niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
Question: Does "egoistic" and "egotistic" mean the same thing? 
Answer: No. While similar, they have some important differences. Consider this note on usage from the Oxford Dictionaries: The words egoism and egotism are frequently confused, as though interchangeable, but there are distinctions worth noting. Both words derive from Latin ego ('I'), the first-person singular pronoun. Egotism, the more commonly used term , denotes an excessive sense of self-importance, too-frequent use of the word 'I,' and general arrogance and boastfulness. Egoism, a more subtle term , is perhaps best left to ethicists, for whom it denotes a view or theory of moral behavior in which self-interest is the root of moral conduct. An egoist, then , might devote considerable attention to introspection, but could be modest about it, whereas an egotist would have an exaggerated sense of the importance of his or her self-analysis, and would have to tell everyone.
Output: yes
Question: I understand what the idiom means: as per this question, it means a person or creature unwittingly used as a test for danger, often destructively. I understand why coalmines: as depositories of ancient organic waste, they are particularly prone to methane and carbon monoxide buildup. But why a canary? They are technically exotic, native and (at least originally) endemic to the sub-tropical Canary Islands, which gave them their name. They were also renowned for their singing voice, as found out in this answer, and could presumably be quite expensive. So why would a mining company in Britain and/or America and/or any other English speaking country use such an expensive and exotic bird as a glorified carbon monoxide detector whose sole purpose in life was to suffocate to death? Why wouldn't they use sparrows, or starlings, or some other small songbird native to the area? Are canaries just that easy to breed and keep? Are they super-extra-sensitive to poison gases and thus were the "upscale" model? Were all small, caged songbirds called "canaries" as a matter of course? Or did the modern idiom simply opt for alliteration over historical accuracy? 
Answer: Male canaries will sing all the time when they're alone in the hope of their song attracting a female. In fact, the main reason for them being held in captivity is their incessant song. This makes them ideal for coal mines; you don't have to concentrate on them or watch them. You do your work, register the canary's song as a background noise, and as soon as the background noise stops, you know you're in trouble.
Output: no
Question: Is there a word or term for the state of a human or animal infested with ticks? Mainly just curious. Examples: He's suffering from ______. Don't get near him: he has _____. 
Answer: If you are looking for an informal way of saying it, you pretty much have the most natural way already: "he is tick-infested" or "he is infested with ticks". Saying "He has ..." is asking for a formal medical condition, like diabetes. The most informal of this would be "He has a problem with ticks" or "He has a lot of ticks".
Output: no
Question: I've heard this joke several times, but I'm ashamed to say I really cannot understand it. It just doesn't seem to make any sense however I look at it. I have a suspicion that it is supposed to be rude, so I'd like to offer my apologies if it causes offence- that is not my intension. Here's the joke: Two nuns are in the bath. Nun1: Where's the soap? Nun2: Yes, it does rather. Edit: I understand the pun on "where's"/"wears". But what I don't understand is why that is funny. Several people have mentioned that there is a sexual inference, but I don't understand where it comes from. 
Answer: Rudeness to Follow: The first nun cannot find the soap because the second nun is masturbating with it. The humour in the joke, such as it is, flows from profaning the sacred by sexualizing nuns who have taken vows of chastity. This is obviously a vulgar form of humour.
Output: no
Question: What word means to make something obsolete? For example, the automobile made the horse and buggy obsolete. How would the word obsolete be applied as a verb? obsoleted The automobile obsoleted the horse and buggy. bleech. made obsolete The automobile made obsolete the horse and buggy. Not bad, but there's room for improvement. EDIT: I'm looking for a verb that has an edge; that captures the upheaval and aggressiveness involved in displacing a product or industry. Killed is a bit strong. killed The automobile killed the horse and buggy. A bit overstated. ran out of business The automobile ran the horse and buggy out of business marginally better, but still not good. disrupted the automobile disrupted the horse and buggy Better applied to an industry, like so the automobile disrupted the transportation industry in the early 20th century; particularly the horse and buggy. Wordy. smashed The automobile smashed the horse and buggy. More along the lines of what I seek, but a bit improper. XXX The automobile XXX the horse and buggy. What verb fits best here? 
Answer: I don't know if this is exactly what you're looking for, but the verb supersede is close. From Cambridge Dictionary: supersede to replace something older, less effective, or less important or official: Wireless broadband could supersede satellite radio one day. From Merriam-Webster 1a : to cause to be set aside 1b : to force out of use as inferior.
Output: yes
Question: I'm watching them demolish a building near me and thought that the JCBs were rather animalistic almost dinosaur-like. Anyway, it just got me onto thinking that it's not anthropomorphy if I want to give a non-human (animal) trait to an inanimate object. Another example is that the comedian Isy Suttie once described an elderly person, hunched over and using a pair of walking sticks as resembling an insect (except she was funny). I suppose this is the same thing. The only thing I can think of that might fit is "xenopomorphism". Any ideas? 
Answer: zoomorphism zoomorphic 1 having the form of an animal 2 of, relating to, or being a deity conceived of in animal form or with animal attributes.
Output: yes
Question: I'm trying to find different ways of saying that "You don't have to be a rocket scientist", but I can't seem to get any good ideas. I got a variation, "You don't have to be a brain surgeon...," but are there any others ways. It doesn't have to follow the routine of "You don't have to...". 
Answer: It's not like you're inventing the weel.
Output: no
Question: What is the idiom for a situation that "If people-in-authority don't follow their own set rules, then what can one expect from rest of us" in similar examples given below in different settings: When HR themselves are tardy, undisciplined then what can you expect from the employees (punctuality and discipline)? When traffic police themselves are offending (driving without belts, smoking while driving) what can you expect from the vehicle driving community in the city? When parents themselves are undisciplined (smoking in front of children), what can you expect from the children themselves? When the management is insincere, what can you expect from their staff? 
Answer: The more colloquial idiom would be "Sauce for the Goose, is sauce for the Gander" That is, rules that apply to those under authority must also apply to those in authority. Or, rules that apply to me must also apply to you. All the other phrases are correct as well. A common idea with many expressions. Another expression of this from US Colonial times: "The Law condemns the man or woman Who steals the goose from off the Common But lets the greater villain loose, Who steals the Common from the goose.".
Output: no
Question: As generally agreed and as extensively discussed in this question, "an" should be used in place of the more common "a" where the following word begins with a vowel sound. I have just encountered for the first time an instance of the phrasing an mule in the book Why Chemical Reactions Happen (James Keeler and Peter Wothers, Oxford University Press, 2003). (This book is not mine. I was sitting opposite a friend when the friend mentioned the unusual phrasing.) This phrasing appears to contradict the rule discussed above, since "mule" is, as far as I am aware, pronounced /mjul/ (see Wiktionary). Here is the context. The author is using an analogy to explain a chemistry concept (the italics are not mine, but the bold emphasis is): A useful analogy here is that of an mule, which we get by crossing a horse with a donkey. To describe an mule as a horse or a donkey would be inaccurate and it certainly does not interconvert rapidly between the two! Rather we need to recognize that although an mule has parts that are reminiscent of a horse and parts that a reminiscent of a donkey, it is something altogether different. Looking for other examples online, I have managed to find one on Wikipedia's List of Siege engines. Discussing a Siege engine, the Scorpio: Similar to the ballista, but smaller. Was sometimes mounted on an mule-drawn cart. Other examples are difficult to find, but here's one from a user-posted question on Answers.com (referring, notably, to a kind of deer rather than the animal, a mule): Is an mule deer an omnivore? No. Mule deer are herbivores. ... What is going on? Is there an irregular pronunication of "mule" of which I am not aware? Is this some strange language quirk, some archaic spelling that I am encountering for the first time? 
Answer: The original printing had "an ass" instead of "an mule". That error was not lost on the chemistry community. See, for instance, Krenos's 2004 review of the text in the Journal of Chemical Education: In Chapter 10, bonding in extended conjugated systems and resonance are introduced with the horse + donkey = ass analogy (it is likely the hybrid animal mule is intended instead of ass, however). It seems the editors subsequently made an error mistake.
Output: yes
Question: Possible Duplicate: Which is the proper spelling: "disfunction" or "dysfunction"? What's the rationale behind dysfunctional being spelled dys- and not dis-? 
Answer: The Oxford English Dictionary records disfunctional as a variant spelling of (the more usual) dysfunctional.
Output: no
Question: Today, I received a folder of Recruiting candidate CVs from one of our HR. In this folder, there is a sub-folder named "pass". Question is does this "pass" mean the CVs inside are OK or not OK? If I want to mean the CVs in the folder that are not OK, what exact word should I use? 
Answer: It's ambiguous. It could mean "these candidates passed our tests". Or it could mean "We'll pass on these candidates" (not give them offers). You should ask whoever gave you the folders what the labels mean.
Output: yes
Question: Just to clarify, I'm not talking about the Lush product of the same name. In Australia, the washing up fairy is a mythical creature. People leave their dishes unwashed overnight, and lo and behold, the next morning the dishes are clean thanks to the washing up fairy. Sadly, she (I assume it's a she) is more often noted in her absence than her presence. As in "The washing up fairy didn't come, I'll have to do the dishes now." An example of her being mentioned: Her theory is simple we must replace the behaviours we don't want with those we do. For example, leaving dirty dishes on the kitchen bench for the washing-up fairy to tidy should be replaced with loading the dirty dishes in the dishwasher. Her existence has been documented neither by Wiktionary nor Urban Dictionary. Is her distribution limited to Australia, and presumably New Zealand, plus the households of those who have moved from these countries? 
Answer: I'm in the U.S., and I've never heard of the Washing-Up Fairy. Still, using a fairy to explain an unexplained yet serendipitous discovery is not unheard of. When I Googled "a fairy came and cleaned", I found: my mother would call me the next day, "Oh! a Fairy came and cleaned the house" [in a Yahoo! answer] "Let's pretend a fairy came and cleaned up your room." [from a parenting book] Every morning, it's as if a fairy came and cleaned the house for me. [from a Roomba vacuum review on amazon.com] Miraculously, when I came downstairs I found that a fairy came and cleaned up the party mess inside (thank you Daddy!) [from a 2004 blog] So, such "pay-it-forward" cleaning acts of kindness are often attributed to fairy folk. I never realized until today, though, that the Tooth Fairy had a cousin called the Washing Up Fairy, at least by those Down Under.
Output: yes
Question: The first time I encountered the word "gondola" was as a 20 year old on her first visit to Venice. Gondolas, to me, were written in my memory as a flat, fancy, romantic (and expensive to ride) boat structures that traverse the canals of Venice, Italy. But soon thereafter, on my first visit to Banff, Canada (Canadian Rockies) -- Gondolas was also the term for ski-like lifts (enclosed from the elements) to get from the bottom to the top of steep mountains (vice versa). What is the etymology of "gondola"? And how did it develop to reference two completely different transportation devices? One on water, the other on mountains? What is the relationship besides their obvious transportation connect? 
Answer: Some of the successive meanings given in the OED are: 1a. " A light flat-bottomed boat or skiff in use on the Venetian canals, having a cabin amidships and rising to a sharp point at either end; it is usually propelled by one man at the stern with a single oar." U.S. A large flat-bottomed river boat of light build; a lighter; used also as a gun-boat. 4a. "= gondola-car n. U.S.", which is glossed as "U.S. a railway car having a platform body with low sides." 4b. "An elongated car attached to the under side of a dirigible balloon or airship. [German, Dutch gondel.] Also transf., applied to a structure that resembles such a car in its purpose and mode of attachment." 4c. "The car attached to a ski-lift. Also gondola lift." So the crucial step appears to be the cabin of an airship (which is long and low), and then a cabin suspended from something. This kind of semantic drift is very common.
Output: yes
Question: I have several expenses and incomes in the application I'm currently coding. What can I call an entity like that, that is either positive (income) or (negative)? It should be related to money, if possible. Edit: Not sure if I expressed myself clearly. I'm looking for a word like "money-transfer", "stream" or "money that goes over the table" (no matter which direction). A word that fits in a financial context. 
Answer: In a ledger they would be entries. In a bank statement they would be transactions. The bank statement records your transactions debit, credit, deposit, withdrawal. New Oxford American Dictionary (Thesaurus).
Output: yes
Question: I've heard meelee, meyley (maylay), and mehlay. Is there any "correct" way to pronounce it in the U.S.? 
Answer: NOAD gives these pronunciations: melee |mala; mala| (also melee) Which are, in order of usage, may-lay, may-lay, and also muh-lay.
Output: yes
Question: Is there a specific reason for this? After all, it is "boys and girls", rather than "girls and boys". If the boy (male) comes first here, why doesn't it come first in "ladies and gentlemen"? 
Answer: It probably has to do with the phonetic and metrical properties of "ladies and gentlemen" versus "gentlemen and ladies." Say them both out loud and see which one sounds better to you, intuitively. The metrical pattern of "ladies and gentlemen" consists of (arguably) two dactyls. A dactyl is a group of three syllables where the first is stressed and the second two are unstressed. When these occur in succession, they are pleasant to the ear. ladies and gentlemen DUM da da / DUM da da The metrical pattern of "gentlemen and ladies" falls into a much less regular pattern. It is less pleasant to the ear. It is something like a stressed syllable followed by three unstressed syllables followed by a stressed syllable followed by an unstressed syllable. gentlemen and ladies DUM da da da DUM da Our language tends to organize itself according to regular and pleasant stress patterns. My guess is that is why we feel more drawn to "ladies and gentlemen" than "gentlemen and ladies" and why the former has conventionalized.
Output: yes
Question: Are there any differences between "oval" and "ellipse"? 
Answer: To me the defining difference is this: An oval can be made from two radiuses. That is, you can make an oval using your compass (or parts of a circle, if you like). You can never do this with an ellipse. That is, no part of an ellipse will ever make a circle.
Output: no
Question: I wrote this sentence: Why wouldn't it be valid? --and I realized that without the contraction it becomes: Why would it not be valid? As opposed to "why would not it be valid," as the contraction would imply. What's going on here? Why can I contract across the middle word this way? Or, to put it the other way, why can't I "de-contract" this without moving the not over by a word? 
Answer: It reflects an older sentence structure of English which is no longer used. You placed the negative immediately after the verb it was negating ('not' placed after 'would'). This structure was used when the contraction first developed. That placement of the negative has changed but is preserved in the contraction.
Output: no
Question: I sometimes see the term "critical but stable" in the news. It is often used to describe someone who has been very seriously injured. For example (15 December 2019): "[A police officer] said the man who had been shot was in a "critical but stable " condition in hospital." I understand that "critically ill" means that life is in danger. Similarly "stable" is the opposite. Quotes from www.lexico.com critically To an extreme degree with a risk of death. 'two critically wounded people died in hospital'. 'critically ill patients who were awaiting surgery' stable (of a patient or their medical condition) not deteriorating in health after an injury or operation. 'he is now in a stable condition in hospital' What does "critical but stable" really mean? 
Answer: It seems contradictory on the surface, but it really does just combine the definitions you listed. So,the patient's condition is very serious or an extreme degree of injury, but not currently deteriorating or worsening.
Output: yes
Question: For example, a computer security expert can be an expert and making a basic mistake, perhaps unrelated to his personality but highly relevant to his field of expertise and a mistake that just about anybody could do but just because he is a security expert he especially should not have done it. I don't mean stupid mistake or stupid error but I mean contradictory and almost similar to a double-standard. Jeff teaches English but he couldn't spell "occurrence". Or for example George is a professional Microsoft Windows programmer but he doesn't know what alt+tab does. Or Henry is a surgeon but he cut himself shaving. I don't necessarily mean something like a police officer who himself is corrupt or a judge who is corrupt because those are not accidents or mistakes but deliberate. Albert Einstein was a genius but couldn't remember his own address and entered the wrong house when going home. (Perhaps the above Einstein example is not a great example because scientist could be absent-minded.) I mean more like actually mistakenly missing the basics of your own speciality or making a human error that anybody else could do except you because you are supposed to be the specialist. I think the classic example could be Bill Gates trying to show how good Microsoft Windows is and it crashes. Or a news anchor, who should be a specialist in not making a word mistake, actually makes a word mistake. Or a judge or an attorney, who should be experts in law and rights, wouldn't know something trivial about law and right e.g. unknowingly about that blackmailing is a crime. I almost made such a mistake myself. I was an IT specialist and computer technician at a client's office and their boss was teaching himself the basics of programming and asking me about something basic. I actually got it right but I was not completely certain about something basic while actually being able to solve complicated and advanced problems for them. 
Answer: Not a single word, but one could call this a rookie mistake. An example is "Trump's Trade Chief Makes a Rookie Mistake". The Cato Institute's Dan Ikenson recently took Navarro to task for his views on trade. Ikenson says Navarro is making an elementary error when he writes: When net exports are negative, that is, when a country runs a trade deficit by importing more than it exports, this subtracts from growth. It's definitely not true that trade deficits always subtract from growth.
Output: yes
Question: I am composing a sentence like: 'Some people think we are this, some think we are that...'. Then I want to say that we are neither this nor that. Can I write it in short like this: 'But we are neither.'? Or should I alway add nor after neither, even in this case? 
Answer: In this case, neither is acting as an adverb. So yes, this is correct. Try using an alternate adverb, aboard. We are aboard. That works. It might sound more 'correct' but only because we think adverb first with aboard and one might think determiner first with neither. To be clear: it isn't idiomatic, an ungrammatical construction we've just gotten used to. It's straight up correct.
Output: no
Question: Can one use kindness as a synonym for politeness? What's the difference? Where do you draw the line between them? 
Answer: Politeness comes from the head and kindness from the heart! In other words politeness is contrived and not felt whereas kindness is pure love and heartfelt.
Output: no
Question: There was the following passage in New York Times' (October 6) article commenting on GOP Presidential candidate, Carly Fiorina under the headline, 'If she's a feminist, then I'm a T. Rex': "Her record at Hewlett-Packard firing skilled Americans by the thousands and outsourcing their jobs to China and India, while almost running her company into the ground with an ill-advised merger is hardly a sterling record for any sort of candidate, assuming we actually want a president of all the people rather than a modern Ebenezer Scrooge, - - This is a woman who would deny other women control over their own bodies, as well. "If she's a feminist then I'm a T. rex." According to Jurassic wiki, Tyrannosaurus rex, the most famous of all dinosaurs species and commonly known as T. rex, was the largest of the Tyrannosaur family and by extension one of the largest theropods, reaching 12 to 13 meters in length. But what does 'If she's a feminist, then I'm a T. Rex' mean? Does the writer sarcastically admit herself being anachronistic? Why should it be a T.Rex, not other monsterous or supernatural creatures, say, Moby-Dick and Godzilla? Is this a cute turn of phrase? Could you translate "I'm a T.rex" into plain English? 
Answer: All that that is saying is that she is no feminist whatsoever, being just as much of a feminist as the columnist is a giant extinct dinosaur. That is, not at all.
Output: yes
Question: Possible Duplicate: When is "L" doubled? I'm confused about the two spellings. In which contexts do I have to use canceling or cancelling? Google returns 15.6 million results with canceling and 18 million with cancelling, so I don't know what is the good spelling. Why are both possible, and are there other such pairs? 
Answer: There are many words that have different accepted spellings between British and American English. The wiktionary.org entry for "cancelling" says: Alternative forms canceling (US English) This implies that a single "l" is preferred in American English and a double "l" in British English.
Output: yes
Question: Is it ok to talk about "personal PCs", in the sense of distinguishing it from a work PC? Or would it be regarded as a case of RAS Syndrome? 
Answer: Though the word personal is repeated in the expansion "personal personal computer", the two repetitions use different meanings of the same word. The first personal means "owned or used by a specific single person" (definition 1 here), while the second indicates "designed to be used by a single person" (definition 2 here, again). Both instances are required to convey the full idea and thus are not redundant. Consider the following examples spelled out in full: Personal PC: personal personal computer, (the usual case of a personal computer owned by a person) personal mainframe computer (I have a Cray in my bedroom), Public PC: public personal computer (a PC that is installed in a kiosk usable by anybody).
Output: yes
Question: Is there a word or phrase which describes "choice of misleading words", or the negation: "choice of non-misleading words"? The nearest phrases I can think of are linguistic deception, or controlled language, as in Nineteen Eighty-Four. For example, Richard Stallman actively opposes such misuse of language: I think it is ok for authors (please let's not call them creators, they are not gods) to ask for money for copies of their works (please let's not devalue these works by calling them content) in order to gain income (the term compensation falsely implies it is a matter of making up for some kind of damages). Another example is "credit" in banking, which just makes "debt" sound like a good thing. EDIT: The term may either refer to an individual's malicious use of misleading terminology, or to widely-accepted use of misleading terminology. The answers reflect this, but my question does not. 
Answer: George Orwell, in his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, used the terms doublethink (the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct) and Newspeak (a controlled language of restricted grammar and limited vocabulary, meant to limit the freedom of thought). These two have been combined to form the term doublespeak (frequently incorrectly attributed to Orwell's 1984) meaning "language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words." More information and references at Wikipedia. The OP mentioned Nineteen Eighty-Four but not doublespeak.
Output: yes
Question: I've heard meelee, meyley (maylay), and mehlay. Is there any "correct" way to pronounce it in the U.S.? 
Answer: Melee comes from French, to fight, and is pronounced by French rules, with accents it is melee, which in English the e-circonflex would be more like "e" in Greg, and ee would be "ay" as in "gray". Most commonly English speakers butcher it however they like, so no, there is not one correct way to fail to pronounce the French word. It's a potayto-potahtoh thing. Most commonly I hear "Meh-lay", from US video-game users who use the term to refer to close-ranged weapons like knives, in first person shooters.
Output: no
Question: Possible Duplicate: What is the difference between an expression and a phrase? Difference between "phrase" and "idiom" What is the difference between a phrase, an idiom and an expression? I am looking for the context where one is more appropriate than the rest. I've been using idiom and phrase more or less interchangeably. 
Answer: This question asks nearly the same thing. This is the difference between an idiom and a phrase: A phrase is "a small group of words standing together as a conceptual unit", while an idiom is "a group of words established by usage as having a meaning not deducible from those of the individual words". So, the difference is that an idiom as an established meaning not directly linked to the individual words. Any idiom is a phrase. As an example, "raining cats and dogs" is both an idiom and a phrase. "A herd of cats" is a phrase but not an idiom. Expression has about the same meaning as phrase, except it is usually used of a phrase which is in common use. So an idiom is a certain sort of expression, which in turn is a subset of phrase: idiom > expression > phrase.
Output: yes
Question: The context: Customer pays for some service 100$. If he chooses an option X, we charge him 20$ more, so 120$ in total. As a programmer I want my variables to have meaningful names. How would you call this 20$ in this context? I consider two words: markup (but it is more related to the business than customer IMHO) and surcharge. 
Answer: I would think that what ever is driving the cost/price of the "Extra" should be kept as its own identity. If we choose an extra option on the back of a product, like cable mentioned above, we know what we are asking for and therefore we are not being charged anything additional. The cable company would report separately on these two items, as they should. So, that said, where will you report this income? As a product sale, a service offered, or are you simply wanting to charge one person more than another for the same product/service?.
Output: no
Question: The US emergency telephone number 911 seems to be almost always pronounced as nine one one whereas the Porsche model is typically pronounced as nine eleven One reason I can think of for preferring "nine one one" for the phone number is that there is no "eleven" key on a phone. On the other hand, "0800" is often pronounced "o eight hundred". Is there a logical or historical reason for the different pronunciations? 
Answer: That the emergency number 911 is pronounced nine-one-one is probably a standard to avoid confusion or doubt by either children or non-natives to the English language. Pronouncing the number as nine hundred and eleven could be misinterpreted as 90011, hence the emphasis of three digits. This is also a deal in most European countries, where 112 is the emergency number and pronounced 1-1-2 in the languages I know and for all I know in other languages too. one-one-two (English), ein-eins-zwei (German), et-et-to (Danish), einn-einn-tveir (Icelandic).
Output: no
Question: For example, if I were to connect to a service with the following address: 68.146.63.194:3609 Is there a word for this type of address? I suppose I could call it just a generic address but I was wondering if there was a word for this specific type of connection.. 
Answer: The correct answer is socket per the TCP/IP specification (RFC 793). To allow for many processes within a single Host to use TCP communication facilities simultaneously, the TCP provides a set of addresses or ports within each host. Concatenated with the network and host addresses from the internet communication layer, this forms a socket.
Output: no
Question: What's the difference between these two phrases? 
Answer: The difference is pretty subtle, but the "did you..." version implies more of an event, i.e. something that needs to be seen just once, perhaps because it's temporary. So, Have you seen [insert movie title]? but Did you see last night's [insert TV show name] episode? Edit: note that there's nothing wrong with "Have you seen last night's episode?", or with "Did you see the movie?", but there is a (slight) difference in meaning.
Output: no
Question: Is there a specific name for the thick glove worn (or may be any cloth used) to touch hot dishes in the oven? For example, we wear a glove and take the dish containing baked food from the oven. It's use is to save our hand from being burnt by touching the hot dish. 
Answer: We call them Oven Mitts. At least online shopping seems to confirm! It's interesting to see that 'oven glove' is used too, it's obvious, but around here (NZ and Australia, and apparently the States) they are 'mitts'. However, looking up the definition of mitt: a glove leaving the fingers and thumb-tip exposed. Well, that's the last thing you want isn't it! Regardless, that is what we call them :).
Output: yes
Question: I'm referring to the peculiar habit I sometimes see in formal documents, where a number is given numerically after it's spelled out. It seems quite redundant: I need five (5) kumquats, stat! (Though it isn't always in a legal context, might it be related to this answer on this question?) 
Answer: The redundancy is presumably intended to reduce typos, forgery, and other types of error or manipulation in order to make the intent as clear as possible. It is known professionally as a CYA. It's obvious what my intent is when I rather carelessly write an I.O.U. for sevum kumquats, but alas, sevum is not really a word and opens up our contract to litigation. Adding the numeral 7 in parenthesis after sevum clarifies the intent. Similarly, if I were to write an I.O.U. for 3 kumquats, one could easily change that 3 to an 8, but it is far more difficult to make three look like eight. The practice appears to be a legal tradition rather than a universally honored rule. If you've ever written a check (known as a cheque to the Queen), you've written out a number with words and followed it with a numeral (albeit without parenthesis).
Output: yes
Question: Should e.g. and i.e. have periods, e.g. "e.g.", or no periods, eg "eg"? Should they be italicized, e.g. "i.e." or not, eg "i.e"? 
Answer: In formal contexts, I would go with "e.g." and "i.e.", with two periods and without a whitespace. The spellings without periods are quite popular, but informal. For example, Merriam-Webster does not have an entry for either "eg" or "ie". Wiktionary marks "eg." and "eg" as informal, and offers the following usage notes: Opinion is mixed about whether this term should be italicized as although it is Latin, it has become part of standard English, and whether it should be written with a separating space "e. g." as it was originally two separate words. It also offers the following usage notes for "i.e.": Opinion is mixed about whether the abbreviation should be italicized, or whether there should be a separating non-breaking space as in i. e.. ie is often found in current usage, and is perhaps now considered acceptable. Personally, I would argue that there's no need whatsoever to italicize "e.g." or "i.e.". Both expressions are extremely common in English, and have been for a long time. They are full-fledged citizens of the English language, and as such, they do not have to be italicized as if they were foreign words.
Output: yes
Question: As per title of the question, I see this a lot. "We will release the product when issue 51 has been finalized." "We are waiting for it to be finalized." Is this just a case of people trying to sound professional with corporate jargon , or is there a real difference between 'finish' and 'finalize'? 
Answer: The definitions of finalise and finish are pretty similar, with finalise referring to the production of, or agreement on, the finished version. The single word finalise carries the connotation of just the last bit, whereas finish needs helper words to carry that connotation (e.g. finish off, finish up). Saying that something is finished can also carry the unwanted sense that it is done for, that is, that it is of no further use; finalise doesn't carry that unwanted sense. In commerce (including the fields of software engineering and management that you specifically referenced), completion isn't always enough. The customer wants confirmation of completion. Transacting parties want the signed agreement that follows the completion of negotiations, or the invoicing and payment that follow the completion of work. So it isn't enough that the work is finished (even in the positive sense); it needs to be finalised.
Output: yes
Question: I'm wondering which one of these expressions is correct? This stuff or these stuff? 
Answer: In your expressions, stuff is a noun and is uncountable. I would say it is "this stuff". The only time I can think of stuff being plural is when it is a verbas in he stuffs the turkey with .
Output: no
Question: Ok, if I say "this car is too expensive" or "this car is very expensive", then I can not express the connotation of "expensive". However, if I say "this car is damn expensive" then I better convey the connotation of "expensive". So my question is: What is the English idiom about "expensive" that expresses the idea that "It is so expensive that you feel like you got ripped-off and/or overcharged and/or unmeaningfully expensive"? For example, "damn expensive" could be ok but is there any other term? 
Answer: stiff v. Usually applied to describe "to fail or refuse to tip a server," to stiff also means more generally "to cheat someone out of money." e.g. You said your brother-in-law would give me a fair deal, so I was surprised that he would stiff me out of so much money.
Output: no
Question: Is there a word that describes a person who spreads others' secrets without their permission? 
Answer: There are also numerous colloquialisms, such as stool pigeon, or rat, or narc, or blab (blabber-mouth), and probably many more I am not remembering.
Output: no
Question: Is there a term for a well informed person who is not believed, or not listened to, or is even ridiculed? I do not necessarily mean some one before their time... I am thinking in more general terms. (I have googled this but the question is too broad and has too many keywords and if I try to narrow it down I lose the original meaning.) 
Answer: low man on the totem pole unsung expert And here are some related adjectives: marginalized Definition of marginalize: "to relegate to an unimportant or powerless position within a society or group." peripheral disregarded.
Output: no
Question: I overheard my manager asking "What are you up to?" What does that idiom mean? Is it an informal/negative way of asking?? 
Answer: Another example of a phrasal verb -- see Why do we use 'up' as adverbs for verbs? for more information.
Output: no
Question: "Polarizes" is not the right word for this. If you can imagine a group of people being strictly divided in opinion, the ideological line which divided them would be the thing I am trying to generically name. I'm looking for a specific word that I know I've seen before but can't remember. I've googled this but have not been able to find the right word. This is the best definition I can provide. An (poor) example is how a stance on taxes divides people into Democrats and Republicans 
Answer: It sounds like you are looking for the word issue: whether taxes should be equally applied to rich and poor, or scaled, is the issue that divides Democrats and Republicans.
Output: no
Question: Possible Duplicate: Is it correct to use "punctuation outside of the quotations", or "inside?" I've heard that you should always place ending punctuation inside of quotes, no matter what. Are there any cases where it is appropriate for a sentence to end with ".? 
Answer: I was taught that if the quote has more than one sentence, then you do it like this, with a period in and a period out: Statement: I once heard a quote that said "Stop. You can't go. If you go, you can't stop. If you stop, you can't go.". Question: Is there a quote that says "Stop. You can't go. If you go, you can't stop. If you stop, you can't go."? That isn't a real quote, by the way. If it only has a phrase, or if it only has one sentence, then you do it like this: Statement: John said "Get out of here". Question: Did John say "Get out of here"?.
Output: no
Question: Could you tell me some suitable idioms to express this situation: A guy told you a joke, but it's not funny at all. In Japanese, we say "He slipped" or "His joke was so cold that the air got frozen," for that situation. Are there any similar phrases in English? 
Answer: Sarcastically I am smiling, but my heart's crying inside. 2.you have nailed the coffin of laughter with a golden nail. oh God, please Kill Me . Hang Yourself , would be the one chooses often too Would be the real expression for an unfunny joke.
Output: no
Question: I am looking for a single adjective to describe someone who is easily discouraged. Example: Any person who is (easily discouraged) will not get far in life 
Answer: Someone who is not perseverant or persistent is relenting. Often we see the "un-" negation of this word, as in unrelenting rain. Someone who gives up easily yields or concedes, and that makes him or her yielding and concessive. Someone who lacks resolve or determination is irresolute, indecisive, undetermined.
Output: no
Question: I am watching a UK TV programme called "The Apprentice". The candidates have to sell guided tours. Some candidates are terrible at giving these tours. They fluff their lines, or they haven't researched, or they make up "facts". Watching their ineptitude cause a feeling of discomfort. What is the best word for this discomfort? The German word schadenfreude means roughly "the pleasure derived from the misfortunes of others". The word I want would be almost an antonym of schadenfreude - "the discomfort derived from the mosfortunes of others". Except not the misfortunes but the uselessness of others. 
Answer: As far as I can imagine, there isn't such a word in the English language, but there are a few words that could be made to fit with that idea. Empathize means sympathizing with another person's unfortunate circumstances. Though empathizing with a person doesn't exactly have to do with that person's ineptitude, you can elaborate on the idea easily enough to make it clear. Empathize means to put yourself in another person's shoes or to feel as another person feels. Pity is another word that is commonly understood but also commonly forgotten. Unfortunately the word pity in modern times has taken on a sort of high and mighty tone that discourages its use, but it means almost exactly what you're trying to express: pity for the person for the embarrassment he or she has brought upon him- or herself. I'm quite positive there are others, but I have a migraine. :) Hope these help!.
Output: no
Question: In math, we use the term series a lot, and there are many types of series. How should I craft my sentence when I have three different ones in mind to talk about? Should I settle down for a less mortal alternative of "list of series" or something like that? The existing question on The possessive and plural forms of "series" suggests the usage of series'. But is that all? If that's the only solution, then could you please explain the usage of apostrophe symbol at the end? Is that a plural marker or a possessive marker, or both? 
Answer: Series (like deer, salmon, and sheep) is pronounced and spelled the same in the plural as in the singular. If either the singular or the plural is used as a possessive, an apostrophe is added to show that in print, though there is no pronunciation difference in speech. Thus, The series doesn't converge. (singular) The series don't converge. (plural) This series' limit is unknown. (singular possessive) These series' limits are unknown. (plural possessive) More examples can be seen here.
Output: yes
Question: When to use a or an before a noun when there are adjectives before that noun? like the following example: An operator pressed the button. should that make: A professional operator pressed the button. An professional operator pressed the button. same for: A Hypertext markup language. An Hypertext markup language. Sometimes it seems a bit confusing, especially when there are more adjectives like: An omen was revealed to the priest. A terrible omen was revealed to the priest. An overwhelming terrible omen was revealed to the priest. What is the rule? 
Answer: The article changes based on the word immediately following, not necessarily on the noun. There is no difference in meaning between "a" and "an" - the distinction is used to preserve an alternation between vowels and consonants when the sentence is spoken aloud. Be aware that speakers of American and British English observe different rules (mainly because we can't agree on whether to pronounce the letter H or not!) In your example: A Hypertext Markup language. An Hypertext markup language. an American speaker (and, to be honest, most British speakers) would find the first one correct, while an exaggerated aitch-dropper would use the second. In these examples: An omen was revealed to the priest. A terrible omen was revealed to the priest. An overwhelming terrible omen was revealed to the priest. all three are correct as written, whether the speaker is American or British.
Output: yes
Question: Is there a word to describe an object that excels in form and function? I am trying to avoid very general words like great, superb or excellent. 
Answer: Exquisite, polished or "exquisitely polished".
Output: no
Question: I would tend to write double-l, but Google gives me more single-l, so I'm guessing it's an Atlantic divide thing. And I guess all the other *full words. 
Answer: I would say successfull is a typo. Neither Merriam-Webster nor Wiktionary mention it as an alternative spelling. The British National Corpus has 10695 cites for successful and exactly one for successfull. According to OneLook, 33 dictionaries have an entry for successful, but only Wordnik has a few cites for successfull (without a definition). Edit: by popular request, I will add that the adverb successfully is written with two L's. Successfuly would be incorrect.
Output: yes
Question: I am looking for a word that incorporates all, or most, of the following (when referring to a sentence or a piece of technical literature): Highly academic Not useful (despite being technically correct) Overly verbose/eloquent Superfluous (to be honest, this seems to incorporate the rest, but I want to see if there is a better word here) Sample sentence (I hear it's required): There are many ____ white-paper definitions which only serve to dazzle the reader with the author's purported intelligence. 
Answer: The word that first came to my mind is ponderous, which conveys the verbosity and academical nature of a work of great weight; heavy; massive. dull and labored: a ponderous dissertation. Or perhaps heavy, which can typically refer to any kind of text which is hard to read of major import; grave; serious: a heavy offense. deep or intense; profound: a heavy thinker; heavy slumber.
Output: no
Question: The word year when pronounced starts with a phonetic sound of e which is a vowel sound making it eligible for being preceded by an. Yet, we tend to write a year. Why? 
Answer: I reject your premise that the word year starts with a phonetic sound of e. Here's how it is pronounced according to the various dictionaries: Wiktionary: (RP) IPA: /ji/, /j/, SAMPA: /ji@/, /j3:/; (US) enPR: yir, IPA: /ji/, SAMPA: /jir/ Merriam-Webster: \yirAmerican Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: /yir/ Collins English Dictionary: /j/ Words that start with the /j/ sound are preceded by an a, not by an an. Compare: a user, a utility, a yak.
Output: yes
Question: If you look at this gif of a drone replacing a lightbulb, you'll understand what concept I'm trying to find a word for. Using dynamite for fishing would be another example. I'm looking for a word that describes the use of high-tech equipment, for a purpose that is normally filled by low-tech equipment, usually done out of laziness or amusement. This is specifically relating to technology (overengineering is very close). 
Answer: One possible term is Overengineering. Overengineering (or over-engineering) is the designing of a product to be more robust or complicated than is necessary for its application....In one form, products are overbuilt, and have performance far in excess of needs (a family sedan that can drive at 300 km/h, or a home video cassette recorder with a projected lifespan of 100 years)....Alternatively, they may be overcomplicated the design may be far more complicated than is necessary for its use, such as a modern text editor asking whether files should be saved in ASCII, EBCDIC or various multi-byte formats.... Source: Wikipedia. Using a drone to replace a light bulb is certainly "far more complicated than is necessary", and a drone that is purchased for the purpose of being a light bulb changer would be especially well described by that phrase. Kerievsky (2002), speaking specifically about software engineering but in a way applicable to robotics, writes that overengineering happens when one engineers "in anticipation of needs that never materialize". Source: Joshua Kerievsky, April 01, 2002, Stop Over-Engineering!, Dr. Dobb's Journal. A drone-based light bulb changing system could be envisioned as becoming practically useful later if a need arises to change light bulbs located in inconventiently high or inaccessible locations (such as the roof of a stadium, or on the outside of a very tall flagpole), but the majority of people do not encounter such situations frequently, if at all.
Output: no