I found an Apple speech-to-text bug! - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Circlotron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 11, 2021, 10:37:42 am
content: If I say "This house is 10 metres square"it produces the text"This house is 10 m²"which is correct.If I say "This house is 10 square metres"it again produces the text"This house is 10 m²"which is incorrect.iOS 12.5.1 on iPhone 6.

author: Rerouter
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 11, 2021, 10:52:55 am
content: For the average person, why would that be considered a bug? as both seem to equate to the same thing?

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 11, 2021, 10:57:01 am
content: It's not very common to say "This house is 10 metres square" and mean that the house is 10meters long and 10meter wide.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 11, 2021, 11:42:47 am
content: Why/how second variant is supposedly incorrect? If anything, the first variant is odd.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_metreQuote

author: Circlotron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 11, 2021, 12:14:20 pm
content: To me, 10 square metres is as it sounds but 10 metres square is 10x10 metres i.e. 100 square metres.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 11, 2021, 12:17:27 pm
content: Quote from: Circlotron on March 11, 2021, 12:14:20 pmThen why you wrote?Quote

author: JohnnyMalaria
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 11, 2021, 01:01:40 pm
content: Most people consider "x square whatevers" to mean x of the unit of area obtained by multiplying two measurements of whatever together.e.g., "the search continues in 500,000 square miles of ocean".In Imperial/British units, it's also common to use abbreviations like sq. ft. for square feet, not ft. sq. for feet square.

author: nali
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 11, 2021, 01:13:50 pm
content: Quote from: Circlotron on March 11, 2021, 12:14:20 pmNow you're contradicting your OP...Quote from: Circlotron on March 11, 2021, 10:37:42 amMaybe the service heard or assumed you saidsquarednot square? After all there's not a great deal between them phonetically.

author: GlennSprigg
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 12, 2021, 12:44:11 pm
content: I USED to love 'Evi'on my Android Phone. You could ask it anything, (even with an 'Aussie' accent!! haha...), and it understoodeverything perfectly. Then it CHANGED, after M.S. took it over, and replaced the 'Engine' with it's own CRAP! After that, itNEVER worked properly AGAIN!!! Argghh.... I think it's gone now, but beat Apple's iPhone hands down for a while!!!

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 12, 2021, 12:51:59 pm
content: Quote from: Circlotron on March 11, 2021, 10:37:42 amI disagree, vehemently. The use of the exponent of two here relates to theunit, NOT the value.For it to be correct, it should be presented as (10 m)²QuoteAgain, I disagree, vehemently.The statement makes reference to a value of10of units which aresquare metresm²Mind you, itisa stupidly small house.

author: Circlotron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 12, 2021, 01:08:36 pm
content: Are you saying that "10 metres square" and "10 square metres" are the same thing?

author: JohnnyMalaria
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 12, 2021, 01:23:27 pm
content: Quote from: Circlotron on March 12, 2021, 01:08:36 pmMost people probably would. I'd never say "10 metres square" though I understand it could mean 10 meters by 10 meters. If I saw it written as 10m2, then there'd be no ambiguity in my mind. I rarely hear anyone say "meters square" anyway. Just like I've never heard anyone say "foot linear" or "inches cube".But, I'm a scientist and deal in SI units most of the time even though I live in a unit backwater.

author: bw2341
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 12, 2021, 03:18:21 pm
content: “This house is 10 metres square” is grammatically incorrect.It should be “This house is 10-metre square”. The hyphen should be present and the unit should be singular, not plural.When speaking, subtleties such as the “s” for plurals are barely audible and are usually inferred from the context. Frankly, I’m amazed that speech to text works at all.I would avoid this phrase with human and machine listeners and always say “10 by 10 metre square”.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 12, 2021, 05:26:09 pm
content: Y'all need remedial English lessons."This house is 10 metres square." - The house is square, it has walls 10 metres long, it has an area of 100m2."This house is 10 square metres." - This house has a floor area of 10 m2, it may be any shape including irregular.“This house is 10-metre square” is just plain ungrammatical, and sounds like a non-native English speaker. The 10 and the 'metre' don't agree in number, which is a fundamental rule of English. cf "Ten girl came to the party" versus "Ten girls came to the party". And if you make it "Ten-girl came to the party" then you're describing someone whose name is "Ten-girl".

author: bw2341
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 12, 2021, 06:14:02 pm
content: But isn’t “10-metre” a compound adjective modifying “square”? You use singular units to form a compound adjective. It’s “thirty-nine-and-a-half-foot pole”, not “feet”.For more clairty, it should be “This is a 10-metre square house”.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 12, 2021, 09:57:34 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on March 12, 2021, 05:26:09 pmDisagree.“10 square meters” = 10 m2“10 meters square” = 10 m2“10 meters squared” = 10x10m = 100 m2(Edit: SI officially defines “10 meters squared” as 10 m2, but common usage disagrees. See link in later reply.)Not that I would in any way recommend using anything but the first.Quote from: bw2341 on March 12, 2021, 06:14:02 pmYes, it needs the article in order to use it as a modifier in the singular: “a 10 meter square”. (The hyphen is of no consequence, as hyphens are on the decline in general in English, and do not correspond to anything in the spoken language).Getting this wrong is practically diagnostic of non-native speakers, who’ll say things like “a 10 meters square” or “it’s 25 meter long” (since in some languages, the noun “meter” doesn’t take a plural marker). Situational (non)countability of nouns is a tricky area in English.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 12, 2021, 10:44:37 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on March 12, 2021, 09:57:34 pmConsider this bit of usage: Q:"How big is it?", A:"About 6 inches square.". What do you expect? Something thats is six inches by six inches, or something that is \$\sqrt{6 {in}^2}\$ by \$\sqrt{6 {in}^2}\$? Saying something is "X units square" is quite distinct from saying that something is "X units squared" - in one the units are linear, in the other they are areal.As to:Quote from: tooki on March 12, 2021, 09:57:34 pmNoting that you've converted that to "metres squared" with that . What would you say if if was any other unit, say noise calculations. "The amplifier has an equivalent input noise of 0.5 \$V^2 {Hz}^{-1}\$." - "The amplifier has an equivalent input noise of 0.5 volts squared per Hertz.". You wouldn't square the stated figure of 0.5 expressed in the units \$V^2 {Hz}^{-1}\$, neither would you square a figure given in units of \$m^2\$ - "metres squared".

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 12, 2021, 11:30:14 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on March 12, 2021, 10:44:37 pmNooooo, really?!? I’m so glad you spelled back to methe literal point of my reply. I just disagree with you on which one is which. (I am open to being convinced otherwise, though.)With that said, oddly enough, the answer to me depends on the unit: for meters, I expect it to mean \$\sqrt{6 {m}^2}\$ by \$\sqrt{6 {m}^2}\$, but in inches, a 6” x 6” square. Perhaps it has to to with context (a couple of inches being far smaller than a couple of meters), I’d have to think about it.Quote from: Cerebus on March 12, 2021, 10:44:37 pmWow, you noticed! Thanks, Cap’n Obvious!Quote from: Cerebus on March 12, 2021, 10:44:37 pmHonestly, this seems to be an area of contention, with the meter clearly getting special status in common usage. (Whereas I completely agree with your example of V squared.)Look at e.g.https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-square-meter-and-meter-squareThe SI apparently states unambiguously that 10 meters squared = 10 m2. However, nearly every reply (including ones by mathematicians) say that 2 meters squared = 4 m2. The SI does not, however, address what “10 meters square” is supposed to mean.Hence why I agree that one should stick to the wordings “10 square meters” and “10 x 10 meters”/“10m x 10m”, which are totally unambiguous and avoid the ambiguous phrasings.Can we agree, though, that the OP is completely, unambiguously wrong in claiming that “10 square meters” isnot10 m2?Quote from: Circlotron on March 11, 2021, 10:37:42 am

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 12, 2021, 11:53:50 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on March 12, 2021, 11:30:14 pmThat's the difference between "10 metres, squared" and "10 (metres squared)". I suspect, apart from the present examples, that it's moot, as I would probably say "10 square metres" to describe something of 10 m2. It's only when reading out "10 m2" verbatim as "ten (metres squared)" that the ambiguity arises.I note that the mathematicians ought to have done a better job and recognised the higher precedence of exponentiation over multiplication in \$10 \cdot m^2\$ (The O in BODMAS).

author: JohnnyMalaria
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2021, 12:10:07 am
content: Quote from: tooki on March 12, 2021, 11:30:14 pmAnd nor should SI address what it means. SI is a system of units, not calculations or algebra. SI is concerned with <number><unit>. So, the number is utterly divorced from everything else. 10 is 10. 10 what? Whatever the units specified are.It is correct to say that the square of "ten meters" is "100 meters squared" since it is (10 m) x (10 m) = 100 x (m x m) = 100 m2.As a slight aside, in high school, my physics teacher made a very good point that has stuck with me. With SI, you shouldn't say "10 volts", "10 ohms" etc. It should be "10 volt", "10 ohm". Plurals are language-specific. Interestingly, where I live, some people speak that way anyway ("fifty cent")Done correctly, SI can get rather confusing, though. For example, the thing I measure has units of m2s-1V-1. What it represents is the velocity of an object (m.s-1) moving in an electric field (V.m-1), so "velocity per unit electric field".

author: retiredfeline
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2021, 12:33:57 am
content: Quote from: Circlotron on March 11, 2021, 10:37:42 amIf you said that to me I would ask you for clarification. Do you mean you have a house that is 10 metres by 10 metres, or you have a tiny house. say 2.5 metres by 4 metres? So I wouldn't use that phrase myself even if it saves a couple of words.

author: retiredfeline
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2021, 01:00:13 am
content: Quote from: JohnnyMalaria on March 13, 2021, 12:10:07 amYour physics teacher is correct, but it's quixotic to expect people to change their speech. People are inconsistent anyway, they saya 10 ohm resistorbut alsothe resistance is 10 ohms. As long as they don't start writing10 Ωswhich would be ohm-seconds whatever that is.

author: JohnnyMalaria
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2021, 01:50:06 am
content: Quote from: retiredfeline on March 13, 2021, 01:00:13 amkg.m2.s-2.A-2

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 13, 2021, 06:22:46 am
content: Quote from: Circlotron on March 12, 2021, 01:08:36 pmNo. I thought I made that clear - but, obviously not.This:Quote from: Cerebus on March 12, 2021, 05:26:09 pm

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 13, 2021, 06:30:29 am
content: As a little additional note.....I find it rather telling when you see a real estate advertisement for a property which states the property is "10 square metres" when it is clearly apparent that the property is "10 squares" in size.An uneducated "correction" by some numpty who does not understand the old-fashioned unit of area, the "square" (used especially in residential property sales) is an equivalent area to a square of 10' x 10' ... ie. 100 square feet.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2021, 06:36:04 am
content: Quote from: Circlotron on March 12, 2021, 01:08:36 pmThey mean the same thing to me. It would have never occurred to me that somebody would interpret them differently. If I wanted to say that something was 10 meters by 10 meters I'd have said it's "10 meters on a side."

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2021, 06:57:00 am
content: Quote from: JohnnyMalaria on March 13, 2021, 12:10:07 amNever thought about this. German actually does not even have a plural form for most units, including the length and weight units which are used everyday outside of a scientific context: meter, gram, kilogram etc..Units of time are an exception, strangely. All of them (seconds, minutes, hours...) come with a plural form, and it would sound really awkward in German (as in English) to say: "It took me only10 secondto do this."

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2021, 03:19:14 pm
content: Quote from: JohnnyMalaria on March 13, 2021, 12:10:07 amThe SI absolutely does specify the terminology, too.As you said, they expressly say that the units follow the rules for nouns in the language in use. So I’m not sure how you interpret that to mean that saying “10 volts” is wrong in English. In English, if it’s a noun, then it gets pluralized. If it’s an adjectival noun (i.e. a noun being used to modify another noun) then it’s generally singular. Hence “what’s the voltage of that battery? - 3 volts” but “it’s a 3 volt battery”.

author: JohnnyMalaria
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2021, 03:32:50 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on March 13, 2021, 03:19:14 pmMy point (or, rather, my teacher's point) is that to avoid confusion across languages, don't use plural forms of unit names.Sadly, having worked in the pharmaceutical industry, I have had to defile the SI purist in me, even going as far as using L for liter instead of l. Yes, yes, it avoids confusion - but, as another teacher pointed out - there was no Monsieur Litre. And there's mcg for microgram. Ugh.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2021, 06:14:09 pm
content: Quote from: JohnnyMalaria on March 13, 2021, 03:32:50 pmPerfectly reasonable, unless one can safely use ell, ℓ, instead. (Unicode U+2113, or code point 8467, &#8467; in HTML, \ell in MathJax etc.)Similarly for mcg, if µg is not safe to use. (µ being Unicode U+00B5, or code point 181, &#181; in HTML, \mu in MathJax etc. On my keyboard layout, AltGr+m.)

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2021, 06:46:33 pm
content: Quote from: JohnnyMalaria on March 13, 2021, 03:32:50 pmI'm not going to mangle my language in order to ostensibly ease translation into some other language, it sounds weird and awkward to use singular unit names and frankly it seems like a total non-issue and hardly the most tricky part of translating something to another language. If the translator knows and understand the rules of English then they will be able to translate the wording into whatever other language correctly.Makes perfect sense to use L instead of l when there is a significant chance of ambiguity that could easily result in injury or death. Purist thinking is a form of idealism and is a problem in a world where nothing is absolutely ideal or pure. There are always cases where the benefits of breaking a rule outweigh the benefits of consistency.

author: JohnnyMalaria
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2021, 08:04:12 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on March 13, 2021, 06:46:33 pmWhy the wadded panties? I mention all this from a professional scientist's perspective for information purposes. I'm not suggesting 'Merican English speakers do the same. I certainly don't do it in casual conversation. However, there are journals that will reject your paper (or require editing) if you use L instead of l. There are some that insist on specific spellings for elements (e.g., sulfur/sulphur) or even one word in preference of another (aluminium instead of aluminum).

author: Circlotron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2021, 10:00:59 pm
content: It is usual in Australian English to say something like “my car has a 50 litre fuel tank. I just put in 45 litres”. Singular and plural unit(s). And using a lower case l can be confusing because it can look similar to a 1 when hand written at least. And should the l be spaced away from the numerals? 50V fifty Volts looks okay but 50l fifty litres looks a bit sus.

author: JohnnyMalaria
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2021, 11:14:19 pm
content: Quote from: Circlotron on March 13, 2021, 10:00:59 pmJust FWIW, this is yet another source of disagreement between scientific disciplines and their journals. When I started out, spaces were mandatory between the number and the unit (e.g., 10 m.s-1) but now I have to choose between with or without the space depending on the journal. It's no doubt just a matter of familiarity as to which looks "correct" - 10 m.s-1or 10m.s-1(or even 10 m/s and 10m/s - but the use of / instead of negative exponents is yet another source of contention).I just go with the flow as dictated by the journal. Likewise, I use English grammar for UK journals and US English grammar for US journals.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 14, 2021, 03:43:24 am
content: Quote from: JohnnyMalaria on March 13, 2021, 08:04:12 pmThe only wadded panties are the ones you read into what I said, I guess it's hard to convey tone in text. He's welcome to an opinion, I just happen to disagree and think it sounds awkward and I question the benefits. I'm sure there are journals out there that reach that extreme level of pedantry, certainly that seems to be more common among engineers and scientists than the general public. I'm not publishing anything in scientific journals though so it isn't something I've had to deal with.

author: penfold
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 14, 2021, 04:35:48 am
content: I believe a more accurate subject line would have been "I found a bug in the English language!"

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 14, 2021, 11:41:49 am
content: Quote from: JohnnyMalaria on March 13, 2021, 03:32:50 pmWell that’s just stupid, and I say that as a multilingual person who did professional technical translation for a few years. For the supposed added clarity for non-native readers, you mangle it in the language it’s in?! That makes no sense. And the entire premise is dubious: Note that the unitnamesare localized, thesymbolsare not, and the symbols are not pluralized.Quote from: james_s on March 13, 2021, 06:46:33 pmExactly.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 14, 2021, 11:53:39 am
content: Quote from: Circlotron on March 13, 2021, 10:00:59 pmThat’s how it works in all dialects of English, as I explained above. It has to do with whether the unit is serving as a noun or a modifier.Quote from: JohnnyMalaria on March 13, 2021, 11:14:19 pmThe company where I as the translator is a software company that makes reference management software (i.e. a database that helps format proper bibliographies, footnotes, and inline citations; EndNote is their biggest competitor). And one thing I learned there is the absoluteinsanitythat are citation styles. Some are straightforward, others are just crazy, with exceptions to exceptions to exceptions to exceptions. Nearly every publisher (and many individual journals) has its own house style. That software now has a library of over 10000 styles...The issue of slashes in units is addressed by SI, at least as far as prohibiting multiple slashes.Quote from: james_s on March 14, 2021, 03:43:24 amWell, in his defense, I can attest to the journals being extremely pedantic...

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2021, 02:27:55 am
content: Quote from: JohnnyMalaria on March 13, 2021, 08:04:12 pmThe NIST guides to the SI list the liter as a non-SI unit of volume (as opposed to the m3) “that is accepted for use with the SI”, and give the abbreviation as a majuscule L.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2021, 04:35:28 am
content: Quote from: TimFox on March 16, 2021, 02:27:55 amWell NIST (from the land of pounds, feet at al.) isnotthe definitive source on the SI. The definitive source on the SI is the BIPM, which says in the currently definitive 9th edition of the SI Brochure:QuoteSo, both upper and lower case are acceptable notation for 'litre'. One might choose to read from the above a suggestion that someone in the 1979 meeting felt that the lower case form is the 'proper' notation and that upper case is only being grudgingly permitted for purposes of disambiguation.Moreover the 12th CGPM of 1960 "declares that the word “litre” may be employed as a special name for the cubic decimetre" and that it wasnotto be taken to be the former definition of the litre which was the volume of 1 kg of pure water at STP. It was recommended at the 1961 CIPM meeting that"The Comité International des Poids et Mesures recommends that the results of accurate measurements of volume be expressed in units of the International System and not in litres."- that recommendation still stands.So one can see that it seems the humblelitreis a bit frowned on in certain circles of the BIPM.The English text of the above for those who prefer:Quote

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2021, 01:37:28 pm
content: As a patriotic American, I follow NIST, which does not contradict the BIPM. My recent prescriptions for 5 mL of liquid, are easy to read because of this.It is interesting that the BIPM explicitly changes to a strict volume definition of the liter and disavows the previous one related to water density, since there was a small discrepancy after switching from the previous definition of the kg to the artifact kg.

author: Neganur
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 16, 2021, 02:01:35 pm
content: Quote from: Circlotron on March 11, 2021, 12:14:20 pmI see it like this, your 10x10 example would be metres squareD (as in (10m)^2), not square. Just "square" is too ambiguous (what are you squaring, the 10 or the unit or both?) and we probably cannot agree on anything in this case.In English: 10 metres squared = 100 square metresIn German: 10 Meter im Quadrat = 100 Quadratmeter".I do agree with Tooki's reasoning though in terms of "5 V^2 Hz^-1 is not squaring the 5".However, there is no "square metre" equivalent word for "Volt to the power of two" would be my first reaction without having spent too much thought on it.It's not easy to to express things in a precise manner.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2021, 03:40:27 pm
content: In the US, 55 years ago, I was taught that "10 meters square" was 10 m x 10 m= 100 m2= "100 square meters", but since that could be misinterpreted we should say "10 by 10 meters" (or similar) instead to avoid confusion.

author: Bassman59
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2021, 04:09:24 pm
content: Quote from: Brumby on March 13, 2021, 06:30:29 amThe real-estate business has a worse problem. They (at least here in the US) indicate the size of the property as "±10,000 ⏍."Yes, that's right. They tell you the error in measurement, not the actual area, and they use a silly symbol instead of just saying "square feet."

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2021, 04:23:59 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on March 16, 2021, 01:37:28 pmThis isn't the place for pointless flag-waving, especially when discussing the "Systèmeinternational". The very name is a giveaway that the one thing it's not about is nationalism.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2021, 05:36:55 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on March 16, 2021, 04:35:28 amI was reacting sarcastically to your comment.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2021, 06:15:16 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on March 16, 2021, 05:36:55 pmWell, you need to get better at sarcasm then so it's obvious, and that still doesn't make NIST, fine institute that it nevertheless is, a suitable referent for definitive information on SI (If you've accurately reported what they say, that 'litre' should be represented only by a capital 'L', then they're wrong according to theactualauthority for the SI.)

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2021, 06:28:49 pm
content: NIST follows the US Government Printing Office standard of "liter", abbreviated "L". That is one of two choices allowed by BIPM. It works for me. The liter is not a SI unit anyway, and the two miniscule choices (ℓ and l), although they follow the general rule for non-proper nouns, are easy to confuse.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2021, 08:53:04 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on March 16, 2021, 03:40:27 pm"10 by 10 meters" equals 100 meters, hence is a length and not an area at all.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2021, 11:07:17 pm
content: No. In context, it is a description of a geometric square with dimensions of 10 m by 10 m.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2021, 06:16:08 am
content: Quote from: ebastler on March 16, 2021, 08:53:04 pmOh boy :pImplicit parentheses are fun, eh?

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2021, 02:13:11 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on March 16, 2021, 11:07:17 pmNo. In context, it's a description of 10 off ten metre lengths of steel pipe. Except - thereisno context, or at least what context there is, is the original post, which itself was contextless. So, in a context of contextlessness there is no context.Now, who wants to risk using a zebra crossing?

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2021, 03:03:35 pm
content: In American usage, a “2 by 4” is not an “8”, but rather 1.5 by 3.5 inches. Similarly, we here only use “by” for multiplication after an explicit “multiply”, as in “multiply 3 by 10”. Otherwise, we say “3 times 10”. Idioms are what will save us from the AI apocalypse (sarcasm intended).

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2021, 09:23:40 pm
content: Lumber dimensions are something that has always annoyed me. I don't care what size the raw material was going into the planer, that's completely irrelevant. The only dimensions that matter are the actual finished dimensions.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2021, 09:25:32 pm
content: I'm old enough to remember when my grandfather complained about the change from 1-3/4 by 3-3/4 inch to a measly 1-5/8 by 3-5/8 inch dimension.This USDA publication has some interesting information, going back to at least 1906:https://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/misc/miscpub_6409.pdf

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2021, 09:29:23 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on March 17, 2021, 09:25:32 pmThe magical shrinking product. I remember when a gallon of ice cream was actually a gallon. Now it's not even close. It's something I find very irritating, I completely understand the necessity of raising prices to keep up with rising costs. What really grinds my gears is when companies think they can fool me by keeping the price the same and shrinking the size of the product. I notice, and frankly it's insulting that they think they can slip this past me.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2021, 09:31:39 pm
content: "Now, who wants to risk using a zebra crossing?"I remember the British TV series "Rising Damp", where one of the student lodgers, Philip Smith, claims to be an African prince studying traffic engineering so that he can install zebra crossings in the jungle back home.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2021, 10:57:44 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on March 17, 2021, 09:31:39 pmQuote from: Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy