Re: Questions you've always wanted answered
Posted: Tue May 19, 2020 2:27 pm
As I discovered the other day, in fact, when some of the COLIN titles on the wiki had l rather than I by mistake.
A group for contestants and lovers of the Channel 4 game show 'Countdown'.
http://c4countdown.co.uk/
Not on my phone though. It's only curved for me on my laptop!Phil Reynolds wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 1:56 pmAlso, in the Trebuchet font that c4c uses, the base of the l has a little curve to the right that isn't there on the I. In many other fonts they're identical.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 12:40 pmIt might depend on the font. But anyway that's why I call Linkedln Linkedln. Linked natural logarithm. IlIlIl. Yeah, they're different here. The ell is taller.Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 12:27 pm Visually , on a computer or phone , is there a difference between an upper case I and a lower case l ?
Never would have occurred to me to browse C4C on my phone, but anyway I just tried it and, in Safari on my iPhone 5 at least, it uses Trebuchet the same as on my PC, with the curved l.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 3:04 pmNot on my phone though. It's only curved for me on my laptop!Phil Reynolds wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 1:56 pm Also, in the Trebuchet font that c4c uses, the base of the l has a little curve to the right that isn't there on the I. In many other fonts they're identical.
Are you one of those people who only use their phone to make calls and textsPhil Reynolds wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 3:15 pmNever would have occurred to me to browse C4C on my phone, but anyway I just tried it and, in Safari on my iPhone 5 at least, it uses Trebuchet the same as on my PC, with the curved l.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 3:04 pmNot on my phone though. It's only curved for me on my laptop!Phil Reynolds wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 1:56 pm Also, in the Trebuchet font that c4c uses, the base of the l has a little curve to the right that isn't there on the I. In many other fonts they're identical.
Boy in the bubble could become commonplaceFiona T wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 10:42 pm Things I'm worrying about...
Babies. In the first few months/year of life babies need to be exposed to germs to prime their immune systems. Babies who live with pets, for example, have fewer allergies and generally better health. Isolating babies so no colds or similar are caught has unknown longterm effects on general health.
Are we going to end up with kids born in 2020 that are far more susceptible to ill-health?
This is quite interesting, but I'm not sure that actually getting colds is necessary. There's a New Scientist article that talks about this sort of thing. You have to be subscribed to read it, but I can quote:Fiona T wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 10:42 pm Things I'm worrying about...
Babies. In the first few months/year of life babies need to be exposed to germs to prime their immune systems. Babies who live with pets, for example, have fewer allergies and generally better health. Isolating babies so no colds or similar are caught has unknown longterm effects on general health.
Are we going to end up with kids born in 2020 that are far more susceptible to ill-health?
But stuff like not going outside during lockdown could be a problem, and perhaps not mixing with other people (although not necessarily to get their illnesses).Yes, microbes and our contact with them is vital to our health, but the devil is in the detail. It is now thought that during human evolution, microbes evolved an essential role in regulating our immune system. The most promising theories suggest that the microbes involved in this aren’t those that cause infections, but friendly microbes that make up our diverse human microbiome.
These are acquired by exposure to other people and animals, and from our natural environment. They ensure that our immune system doesn’t overreact to harmless stimuli like pollen, foods and our own tissues. Without them, we are at higher risk of developing allergies and immune disorders like type 2 diabetes or multiple sclerosis.
A range of lifestyle changes including an increase in C-section births, less breastfeeding, smaller family sizes and less time outdoors are now seen as the likely causes of reduced exposure to friendly microbes, together with altered diet and antibiotic use, which adversely affect the composition of our microbiome.
But there is little evidence that personal or household cleanliness – as suggested by the hygiene hypothesis – is involved. The common childhood infections that hygiene measures are designed to combat appeared much too late in our evolutionary history to have evolved an essential role in the development of our immune system.
I don't think Fiona was saying that colds themselves are beneficial, rather that isolating babies with the aim of preventing them catching unwanted infections has the unintended side effect of reducing their exposure to other, beneficial microbes.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2020 3:40 pmThis is quite interesting, but I'm not sure that actually getting colds is necessary.
I think she was saying that colds or similar might turn out to be beneficial. Because it's the coronavirus we're trying to isolate them from (not colds), and the unintended side effect is reducing their exposure to colds or similar. That's why she brought colds up!Phil Reynolds wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 11:34 amI don't think Fiona was saying that colds themselves are beneficial, rather that isolating babies with the aim of preventing them catching unwanted infections has the unintended side effect of reducing their exposure to other, beneficial microbes.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2020 3:40 pmThis is quite interesting, but I'm not sure that actually getting colds is necessary.
No, she started with the general (pre-COVID) case of people misguidedly isolating babies to stop them getting colds, which has unknown long-term effects. She then moved on to the specific case of babies in 2020 being isolated because everyone is, and wondering whether this means we're rearing a generation of children susceptible to ill-health. That's my reading of it anyway. I've just re-read Fiona's post and confirmed my impression.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 12:11 pmI think she was saying that colds or similar might turn out to be beneficial. Because it's the coronavirus we're trying to isolate them from (not colds), and the unintended side effect is reducing their exposure to colds or similar. That's why she brought colds up!Phil Reynolds wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 11:34 amI don't think Fiona was saying that colds themselves are beneficial, rather that isolating babies with the aim of preventing them catching unwanted infections has the unintended side effect of reducing their exposure to other, beneficial microbes.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2020 3:40 pm
This is quite interesting, but I'm not sure that actually getting colds is necessary.
I think it comes down to a different reading of the word "so".Phil Reynolds wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 12:33 pmNo, she started with the general (pre-COVID) case of people misguidedly isolating babies to stop them getting colds, which has unknown long-term effects. She then moved on to the specific case of babies in 2020 being isolated because everyone is, and wondering whether this means we're rearing a generation of children susceptible to ill-health. That's my reading of it anyway. I've just re-read Fiona's post and confirmed my impression.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 12:11 pmI think she was saying that colds or similar might turn out to be beneficial. Because it's the coronavirus we're trying to isolate them from (not colds), and the unintended side effect is reducing their exposure to colds or similar. That's why she brought colds up!Phil Reynolds wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 11:34 am
I don't think Fiona was saying that colds themselves are beneficial, rather that isolating babies with the aim of preventing them catching unwanted infections has the unintended side effect of reducing their exposure to other, beneficial microbes.
Perhaps we should wait for her to come back.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 1:19 pm Fiona will be reading this thinking "WTF is with the analysis of my post?"
She is still drafting her Dominic Cummings postPhil Reynolds wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 1:32 pmPerhaps we should wait for her to come back.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 1:19 pm Fiona will be reading this thinking "WTF is with the analysis of my post?"
She's blocked every mention of DC on facebook cos it's all driving her fecking mental and has no intention of getting involved hereMarc Meakin wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 2:29 pmShe is still drafting her Dominic Cummings postPhil Reynolds wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 1:32 pmPerhaps we should wait for her to come back.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 1:19 pm Fiona will be reading this thinking "WTF is with the analysis of my post?"
I guess we would know it was coming so I guess all the amount of people that could fit in nuclear shelters would have the best chance to survive.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Jun 02, 2020 8:21 am If an asteroid like the one that killed the dinosaurs stuck again tomorrow (same weight, size, speed, location etc.) what would happen? Would we go extinct or would we somehow survive it with our ability to adapt?
Exactly. We could send Bruce Willis up there to sort out before it hits.Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Tue Jun 02, 2020 9:34 amI guess we would know it was coming...Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Jun 02, 2020 8:21 am If an asteroid like the one that killed the dinosaurs stuck again tomorrow (same weight, size, speed, location etc.) what would happen? Would we go extinct or would we somehow survive it with our ability to adapt?
As soon as I heard the first clip I thought it was the song of the second clip. It didn't really work for meGavin Chipper wrote: ↑Wed Jun 03, 2020 1:48 pm
Anyway I found out today that the song that's playing is Can't Get Through to You by Nemi. But that's not the important bit. The song you couldn't quite work out what it was is Tell it to My Heart by Taylor Dayne. You are very welcome.
So you got it straight away anyway without being told? You probably have good knowledge of 80s music. Have you seen the Domino's Pizza advert? What do you mean it didn't work though?Adam Dexter wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 11:15 pmAs soon as I heard the first clip I thought it was the song of the second clip. It didn't really work for meGavin Chipper wrote: ↑Wed Jun 03, 2020 1:48 pm
Anyway I found out today that the song that's playing is Can't Get Through to You by Nemi. But that's not the important bit. The song you couldn't quite work out what it was is Tell it to My Heart by Taylor Dayne. You are very welcome.
Sorry I wasn't really clear.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2020 9:18 am
So you got it straight away anyway without being told? You probably have good knowledge of 80s music. Have you seen the Domino's Pizza advert? What do you mean it didn't work though?
I don't know. Some trends have an advantage over others. Like a T-shirt is quite a basic concept, whereas a three piece suit is more complex and specific, so it should get more points for lasting a given amount of time. If we're talking about specifically denim jeans, they are more specific than T-shirts, and I could see them disappearing over time.Mark James wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2020 8:25 pm What was and what will be the longest lasting fashion trend? Just watching the latest QI episode and they're all wearing ruffs? How long was stuff like that in fashion for? Was it longer than a century? The three piece suit has been around for over a century by know, albeit with different styles but it must be a contender for a long lasting fashion. If you were to look at a suit from say the 1920s and compare it to now there wouldn't be much in the difference. Probably a hat to go with it would be the better indicator of the era it came from. I think the ultimate though will be jeans and a t-shirt. I just can't imagine that look never being around.
It's not in the hilarious in the you're-wrong kind of sense - especially to me since I do basically the same as you and get away with it because the colours are more muted, and I also agree with you on the jeans. It's just fun how soothingly consistent it is with you. It's nice to have fewer variables in life.And while we're here - why is it that people think it's hilarious that I tend to wear the same two or three colours of sweatshirt all the time when most of these cunts spend their entire existence in blue jeans? There really is no fucking difference.
Well I probably won't change the habit any time soon, you'll be pleased to hear.Mark Deeks wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2020 2:24 pmIt's not in the hilarious in the you're-wrong kind of sense - especially to me since I do basically the same as you and get away with it because the colours are more muted, and I also agree with you on the jeans. It's just fun how soothingly consistent it is with you. It's nice to have fewer variables in life.And while we're here - why is it that people think it's hilarious that I tend to wear the same two or three colours of sweatshirt all the time when most of these cunts spend their entire existence in blue jeans? There really is no fucking difference.
I used to sing in church choir and we wore ruffs so still ongoing. I suppose that may not count as fashion though as I wouldn't have worn one down the street.Mark James wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2020 8:25 pm Just watching the latest QI episode and they're all wearing ruffs? How long was stuff like that in fashion for? Was it longer than a century?
Maybe, but then people that happen to work in jobs that don't have anything to do with television never get their names broadcast either. But yeah, if there are credits, they should probably be included.Mark James wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 12:18 pm How come some live football tv shows never show crew credits at the end of the programme? The poor sound engineers, camera operators and directors never get a look in despite doing what's arguably a harder job than scripted shows.
I presume it's a contractual thing. However, I note that there's always a vast credit list at the end of a major event such as the Olympics.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 3:08 pmMaybe, but then people that happen to work in jobs that don't have anything to do with television never get their names broadcast either. But yeah, if there are credits, they should probably be included.Mark James wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 12:18 pm How come some live football tv shows never show crew credits at the end of the programme? The poor sound engineers, camera operators and directors never get a look in despite doing what's arguably a harder job than scripted shows.
Have you really always wanted this answered?
I could ask the same about this. Because:
If so that's pretty weird.
Quinze jours de boulanger
Like a baker's dozen? Nice.
Like a lot of things you don't really miss what you never had. They would have just said something like "x has won their 8th game so is retiring until coming back for the quarter finals."Johnny Canuck wrote: ↑Mon Jun 22, 2020 7:03 pm May be fast to answer by searching YouTube clips (CBA), but if the word “octochamp” wasn’t coined until 1999, what did the producers and staff call them before then? Did they just say “eight time retiring champion” or somesuch every time? Seems to me they would be a pretty important concept to talk about when scheduling people’s filming times.
According to Wikipedia, on a typewriter it did literally go back a character, allowing accents to be added to the preceding letter.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2020 2:31 pm Why is the delete left button called backspace? It doesn't remotely describe what it does.
I did actually look it up after posting (I had to do it after or I couldn't justify the post) and it does seem to just be a historic thing. I wonder what the Windows key did on typewriters. I'm not looking that up though.Thomas Cappleman wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2020 5:51 pmAccording to Wikipedia, on a typewriter it did literally go back a character, allowing accents to be added to the preceding letter.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2020 2:31 pm Why is the delete left button called backspace? It doesn't remotely describe what it does.
It doesn't say why it ended up with its current use, but I guess it's the most sensible use of an existing key.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_spectrum#HistoryGavin Chipper wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 10:00 pm Why is purple not one of the "official" named colours of the rainbow? If you look this up, you get answers like "There's no such thing as purple light." etc. But they're missing the point. Look at the last colour of the rainbow. It's purple. That's the colour it is. Indigo and violet aren't really "standard" colours anyway. And that's the other thing. Why seven colours? Why not have purple as the sixth and be done with it?
OK, thanks. So it is just arbitrary basically.Sam Cappleman-Lynes wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 10:10 pmhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_spectrum#HistoryGavin Chipper wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 10:00 pm Why is purple not one of the "official" named colours of the rainbow? If you look this up, you get answers like "There's no such thing as purple light." etc. But they're missing the point. Look at the last colour of the rainbow. It's purple. That's the colour it is. Indigo and violet aren't really "standard" colours anyway. And that's the other thing. Why seven colours? Why not have purple as the sixth and be done with it?
I suppose the thing that annoys me about it is that people treat it like it's an objective thing. You might get a quiz question asking how many colours there are in the rainbow or what's the fifth colour etc. But these aren't proper facts about rainbows.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 10:49 pmOK, thanks. So it is just arbitrary basically.Sam Cappleman-Lynes wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 10:10 pmhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_spectrum#HistoryGavin Chipper wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 10:00 pm Why is purple not one of the "official" named colours of the rainbow? If you look this up, you get answers like "There's no such thing as purple light." etc. But they're missing the point. Look at the last colour of the rainbow. It's purple. That's the colour it is. Indigo and violet aren't really "standard" colours anyway. And that's the other thing. Why seven colours? Why not have purple as the sixth and be done with it?
Yeah, agreed. When I wrote a quiz recently that included a question on rainbows I covered the bases by starting the question "Traditionally, what colour..."Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri Jul 24, 2020 8:18 pm I suppose the thing that annoys me about it is that people treat it like it's an objective thing. You might get a quiz question asking how many colours there are in the rainbow or what's the fifth colour etc. But these aren't proper facts about rainbows.
In my experience, there was an early leader in terms of actual useful look-ups a few years ago. However, the proliferation of these sites, plus the vast and changing numbers of spam callers makes it nigh-on impossible to get much useful information from any of them.Phil Reynolds wrote: ↑Fri Aug 07, 2020 1:38 pm When I Google an unknown number that's called me I get hundreds of results from similar looking websites, many with similar sounding names, like whocallsme.com, who-called.co.uk, who-calls.me.uk, shouldianswer.co.uk, unknownphone.com and countless others.
Is there a site that's generally recognised as the official (or best) place to do reverse number look-ups?
My (Neff) oven does this too. It's to rid the world of the scourge of people's oven clocks blinking midnight.
I see the 00:00/24:00 question for 24-hour time as the same as the am/pm question for 12-hour time. Basically when it's exactly midnight (or midday but we're talking about midnight here), it's neither am or pm. You're in this weird transition phase, but only for an infinitesimal amount of time. And similarly, it's not 00:00 or 24:00 at exactly midnight, or alternatively it could be said to be both. Both or neither - they're both in an equal position anyway. So I see it as equally legitimate for it to flick over to 24:00 or 00:00 at midnight. Obviously for the rest of that minute, you might argue that it should say 00:00, but when you have a clock without seconds, the time rounds down so I say it's OK to show 24:00 for a whole minute. I quite like a clock to say 24:00, because otherwise you've had this 24-hour build up and you never reach the goal. So it's a more satisfactory conclusion to the day.Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 8:01 pm On a related note, why does my oven display midnight as "24:00"? And why is it only midnight that gets the 24 treatment? It goes 23:59, 24:00, 00:01.
Thinking about this a bit more - as I said, if you had seconds, you'd have to have 00:00 for anything after zero seconds, but that also works the other way - e.g. if you had the date. If tonight the date flicked over to 16/10/20 but the time said 24:00, then it would suggest that it's the end of the 16th. And you also wouldn't want to "fix" this by having the date wrong for a whole minute. So you could instead just have the time go from 23:59 to 24:00 for about a tenth of a second before it changes to 00:00, just to acknowledge that the whole day has been completed and nothing has been left hanging.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 10:30 amI see the 00:00/24:00 question for 24-hour time as the same as the am/pm question for 12-hour time. Basically when it's exactly midnight (or midday but we're talking about midnight here), it's neither am or pm. You're in this weird transition phase, but only for an infinitesimal amount of time. And similarly, it's not 00:00 or 24:00 at exactly midnight, or alternatively it could be said to be both. Both or neither - they're both in an equal position anyway. So I see it as equally legitimate for it to flick over to 24:00 or 00:00 at midnight. Obviously for the rest of that minute, you might argue that it should say 00:00, but when you have a clock without seconds, the time rounds down so I say it's OK to show 24:00 for a whole minute. I quite like a clock to say 24:00, because otherwise you've had this 24-hour build up and you never reach the goal. So it's a more satisfactory conclusion to the day.Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 8:01 pm On a related note, why does my oven display midnight as "24:00"? And why is it only midnight that gets the 24 treatment? It goes 23:59, 24:00, 00:01.