The universe was so lived-in and fantastic.
Trek has its moments, but it's just more boring. A lot of talky talky and slow and/or repetitive sequences. Even if it's more intellectually interesting as a whole, story-wise.
Even Star Wars was kind of slow by modern standards but the audiovisual design was just monumental.
Yeah. You can try to compare the mass of quality material in one vs the other and I can see why Trek would win that faceoff. But the universe of Wars is just more relatable and this sort of kneejerk biases that way.
• Gritty vs clean
• Thieves and scoundrels vs naval officers
• Genuine clothing vs color coded uniforms
• Misfits save the world from pervasive evil vs bold leaders discovering some weird new thing
• Magic vs Science
• Jumping into a gun turret and swinging it around at your enemy vs “Mr. Worf, target their ships!”
• Swordfights and maulings vs redshirts getting blown up.
I think each of them has its own milieu that it speaks to more, but the internet is for sure gonna pick Star Wars over Star Trek if they just are asked “X or Y?”. Star Wars still has a cool factor while Star Trek still has a dorky factor.
And a lot of that factor comes back to the fact that Trek is better known as syndicated TV. The constraint is that the episodes may be shown in random order, and so every episode or every two episodes, the state of the crew and the ships needs to be returned back to the baseline. The dorkiness comes in part from that aspect where the system gets returned back to where it was.
That's not all of it because Deadliest Catch also has the same aspect where every Deadliest Catch episode is basically the same thing, hah. Firefly kind of can be viewed as the attempt to take Star Wars’ grittiness and somehow make it syndicatable, “we finish the job and you see us a month later seeking out the next job.”
This is easy. At least for me and I bet many people believe the same thing as me.
I'm a diehard fan of BOTH Star Wars and Star Trek. And I can say Star Trek has better influence, especially to the fandom who understand accurately what its messages are.
lol, now listen to this alternative perspective that may match an actual objective crowd
Despite the better and more coherent world of star trek, the original show is preachy. Its too preachy. Almost every episode was to be an allegory to a real world issue at that time and its slow, and awkward. Die hards appreciate it more so for the “bold exploration” than what actually happened!
Later on the themes began self referencing and evolving into their own lore, while largely retaining a self-contained episodic format.
The movie are just fan service or the dream conflict.
But remember the human in the audience. They dont want to be preached to, they dont want the origin story of a particular character to be anything more than scifi, instead of the plot piece for now contrived bigotry.
Star Wars provides this desired entertainment. A heros tale, over and over again. The classic formula for the acceptance of the masses. Star Wars is not a satisfactory chronicle when completed, but the world building in all of its other shows and actual tv series is more engaging.
The original lore in star wars is fantasy and audiences want that.
The original lore in star trek is allegories to a real world social issue, and audiences dont always want that.
It’s very hard to sit through Star Trek: The Slow Motion Picture, though. Like 20 minutes of footage of the Enterprise docking. I don’t think much of the Star Wars prequels, but they’re leagues ahead of Star Trek 1 and 5.
Star Trek 2 and 4 are really good though. Especially the whales in 4.
Star Wars fans will also tell you about some of the greatest video games of all time. None of the Star Trek games ever made much of an impact.
>Except that Star Trek is a TV show.
Last I checked, there were several feature films with the title of Star Trek. Do I live in a fantasy world where this isn't true for you?
Let me paraphrase OP: Star Trek is mainly a TV show but also made some movies. A Star Wars fan will tell you there are 4 good Star Wars movies. A Star Trek fan will tell you there are 6 good Star Trek movies. For Star Wars to not even be the better movie franchise (and definitely not the TV franchise) means these responses are just... inexplicable.
so we're judging it by the count of good movies included in the franchise, and not actually how good those movies are?
I voted Trek, but there are some good Star Wars TV shows.
Wow, TIL that some people puts their shoe before even putting the second sock ? And that they are the majority ? Where is that ? Is the civilization finally collapsing ? How do you do that ? Your socks are near your shoes ? Near the door ? What do you wear inside your house ? Am I an alien on this planet ? So much questions it broke my brain.
As someone who is doing that at the moment, the reason for me is because I treat the floor as dirty (due to cats) and want to avoid touching it with bare feet or socks. When I'm in the apartment, I wear slippers. My socks are stored inside my boots (merino wool, so doesn't need cleaning often). When I leave, my process is: remove foot from slipper, put on the sock while standing on one leg, put sock into shoe or boot, repeat for other foot.
I'd be surprised if my process is common though.
Coming up on the site:
Is a slipper a shoe?
Being in the “socks drawer is nowhere near the shoes” camp, there is one situation where that happens: in summer I’ll walk around my house in sandals, without socks.
The only situation I’ll put socks on is when I’m going outside in closed shoes, and in that case I’ll bring a pair of socks to the front door because why bother removing the sandal, putting on the sock, putting the sandal back on, walking to the front door, removing the sandal, putting on the shoe? In that situation I’ll usually go “foot at a time” so remove sandal, put on sock, put on shoe, repeat for next foot.
They aren't they majority actually, according to the website they're like at 10% of all answerers.
As an Italian, I stopped after I saw the internet has decided that pineapple on pizza is ok.
I'm one of the wretched sinners, but I was honestly surprised at the results.
Have you tried it?
Yeah and it is disgusting.
Stop yucking people's yums.
You can pronounce any word any way you like to. The only reason to pronounce some word a certain way is out of respect. The creators of the gif format called it "jif" as a riff on jif peanut butter. End.
There's no meaningful argument on how to pronounce "gif" except "how do people pronounce gif?". Otherwise we're all going to comb through historical records to find out who first said "gift" or "giraffe".
But we can all have preferences, and in some small way be part of the process of pushing English in one direction or another. So here's my pitch for the hard g:
Ambiguous letters are very annoying. I'm teaching my kids to read and it's very frustrating. C is sometimes like sometimes like k (except when k is followed by n) and sometimes like s (except when s is followed by h), unless c is followed by h in which case...you get the idea. We have more sounds than letters, so some ambiguity is required by a sort of pigeonhole principle. It's weird, then, that we have multiple letters for the same sound. A misuse of resources.
But at least C the rules are relatively clean. G is the worst of them, because you really can't tell. Gimble but giant, etc.
So we ought to try to minimize the degree to which this happens because it makes English more approachable for everyone. If you coin a word starting with a "k" sound, start it with a k. And if you want something to start with "j" use a j. (If you want a hard g, you have to use a g, so that's settled already). Then, on the margins, English is slightly more consistent.
With words where there's no consensus, you probably can't change the spelling (and with gif you surely can't) but the same logic applies: pick in the direction of less ambiguity. Since we already have a "j" sound, we should, where possible, make "g" hard.
So say gif with a hard g for humanity.
I pronounce it with a guttural "g" as normal in Dutch, and that option is missing :(
The only reason to pronounce some word a certain way is to facilitate communication with other people. It helps to pronounce things the same as the plurality of people you are talking to, to reduce barriers to understanding.
I really don't like any argument for how to pronounce ".gif", so I pronounce it in as many ways as possible to try to annoy people.
OK, I'm pronouncing GIF as 'throatwobbler mangrove', then.
I like how we all know this is impossible to settle and yet wade in with our arguments anyway.
Graphics Interchange Format
Try to say Graphics with a soft G.
Say Graphics with a mouthful of Jif peanut butter and see how it sounds!!!
I think you may have converted me. xD
> Try to say Graphics with a soft G.
That's not exactly difficult to do, though it would be spelled "draphics".
It's difficult to see what this is supposed to be relevant to; acronyms are never given pronunciations taken from their hidden constituent words. Try to say "stimulated" with a /z/ (as in "LASER").
> Try to say "stimulated" with a /z/ (as in "LASER").
Yup, and there are plenty of others too:
SCUBA - U as in uh-nderwater
SIM / VIN - I as in I-dentification
YOLO - second O as in wuh-nce
CAPTCHA - first A as in aw-tomated
AWOL - soft a-bsent
ICE - ih-mmigration and Customs Enforcement
NATO - soft A-tlantic
OCONUS - ow-tside
OSHA - ah-ccupational
SCOTUS / POTUS - uh-f
AIDS - a-cquired
It's really a long list if you look. I vote for GIF with a J sound.
there's some leeway in how to pronounce things but obviously communication requires consensus on how to transmit things or else you can't exchange any information. See two people in very different thick accents trying to speak to each other in the same language.
Language follows patterns for all sorts of reasons. Some of it has to do with priors based on other words, or beliefs about pronunciation and so forth based on other information, or in many cases, the physiology of the throat, mouth, and tongue. People will do whatever they want and it doesn't matter what the originator of a word wanted or intended.
I don't say this out of disrespect; language is a sort of chaotic dynamic group-level system, and what happens initially is only one small input.
To me it’s gotta be different from “jif” because that’s already a word with a different spelling. I think that’s why there’s a tiebreaker: because “jiff” is already a different word, I jump to “gif”.
Well, the creator proposed it to be called "jiff" to specifically reference that word. Because Gifs are compressed, they would download much faster (a jiffy) over slow dialup internet connection than a bmp.
Yes but the creator screwed up in thinking that people were going to read the minutia of their document. The majority of people seeing "gif" with no instruction would use a hard-g. If they know it stands for "Graphics Interchange Format", again they'd use a hard-g. They screwed up (unless their goal was to cause all this endless useless discussion :P)
Homophones are valid words with valid pronunciations and we have a ton of them in English.
How there can be more than two ways to spell words that sound like “to” is just too much. When people do that, I wonder if they’re messing with me or if their minds have fallen prey to a language of many sources. I pray that we will one day have eliminated all of the homophones. Then we will have truly won. Eye think ewe agree…
Pay respect to the author and also to people who use the word and want easy pronunciations so they can spend more time on what's more useful. If, say, our lovely Indian instructors on youtube decide that gif is git but with f, then let it be, for that they are making contributions.
The argument over this always frustrates me. People argue about which pronunciation is correct, but for a made-up word, the creator is the only one who can decide what's correct. People are free to ignore the creator's wishes or do something different out of personal preference or disagree about what should be correct, but if the creator pronounced gif "Throatwobbler Mangrove" that'd still be the only thing that counts as "correct".
All words are made up. The creator can certainly suggest whatever pronunciation they think should be used, but if most of the world decides otherwise, tough luck. "Correct" language is whatever language is most widely used and understood by people. Linguistics is a descriptive discipline, not a prescriptive one.
We don't see that logic applied for foreign words. People in the USA rarely say croissant correctly, nor mayonnaise, nor manga, etc... I don't expect it will be any different for created words.
The problem is people aren't going to look up the "correct" pronunciation. They're just going to say it how ever it seems like it would be said by reading it in their native language. Once enough people do it it's too late to fix.
An interesting related thing is how people pronounce initials. For example NOP ("No" "Awp" or "Nawp" or "Nope" I had a colleague that pronounced RTS as "ritz". What I find interesting with "ritz" is why the "i". Why not "rats" or "ruts" or "rets" or "rots".
In my domain, graphics, there's GLSL which some people say "Glisle" and "WGSL" which some call "Wigsle". But why not "Glasle" or "Glashal" and "Wagsle"/"Washal". Why did they choose "i". "a" makes more sense given that the letters stand for and if you're going to abandon what the letters stand for, still, why "i" and not some other vowel?
>the creator is the only one who can decide what's correct
When I was young I never understood the French idea of 'the death of the author'. I found the idea of ignoring the author's intentions in writing a novel, and of ignoring their clarifications regarding the novel, quite absurd. In time, I have found myself more on the side of this idea.
An author can create something, but this does not give them dictates over how it is interpreted by the rest of us. Creation need not imply authority over understanding, nor later insights inspired from a work.
I'm not sure the pronunciation of an acronym for an image format quite fits into the concept of literary criticism, but I can't say that I'll ever be too bothered that the original author has had the misfortune of pronouncing their own format incorrectly.
The vast majority of my favorite authors - ergo the ones I'm interested enough in to go looking for their opinions - have explicitly recused themselves from public interpretation.
It's a lose lose for them. Regardless of the pronunciation they declare will effectively anger half of the fans. Debate on one of my novels on the internet so that people are continuously talking about that novel is a good thing. Why wreck it?
There is no objectively correct way to pronounce anything. The only correctness that matters is if you were understood correctly. In that case both are correct, but they each are different signals.
Even in normal everyday conversational words let alone tech words. People in New England pronounce words differently than people in Minnesota or the South. Hell, in Texas, syllables are seemingly added to words in our pronunciations.
Why on earth would anyone think for a second that the inventor of a technology has any input on the pronunciation of the name of the technology?
Imagine if someone said “well actually the inventor of the paper clip pronounces it with a soft ‘c’ so it sounds like ‘paper slip’”
This seems so clearly absurd that I don’t even really know how to argue against it.
This might be somewhat true for English where there are so many odd spellings and exceptions  but, in general, there are rules for pronunciation and they are pretty strong for many languages.
As a non-native speaker who mostly reads English, this makes me very worried about my pronunciation.
You've made a giant gaffe.
I know you were joking. My favorite example is
"gh" from laugh, "o" from "women", "ti" from "tion" (like nation")
so "ghoti" can be pronounced the same as "fish"
gin, gift, giraffe, giggle
I frequently work with some people in Argentina and they pronounce git as an English speaker might say “jit”
We never discus image formats tho. I’ll have to ask them about GIF next time.
The English call the Thames river Tims. Spanish call Barcelona Barthelona, and Ibiza Ibitha. So I don't put much in native pronounciations. Otherwise, if they are pronouncing it correctly, they need to go back to spelling skool!!
Don't get me started on Stuyvesant! ;-)
/s in case it's not obvious
The P in JPEG stands for "photo." You don't pronounce it "jpheg." English isn't a consistent language, and to try to apply consistent pronunciation is a failure in abstract thinking.
So how do you pronounce "gill"?
The unit of measure? "Jill".
> The unit of measure?
You wouldn't think "the breathing apparatus of a fish" before "the unit of measure"? When was the last time you saw something measured in gills?
When I lived in Scotland around 25 years ago, many bars in the Highlands advertised the size of their whiskey measures in terms of gills (and I was laughed at for mispronouncing the term!). I'm not sure if it's still common. So for me, it does actually come to mind at least as readily as fish anatomy.
Jill, obviously. /s
Eggs existed long before chickens.
A whole 51% the internet currently appears to agree. Phew.
The question obviously doesn't mean any egg, it is asking about chicken eggs. But the question still always seemed ambiguous to me only because the terms are vague. If you define a chicken egg as an egg that was laid by a chicken, then it is the chicken first. If you define it as an egg that a chicken was hatched from, then it was the egg first. Define your terms and the question is simple to answer.
If evolution is correct and I think we can skip debate on this, then the chicken is results of mutations from a previous lineage of animals…
Those mutations happen at/inside the egg. At some point… little by little, two animals have an offspring that isn’t exactly like them.
The chicken egg came before the chicken that laid it. Some other animal laid it. And likewise the egg existed before the chicken inside it developed.
In no scenario that I can steelman does the chicken ever come first.
Let me try to steel-man it, then: the "egg" may be taken to refer to the "eggs laid by chickens", in which case there necessarily was a chicken before the first chicken-laid egg.
And that's the best I can do. But it's silly, because that interpretation of the question has an extremely obvious answer, which implies that this is _not_ the intended meaning of the question -- if the structure of the question contains the required answer, then you wouldn't bother asking that question at all.
So we're right back at of course the bloody egg came first.
Anyone else want to take a shot?
Another way to put it is that a chicken was once an egg, so even if "the chicken came first," that chicken was once an egg.
A chicken wasn't once an egg.
A chicken was once a fertilized egg cell, but an "egg" is the vessel that contains the zygote , and was created entirely by the mother (i.e. it is not a result of fertilization). So a chicken was once in an egg.
Then the question just becomes which definition is correct.
But it's not about the definition, because the definition mentioned is not correct anymore than saying the definition is if the egg was laid on a Sunday.
> If you define a chicken egg as an egg that was laid by a chicken
Species are assumed to produce eggs of the same species. Like many convenient turns of phrase, this isn't strictly true. What the egg contains (unless the egg casing is a relevant attribute) is how it is characterized.
A mutation exists in the developing embryo, so a non-chicken had a chicken-containing egg. This is a chicken egg, which necessarily came first. Looking at any given xenopregnancy (a hybrid Liger, or panda fetus in a cat, et al). The carrying species does not make the result of that species. eg If there was a non-chicken species (say, a turkey) which produced eggs that were genetically and practically identical to chicken-containing eggs, they would be called chicken eggs.
I mean that's a bit over-simplistic... It's not that a nonchicken lays a chicken egg, that implies an either/orness of chickenhood that would be radically unique. What actually happened was that at around 10,000 years ago a group of birds similar to modern red junglefowl either migrated or was forcibly taken from northern Thailand to the Indian subcontinent, where they started mating with the local birds similar to grey junglefowl with whom they were still able to interbreed. If you call those each 99%-chickens each then you had a steady meeting of two 99%-chicken lines interbreeding until they formed something steadily closer to our 100%-chicken lines, but presumably also creating 98%-chickens etc. in their breeding population. The variation inside the breeding population is larger than the distance of the progenitor populations to the final result.
Viewed this way, what actually caused chickens to happen was the migration, not the genetics. It was the part where the two red junglefowl groups came out of genetic contact and started to diverge. On the assumption that these red junglefowl were adults (which is obvious if it was a migration, but merely likely if it was forced by humans), this means that a population of non-chickens was divided into two subpopulations, one of which was chickens, one of which wasn't.
So even agreeing that we should categorize the egg by the creature it produced immediately after hatching, you still get by this argument that a nonchicken egg hatched into a nonchicken which by circumstance became a chicken... Chickens came first, and then their chicken eggs.
Suppose you have a definition of a chicken that is rigorous enough to break any ties. Then the first chicken that meets this definition was hatched from an egg. That egg was laid by a non-chicken (some animal that was very close to, but not exactly, a chicken). So the egg came first.
> So the egg came first.
Obviously "the egg that the chicken hatched from" came first, no one's debating that. But that's all you've said.
If the question is "which came first, the chicken or the chicken egg", then it depends on whether the chicken egg is one that houses the chicken, or the one that is laid by a chicken.
Maybe it should've been Eggs or That Which laid the Egg...
To expand to dinosaurs, chickens, and Bronteroc's.
Assuming there's just chickens, and we're talking just about chicken eggs, then the chicken came first. Chickens need a mother to hatch the egg, to create the egg in it's womb, etc. An egg cannot exist without a mother to birth it.
How did the chicken come about though? If we define chicken as exactly what we have today, that means it must have been born in a hard shelled egg.
I'm assuming that evolution would happen slowly over time, the creature that ended up becoming the chicken would have had to already been laying eggs. The egg laying feature would need to already be present for it to be our modern day preciously defined chicken.
The egg had to have come first
The correct why to pronounce gif out loud is "image," because who asks for a particular file format, and if you do care about the format of the image, it should be something other than gif.
Gif became part of the vernacular to describe a short looping video clip or animation with no audio that can be easily shared. Nowadays people are often actually sharing mp4s or webms even when they think it’s gif. It’s just a bit of internet heritage, and causes little harm.
Similar to how the term "podcast" became part of the language even though almost nobody uses an iPod to listen to them anymore.
Huh. I always called those "animated gifs." I guess soon they'll be known as "silent ticktocks" though.
Why try to pronounce it at all... Just spell it out as G-I-F.
I get that people want to be lazy but pronouncing acronyms/contractions has always been fraught with disagreement. Same goes for things like SQL (which somehow gets pronounced as "sequel") while people leave PDF alone.
The SQL one is different. It was originally "Structured English Query Language", or SEQUEL. When IBM released it into the public domain, it became SQL, but retained its pronunciation. That's not to say that spelling it out is incorrect—it's at least as correct as "sequel"—just that the "sequel" pronunciation is not arbitrary.
> It was originally "Structured English Query Language", or SEQUEL.
Sounds like you meant it was originally "Structured English QUEry Language"?
Not the most inspiring way to form an acronym.
Why not? It's very common. Better than GNU.
Ah, that’s mostly because the proposed pronunciation for PDF File is trademarked by Dateline NBC
Who asks for a particular file format?
Uh, literally anyone who works with graphics?
Unlike all the other questions which are subjective or philosophical, it’s gif with a J for f*s sake. It’s what we called it in the 80s, it’s what the creator called it, it’s Jif goddamnit.
Should we also pronounce the K in knight the way we used to? English and its pronunciation are democratic, it's about the way it's used by people - it doesn't matter what it was originally or what the inventor thinks. Trying to fight it just ignores the way English has always changed over time. Gif pronounced with a G or a J are both valid - because that's the way people say it.
Trying to fight it is entirely democratic. You shouldn't have a problem with it. That would be like asking candidates not to campaign.
You can fight for a pronunciation you prefer, but trying to argue that yours is a 'right' or 'objective' answer - that I think is misguided.
> (what letters are used to describe how the word "gif" should not be pronounced?)
You could pretty easily update the sign to say "it's pronounced gif, not ghif".
As you can see by the results of the survey, you are indeed in the minority here. It is a hard-G. Anachronisms and appeals to authority (the originator's preference) bear little weight here - a word is added to a language on consensus, and most of us prefer that hard-G. Furthermore, since the G represents the hard-G word 'Graphic' it only makes sense.
Subjectively, I feel that the soft-G is milquetoast mild to the degree that it's unpleasant to say or hear. Insipid like a cold bland porridge. Hard-G has all the zest, all the pizazz!
> a word is added to a language on consensus, and most of us prefer that hard-G.
To the extent this is true, it's only in a sense where consensus is much more than mere majority preference and it's absence, and thus the absence of a single correct pronunciation, is also possible and, in fact, common; for GIF, there is an absence of consensus on pronunciation, and thus a diversity of pronunciations with shifting popularity. Your preference may be the eventual consensus, but English can maintain words with multiple pronunciations with shifting popularity over a very long term without settling to general consensus, so maybe not.
How can you call it lack of consensus when it’s 80-20, especially considering it’s an extremely skewed sample (techies are way more likely to pronounce it jif)
I think it’s pretty obvious that there’s a strong consensus it’s a hard G
This is the only right response to this "debate"
People can call it whichever they want. If you say gif or jif and someone else corrects you then they're just being dumb. Clearly they understood what you meant and until consensus is almost unanimous (around 90-99%) both pronunciations are fine. I also don't think the creator's pronunciation matters. If they originally said it should be pronounced jife but people were between jif and gif then saying either jif and gif would make sense in conversation but jife wouldn't.
> since the G represents the hard-G word 'Graphic' it only makes sense.
Would it also "make sense" to pronounce jpeg "jay-feg"? Or "nasa" "neh-sa"? Or "laser" "lah-ssur"?
There's also a cleaning product named "Jif" in Australia. Saying "Gif" as "jif" seems very redundant - why even have different letters?
Though it does seem to be an American thing - we pronounce the H in pretty much all words too, whereas Americans tend to make a lot of "H" sounds silent.
> There's also a cleaning product named "Jif" in Australia
And a peanut butter in the US. So what?
> Saying "Gif" as "jif" seems very redundant - why even have different letters?
English is...rather unconcerned with having an absence of duplication of sounds between letters (“c” and “x” are pretty much completely redundant with other letters, and there are plenty of overlaps on the other letters in represented sounds.)
Exactly, because it's an acronym for Giraffe-ics Interchange Format.
Do you also pronounce gun as jun?
How about girl as jirl?
Giraffe as jiraffe?
Frankly, I reserve my right to not care and have fun with language -- instead of being a curmudgeon (there's no point except to feel better about oneself).
Only slightly related, but I just came across this excellent insult the other day:
"Spoken with the confidence of a man who's been spelling 'giraffe' as 'diraffe' for the last 20 years."
I believe Giraffe is pronounced Jiraffe?
I think that's the point GP was making i.e. it's not an absolute.
The author has been clear it shouls be pronounced as J.
> Giraffe as jiraffe?
I prefer to pronounce it Jithub
You're a real gerk.
While your questions are logical, they assume consistency. However, English pronunciation is inconsistent as hell. Not that I disagree with you.
Best example for these juxtapositions is asking them how they pronounce "Gift" vs "Gif".
Correct. Jraphics Interchange Format. :P. My friends and I called it Gif-with-a-hard-G all through the (late) 80s (edit: more like the 90s, but anyway) and unlike now, nobody corrected us then. I never heard the format’s creator pronounce it though.
> Correct. Jraphics Interchange Format.
You do you, but Graphics having a hard G doesn't force GIF to any more than the Amplification in LASER forces the pronunciation of its A, or Stimulated its S, or Emission its E. Or do you and your friends also say "lasseer" instead of "layzur"? This is an arbitrary choice you've made in one case but not the other.
To be totally fair, note that the E in laser is in fact pronounced identically (/ə/) to the E in emission.
And JPEG should be JuhFegg.
Maybe go further and say JoiFegg.
Plenty of people in the BBS days didn’t say it that way and creators aren’t guaranteed control over the way their work is interpreted.
Plus, pronunciations change. I assume you don’t go around demanding people pronounce knife ‘kunifuh,’ right?
You realize you are actually arguing in favour of calling it like jiffy right? Because a direct reading of knife makes it kunifuh, and a direct reading of gif makes it the incorrect pronounciation as well.
Their argument is that word pronunciations can mutate over time.
Knife used to be pronounced k'nife. This slowly faded over time and is now completely eliminated.
By analog, jif being the original pronunciation is not important because the majority of people have decided to go with a hard G.
In other words, the "correct" spelling or pronunciation of words is democratic.
With 82% saying gif it's the least subjective one in the list.
Actually, the chicken and the egg one is the least subjective on the list. There is only one correct answer. The egg came first. Its called evolution. At some point, a chicken like creature laid an egg, and the egg hatched into what we know as a chicken. A chicken like creature didn't transform into a chicken while it was alive.
Hmmm, that was my reasoning as well, but now that I think about it... does the egg belong to the creature that laid it or the creature that hatches out of it?
A chicken egg is not synonymous with an egg cell, or ovum. The fertilized ovum of course belongs to the creature it will grow into -- it is the creature it will grow into -- and so certainly the chicken ovum came before -- or at the same time as -- the chicken. But when we say "egg" we are referring to the vessel with a shell that houses the fertilized ovum until it hatches. 
This vessel is made of of various proteins and nutrients, produced by the mother that laid the egg, and a calcium carbonate shell, also made entirely by the mother. This egg, created entirely by the mother and not by the union of an ovum and sperm cell and any mutations that happened then, belongs entirely to the mother.
If Proto-chicken mother has laid clutch after clutch of eggs, all those are proto-chicken eggs. When one of those clutches happens to have a mutant that we arbitrarily declare is a "chicken," the egg itself has not changed in any way, only the DNA of the organism housed in the egg.
So, on thinking about it, I want to go back and change my answer.
seems simple to me. Eggs existed millions of years before chickens did.
Nothing is static, life is a moving river.
Doesn't matter what it was, "G"if is what it is. Who knows what it will be.
But if you don't live in an English-speaking country, then "what the creator called it" doesn't even matter. So for the vast majority of people this argument is irrelevant; you generally don't code-switch into English pronunciation for a loanword from another language, especially for an acronym.
This is just like the scsi debate a geographical issue. Internet is world wide so you will have people from all over the world pronouncing things their own way. And that way is the only right way, the hard g.
People for some reason think that they get to decide how to pronounce a name rather than the creator of the name. Oh well. Its an easy way to determine someone's level of internet knowledge.
That is how words work, they evolve as the consensus pronunciation evolves, they do not stay forever static.
This gives us an easy solution to make everyone happy though! We gust have to change "graphics" to be pronounced as "jraphics"
Your argument is descriptivist, whereas theirs is prescriptivist.
And the former is right, whereas the latter is only present in academic discussions of use of language.
Its a name not a regular word.
It's an acronym really, where the first word of the acronym is "graphics" :)
Does 'scuba' rhyme with 'rubber'?
The pronunciation of names also changes over time, and across locations.
> Oh well. Its an easy way to determine someone's level of internet knowledge.
No it’s not, plenty of people are very much of aware of the intended pronunciation and still choose to pronounce it another way.
Indeed. I'm well aware of how the creator wants me to say it. I reject his reality and substitute my own.
That's not how language evolves. I'm sure you don't pronounce every French word that was assimilated into English with a French accent / pronunciation.
Its a name.
And? That's only relevant if it's their own name, or potentially if something falls under the purview of the Académie Française, and even then, that requires you to care what the Academy thinks.
There is more than one canonical way to pronounce things, even names. For example, what's the correct way to pronounce Arkansas?
The real issue here is people trying to assert there is only one correct way to pronounce it.
Come to St. Louis where everyone mispronounces the French street names. Doug Crockford coined JSON as "Jason", but nearly every developer I've ever run into says "jaysawn", so that's how I say it too.
PNG was supposed to be "ping", but I've only ever heard people spell it out.
Or the name of St. Louis itself, for that matter.
So are the names of countries but people rarely pronounce them as they are in their country of origin.
I'm pretty sure that Matthaios, Markos, Loukas and Ioannes would not recognize their own names in the present-day English pronunciations (well, Mark and Luke might, but John would certainly not).
Virtually all names are pronounced differently from how they originally were.
That was fun. I'm genuinely shocked pineapple on pizza is in a dead heat. I'm a fan and I thought it would be less popular, but this makes me realize why debates rage on about it.
One time I was in a small US town making conversation with a hotel clerk, and she couldnt stand Chinese food, and I’m confused how her experience was not pleasant and am trying to convince otherwise with a tasting date like at the restuarant across street, to no avail.
I went to that restuarant a few days later and it was horrible food, but similar to the other cuisine experiences possible in that town, region.
So, now I understand. Maybe their pineapple on pizza experience has been bad because of the way it was prepared.
Definitely an acquired taste. I used to hate "Hawaiian pizza" with a passion as a kid but nowadays I'd be OK with it.
It's so difficult when we learn people aren't naturally good ;)
Pineapple with cashews & onions on a pizza is da bomb
What I want to know are who are the 29% who think daylight savings time is a good idea? There are zero good arguments for it.
Simple: in summer, summer time is much better than winter time, and in winter, winter time is much better than summer time.p
Using summer time means you get the light in the evenings. Things like doing sports activities that need daylight after work become possible about a month earlier than without time, and you gain another month at the end. Long evenings are glorious for all sorts of activities. The alternative puts the light in the early morning when people sleep.
In winter, winter time here means it's at least a bit twilighty during the morning commute; without it it would still be pitch dark, and it would still get dark before the end of the work day.
(I'm in the Netherlands, which is actually already on a bit too summer timey timezone compared to its location).
Yes, some people can change their schedule instead. Most people are tied to fixed times of work, their kids' school etc.
Melbourne, Australia here -- I wonder if the negative attitudes to DST relate to something specifically American. Perhaps school starting earlier in the US than here?
Can't say I've ever wanted to stop daylight savings. Never-ending afternoon evenings every day in summer, delightful!
I guess you are one of those people who goes to bed at 7pm in time to get up with the Sun at 4am.
I don't like DST, but what I would like even less is staying on DST permanently (which is what most proposals for the US West Coast are calling for). Staying on UTC-7 in winter will make the darkness stretch too long into the morning.
Gif vs jif? Isn't that like asking "Do you pronounce it like it's pronounced or like a different word is pronounced"
Nah. People don't get to change the rules. I can't tell you my name is spelled K-Y-L-E and insist it is pronounced "Mark". GIF is a crappy image format. JIF is peanut butter.
Craig in the USA is "Creg", and in other countries it's "Crayg".
Language is constantly evolving.
That one is extremely weird (and distracting if you happen to be talking about a Craig).
I assume they just don’t notice the difference, like with marry/merry/Mary.
Where in the USA are you hearing “Creg?” I’ve never heard it pronounced that way.
I'm in New England and have only ever heard it pronounced Creg.
Wikipedia agrees that this is common: "In North America it is often pronounced with a short vowel sound /krɛɡ/, as in "egg"" 
> I can't tell you my name is spelled K-Y-L-E and insist it is pronounced "Mark"
Not the same thing at all. This is more like someone following different pronunciation rules insisting that your name as spelled is pronounce "Kee-lay"; and if you actually want "Kaa-il", you should spell it K-A-I-L instead. It kind of makes sense that way too, as long as the rules are somewhat consistent in their version.
If the creator wanted to name it after Jif, the extension and name should have both been JIF. Putting in a G instead of a J is begging to create confusion about the pronunciation.
I didn't know how to answer this question since I pronunce "gif" and "jif" the same.
Of course I pronunce "gif" "gif" that's a tautology.
Haha, it's totally trolling us. You can tell because of the little icon for the peanut butter
Is it smooth or crunchy?
Gif if crunchy.
Yeah a better option would be "like Gift" or "like Jiffy"
A more better option would be "like Gin or like Ginkgo" because it makes it obvious that the "gift has a hard G, therefore..." people have made a mistake.
So many people come up with so many fake rules for why it should have a hard G, but there are only two real rules for names, and, yes, GIF is a name (of a format). 1) If the named thing can't speak for itself, the people who named it dictate how the name is pronounced. 2) If it can speak for itself, it dictates. Nobody who isn't the named thing or its namer(s) gets to say how its name is pronounced regardless of what they think of the spelling.
There are only 2 rules for making up arbitrary rules on the internet. 1) The person making up the rule can demand the rule be followed. 2) People will do what they want regardless of the earnestness of the arbitrary internet rule maker.
In my opinion this is only true until the "unplanned" usage becomes mainstream. Language is always evolving. Once the majority is using the g sound from "gift" not "gin", the majority rule is correct, even though they would have been initially incorrect.
Consider the changes of people's names as they migrated around the world. In NZ, we pronounce Craig as "Crayg", in the US they pronounce it "Creg", which I struggle to make sense of, but that doesn't make it wrong. There are better examples than Craig but that was the first one that came to mind.
but that doesn't make it wrong
I agree with everything you said except that bit, it’s megawrong
You mean that saying Craig->Creg is wrong? It's always bothered me and it's very jarring, but if you grew up being called Creg, then it wouldn't be wrong. But it sounds so wrong to me.
I feel like it doesn't make sense, because then Greg should be spelled Graig, but that's the whole point, language evolves in an inconsistent way, and the only defining point of correct pronunciation is really "how do the majority of people say it", and that is often only a regional thing too.
Either way, the assertion that because something is a name it cannot evolve in pronunciation is easily disproved.
At least you don't say it "Creag" as with Air NZ :D
Maybe I'll start now!
Gin derives from Jenever and Wikipedia suggests the Dutch pronounced it differently. It's mispronounciation all the way down.
> because it makes it obvious that the "gift has a hard G, therefore..." people have made a mistake.
That's obvious anyway; gift is one word (well, also give) swamped in a sea of other gi- words.
And gift is a very strange one. What is it, a loan from Norse? You'd think, if it were a native word, that it would have turned into something more like "yift", the way we see in e.g. day, I, or yard.
Yard -> Gard/Jard -> Garden. Mind blown.
Or, "Do you pronounce 'GIF' like 'giant/ginger/gibbon' or incorrectly?
> Or, "Do you pronounce 'GIF' like 'giant/ginger/gibbon' or incorrectly?
...you are aware that "gibbon" isn't pronounced with /dʒ/?
I think a better option would be, "Like Gila or like dagga?"
Is it pronounced "gist" or "jist"? "Gem" or "jem"? "Giraffe" or "jiraffe"?
Is it pronounced "beard" or "heard"? "Tear" or "tear"? "Grieve" or "sieve"? "Lover" or "clover"? "Device" or "crevice"?
You're implying that there should be a logical correspondence between how English words sound and how they're spelled. I'm not convinced that is true.
No I'm implying the exact opposite.
That's actually quite funny, I would say gist is pronounced jist but only because it's clearly a play on the word "jist" in the first place. Like a branded version of a generic term - like tumblr where we all know it's actually tumbler rather than tumblr but with a different pronounciation due to copyright.
Gist is a word. Jist is a misspelling of gist or just, no more.
And we find out that the internet is mostly wrong. Confirming what we already knew.
Wtf, that dress is not black and blue. What are people smoking?
From wikipedia: The dress itself was confirmed as a royal blue "Lace Bodycon Dress" from the retailer Roman Originals, which was actually black and blue in colour; although available in three other colours (red, pink, and ivory, each with black lace), a white and gold version was not available at the time.
So objectively it is black and blue. Of course, our eyes tricking us about color is hardly anything new... (brown is just orange with context!)
I see the dress as blue and gold, which was never even an option. But, I'm color blind.
Same here. Do I need to get my eyes checked?
What about Tabs vs. Spaces? :-)
It's so obviously tabs that it isn't even worth discussing.
Tabs are better for two reasons:
- customization - not everyone wants the same tab-width
The line with arg4 on it can't be indented by tabs alone but it's a common coding standard.
That's alignment, not indentation. Alignment should always be done by spaces.
A decent editor supports smart tabs
I obviously agree with you, but setting 3 spaces is so tempting.
Why not both ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Use tabs for logical indentation and spaces for line wrapping indentation! (/s)
Folders have tabs, keyboards have spaces
> Are we living in a simulation?
45% voted yes (of 14,463 votes so far).
Whether we're living in a computer simulation is an absolutely fascinating subject to think about, and I do not dismiss the idea, but do a significant number of people really believe it?
Yes, but only because of a silly off-by-one bug Steve left in the human credulity AI subsystem.
We've been trying to roll out a patch to address that along with several other, related issues (you can probably guess which ones those are), but we don't have an ETA yet; you wouldn't believe how long it takes for this thing's unit tests to complete.
Doesn't Planck's constant seem like using integers in fixed point? Doesn't the speed of light feel like a sneaky limit on the maximum size of those integers? :-)
I humbly suggest the reason the universe we live in does not use Real numbers is because you couldn't simulate that with a Turing machine.
* I’ve now been introduced to the question, “Does a straw have one hole or two?” This will haunt me until I die.
OP and whoever made this: Joking aside, this was a really cute link. It really helped my mood today.
I too thought sock shoe sock shoe was absurd, but I just now realized there is one circumstance when I would do this, which is when getting dressed after swimming at a public pool. Generally not much dry floor to stand on, so makes sense to get the shoe over the sock asap. Perhaps folks who wear shoes inside their house all day would feel the same way about their own floors!
Topologically, there is one hole in a straw.
Maybe the sock-shoe could instead be like "what's the right way to eat a steak": cut off a piece and eat it or cut everything first before eating.
What, no Vim v/s Emacs?!? I am so disappointed :)
> Does a straw have one hole or two?
Is your answer the same if the question is about a person instead of straw?
Both possible answers are technically correct, because "hole" has at least two relevant definitions: (1) a hollow space inside something, (2) an aperture connecting two spaces. A straw has one #1 type hole, and two #2 type holes.
#2 is probably more practically correct, because most of the time when one wants to talk about a straw's holes, it will be the apertures that one wants to talk about not the hollow interior.
When I learned that the entire digestive system is external....my mind exploded... because it's basically an open hole straight through a person and is considered an externality.
"the internet has decided.." wrong, in many cases.
That's OK. There's a refreshing freedom in being the only sane person around. And the edge brownies are shunned by the herd so there's plenty for us.
The bigger and more square the brownie pan (total surface area), the worse the ratio of edge to center pieces. If the brownie making evolves to larger and larger square-ish pans, it is imperative that the ratio of center to edge preferrers adjusts similarly, otherwise you edge folk will find yourself hungry.
Perhaps this will lead to evolutionary changes where edge folk eventually die off?
There are serpentine pans that optimize for perimeter, specifically marketed to edge people. They will be fine.
Wow. Now that is capitalism at work.
> There's a refreshing freedom in being the only sane person around
That's why I started having vivid conversations with myself.
I'm unreasonably frustrated by the hotdog one. How is that not a sandwich?
It is not based on the cube rule of food.
A food can be classified by which faces of a cube the outer layer of carbs populate. In the case of a hot dog, it is a taco, since the bottom and two sides are the carb structure.
There are a lot of inconsistencies in the examples. For example, pumpkin pie is toast, but cheesecake, deep dish pizza, and key like pie are quiche.
I like that they provide a set of examples that show why their system does not work.
The toast sandwich was pure genius.
You can happily ignore anyone who says hot dogs aren't sandwiches. By all definitions, they unquestionably ARE sandwiches. The only argument against it is based on whether a hot dog bun is one piece of bread or two, except it doesn't matter, because one piece of bread (or a split roll) is still a sandwich.
1a: two or more slices of bread or a split roll having a filling in between
1b: one slice of bread covered with food
By the anti-sandwich lobby's logic, if you were to build a ham and cheese sandwich using one piece of bread and then folded it in the middle to make it look and function like a "traditional" double breaded sandwich, it would somehow magically no longer qualify as a sandwich -- and that's just plain absurd.
Because gravity doesn't press the two sides together. Tension does. Clearly a hotdog is more like a pita or a wrap. Not a sandwich.
Its not a logic question, it is a colloquial one
In the context hotdogs appear, it is around other bread meat combinations:
these are distinct things, and to some they are assumeable identities where one can expect criticism for any choice, despite their overlapping feature sets
as such, hotdog is not a sandwich
It's a wrap! Unless you think a wrap is also a sandwich? (/s)
are tacos and burritos sandwiches? How about a Chinese pork bun?
it's at best an open face sandwich
Cool idea, but 50% said pineapple on pizza is good, which clearly indicates at least half the respondents are psychopaths or trolls.
Right? Definitely a lot of trolls out there claiming they don’t like pineapple on pizza.
I always knew I had an arch nemisis, I just never knew his name.
Except a majority doesn't mean too much, and even less so without the demographics. It's entertaining though – just like everything nowadays.
Does this site accept suggestions for new questions? I'd like to see a question on which end to open a banana
Twist them like monkeys do, it is far superior and doesn't need opposable thumbs, so, why are we using our thumbs to open them from the stem and risking the top getting smushed?
In my experience neither end has been consistently more successful than the other...
I just crack 'em in half.
We need another, fake HN for those 'J'-iff people so we don't have to tolerate them and so they don't infect us.
I mean, 'politely' see them off please.
No vi vs emacs???
When it comes to "trying to exit after you accidentally open it", they're both equally terrible...
It is Vim vs IDEs now and we think Emacs might be on the good side.
IDEs with vim bindings is the way to go
How can the Internet both simultaneously be so wrong and so correct?
This is a fun product
I have always felt that the Chicken/Egg question was obvious.
We have to assume there is a line between "creature that is almost exactly like a chicken" and "a chicken."
A proto-chicken laid an egg. That egg after fertilization contained a mutation that pushed the proto-chicken INTO chicken territory.
Thus, the (chicken) egg came first because a chicken cannot exist without mutating as a part of reproduction.
If you believe in creation/intelligent design then you might feel different about that.
Except that chickens (as well as most cattle and pets) have been created by mankind over thousands of years of genetic selection.
straws have two holes. let's say you had a y split straw. does that have one hole or two holes or three?
That's a question answered by the field of topology: genus 2.
Look at it end on:
Now shorten the shaft of the right-facing hole so that it becomes a ring-hole on the right side of the end-on hole, then rotate it also so that it's an end-on view:
|| || ||
made me go on a wikipedia dive. Thanks, I learned something.
Three. A hole is a distinct pathway from one open end to another. A regular cylindrical straw is a torus at heart, it has only one way through. A Y-straw would have three paths from its three openings.
So an X-shaped straw would have six holes?
How many holes does a donut have?
What if you keep stretching the donut making it taller?
Replying to state that I'm wrong, mathematically.
This was really funny! But is the majority always right...?
Forgot .45 vs 9mm, and eMacs vs vim
That site only got a couple wrong.
This just makes it worse!
It’s not over. The whole reason we fight in debates is to convince people to join our side or make sure people on our side stay convinced. It is a never ending battle and only the dead have seen the end of wars.