nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

I bet you didnt know that

Cartouche

As people here work in various jobs / professions they might know things from work or study no one here knows yet. this is what this topic is about.

what do you know that we have never heard of?

Eg: you don't need to be great at maths to be an architect

this is obvious to me but everyone says to me "i wanted to be an architect but i was bad at math,i can barely add"

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

donegaLroad

david75 wrote: »

The Americanism ‘you dig?’ Comes from The Irish ‘dtuigeann tú?’
Some guy write a book on Irish phrases that morphed into every day American terms.

'So long' as in farewell, comes from 'slán' (I only heard that last week)

'thats smashing' ---- is maith sin

'mocassin' as in the shoes

mo cosan (my feet, in Scots Gaelic I think)

stimpson

Fourier wrote: »

Traditional Indian belief required speaking 100% correctly to the gods, mistakes equivalent to "you're" vs "your" could have lethal consequences. For this reason Pāṇini (~350 BC) created a sequence of poems that tell you how to "compute" the correct grammar in any given situation, as they form a grammar generating algorithm. These algorithms form the basis of computational work on grammar today, even in google translate.

I'm calling BS on this. Computer translation uses AI which has been trained with billions of sentence pairs to help it learn sentence structure. It's still piss poor compared to human translation because language is not always logical and context is incredibly important to the meaning. The idea that rules of grammar across many languages can be unified is ridiculous. Even English grammar is inconsistent with itself.

foxy farmer

Sephiroth_dude wrote: »

I bet you didn't know that Lyons tea bags are made from cow manure.

Explains the taste.:)

Sephiroth_dude

I bet you didn't know that Lyons tea bags are made from cow manure.

New Home

It might be literally impossible, but it's most definitely literarily possible.

Esel

Fourier wrote: »

Okay I promised to stay away from the head melting nonsense, but this is quick I promise.:D

Despite what multiple Sci-Fis show, you can't copy/clone information at an atomic level, it's literally impossible. So things like transporters or replicators from Star Trek can't happen. For similar reasons it may not be possible to upload your mind to a computer.

Nooooo! Copypasta is real!

Realt Dearg Sec

Chancer3001 wrote: »

Anders Shy Aircraft wrote: »

The word "awful" has completely changed from it's original meaning. In the 14th century it referred to inspiring wonder as a short version of “full of awe”. Nowadays the word has purely negative connotations.

There's a church somewhere in Ireland with a plaque that says "this is an aweful place"

Must be in Tipperary.

Chancer3001

Anders Shy Aircraft wrote: »

The word "awful" has completely changed from it's original meaning. In the 14th century it referred to inspiring wonder as a short version of “full of awe”. Nowadays the word has purely negative connotations.

There's a church somewhere in Ireland with a plaque that says "this is an aweful place"

Capt'n Midnight

Kat1170 wrote: »

It appears the word 'sick' went in totally the opposite direction.

That's bad.

Fourier

Okay I promised to stay away from the head melting nonsense, but this is quick I promise.:D

Despite what multiple Sci-Fis show, you can't copy/clone information at an atomic level, it's literally impossible. So things like transporters or replicators from Star Trek can't happen. For similar reasons it may not be possible to upload your mind to a computer.

Duckworth_Luas

Anders Shy Aircraft wrote: »

The word "awful" has completely changed from it's original meaning. In the 14th century it referred to inspiring wonder as a short version of “full of awe”. Nowadays the word has purely negative connotations.

That's awesome!

New Home

A bit like "deadly" a few years ago.

Kat1170

Anders Shy Aircraft wrote: »

The word "awful" has completely changed from it's original meaning. In the 14th century it referred to inspiring wonder as a short version of “full of awe”. Nowadays the word has purely negative connotations.

It appears the word 'sick' went in totally the opposite direction.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

The word "awful" has completely changed from it's original meaning. In the 14th century it referred to inspiring wonder as a short version of “full of awe”. Nowadays the word has purely negative connotations.

david75

Anders Shy Aircraft wrote: »

My book here says it's an Americanism first recorded in 1925.

The Americanism ‘you dig?’ Comes from The Irish ‘dtuigeann tú?’
Some guy write a book on Irish phrases that morphed into every day American terms.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

david75 wrote: »

The term Gate Crasher was invented in Dublin?

People would try climb over the railings to bunk into the trinity ball and the college would have lads there with sticks and bars to beat them off.

(This was pub did you know factoid I heard last night. There’s even a painting or woodcut print of it happening. Anyone able to confirm? )

My book here says it's an Americanism first recorded in 1925.

david75

The term Gate Crasher was invented in Dublin?

People would try climb over the railings to bunk into the trinity ball and the college would have lads there with sticks and bars to beat them off.

(This was pub did you know factoid I heard last night. There’s even a painting or woodcut print of it happening. Anyone able to confirm? )

Fourier

Traditional Indian belief required speaking 100% correctly to the gods, mistakes equivalent to "you're" vs "your" could have lethal consequences. For this reason Pāṇini (~350 BC) created a sequence of poems that tell you how to "compute" the correct grammar in any given situation, as they form a grammar generating algorithm. These algorithms form the basis of computational work on grammar today, even in google translate.

The language that comes out of this algorithm wasn't exactly the way anybody talked at the time, so was essentially a invented language, we know it today as Sanskrit.

Capt'n Midnight

tomwaterford wrote: »

What kills them is an atempt to cut costs etc and make the electrics as cheap as possible/people not used to them

Also there is the complete lack of any sort of IT security in the industry. Stupid stuff like a blown indicator light should not be affecting your petrol cap , acceleration or braking.

You should not be able to take over a car by plugging a malicious USB key into the radio. Or through the WiFi or bluetooth or other systems.

There are protocols like 1-wire etc. the aim is to run data signals over a single cable, possibly even the power cable to save a lot of wiring on a car.

tomwaterford

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

As someone with no real knowledge or even interest in cars other than that my car makes me go to the place faster than not having my car makes me go to the place, I'm genuinely curious what is actually better about cars as a result of turning them into computers on wheels? It seems to make them more likely to break down and harder to fix, but the upside?

I'm sure there's something because, like I said, I'm ignorant of these things, but in a lot of areas of life (including my own line of work) I've found that there's a lot of technologisation that is purely for its own sake, rather than with a view to any obvious, tangible benefit. In my area, what it often amounts to is having to learn how to use new programs every year to do the same thing you've been doing your whole career.

Anyway, my grumpy old man rant aside, how are cars better now?

Much more fuel efficent,

Easier to drive (this is perhaps better explained In context of larger vehicles like trucks diggers etc)

Much safer (some are working on braking by wire-don't agree myself mind)

What kills them is an atempt to cut costs etc and make the electrics as cheap as possible/people not used to them

bogwalrus

valoren wrote: »

In 2006, an Australian man attempted to sell New Zealand by listing it on eBay.

The bidding has gone up to $3,000 before eBay noticed he didn’t actually have the sale rights for the country and shut the bidding down.

Around ten+ years ago I bid around 200Euro for the milky way galaxy on eBay. There were articles on how the guy making the sale found a way to claim the rights to celestial objects. I knew the listing would be taken down but just bid so I could say I was the highest bidder in an auction for our galaxy....what a chat up line it was. Got plenty of mileage out of that.

Realt Dearg Sec

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Worked with a mechanic (trying to transition out of it hence why on the job) recently, from the way he talked about it the increased complexity really isn't helping reliability.
Apparently you get things like the systems in the door/windows having a fault causing the engine not to work.

I really hope every line of code and interaction between systems in a passenger jet is reviewed to see what happens if one fails!

As someone with no real knowledge or even interest in cars other than that my car makes me go to the place faster than not having my car makes me go to the place, I'm genuinely curious what is actually better about cars as a result of turning them into computers on wheels? It seems to make them more likely to break down and harder to fix, but the upside?

I'm sure there's something because, like I said, I'm ignorant of these things, but in a lot of areas of life (including my own line of work) I've found that there's a lot of technologisation that is purely for its own sake, rather than with a view to any obvious, tangible benefit. In my area, what it often amounts to is having to learn how to use new programs every year to do the same thing you've been doing your whole career.

Anyway, my grumpy old man rant aside, how are cars better now?

Capt'n Midnight

Autochange wrote: »

The cumulative wiring in a modern car is 4km long in length.

That's about the same length as the wiring inside a single CPU.

RDM_83 again

Skylinehead wrote: »

There's 150 million lines of code in the computers for a Ford F150 pickup truck. The Boeing 787 has 7 million lines of code, for comparison.

Worked with a mechanic (trying to transition out of it hence why on the job) recently, from the way he talked about it the increased complexity really isn't helping reliability.
Apparently you get things like the systems in the door/windows having a fault causing the engine not to work.

I really hope every line of code and interaction between systems in a passenger jet is reviewed to see what happens if one fails!

CalamariFritti

I was told once by a former colleague who went into aviation systems that fail safety, security and therefore software lifecycle requirements are on a different planet there. Things are still done in assembler and other low level languages as you couldn't rely on anything high level like compilers or god forbid libraries or worse. Based on the old wisdom of 'if there's more than 3 lines of code there's probably a bug in it'.

Skylinehead

Autochange wrote: »

The cumulative wiring in a modern car is 4km long in length.

There's 150 million lines of code in the computers for a Ford F150 pickup truck. The Boeing 787 has 7 million lines of code, for comparison.

Autochange

The cumulative wiring in a modern car is 4km long in length.

Wibbs

We also got some other genes from them too, at least in Asia and Europe. Genes involved in keratin production and skin tone(and hair) are one example. Might be explained by their long adaptation to living in northern climes and in forested environments, where light and vitamin D was harder to come by. These were clearly advantageous to us as we came out of Africa into these new to us lands. We may have gotten European and Asian pale skin from them*. Though interestingly Europeans and Asians have different genes for pale skin. Asians got the better deal and are much more resistant to skin ageing and skin cancers. I suppose summed up by Black don't crack, Yellow mellows and White goes to sh1te.

Other influences seem to be things like blood clotting factors. Neandertals led extremely tough lives and they were tough buggers, the Tonka Toy humans, at least going by the skeletons of their guys(the ladies seemed to have avoided much of the rough stuff, though were nearly as robust). They pretty much all show serious trauma throughout their lives, broken bones, fractured skulls, etc, including one dude who had an arm amputated and survived for at least ten years after it. :eek: So having blood that clots faster would be a bonus for them. Not so much for us, as it also can lead to a higher risk for cardiovascular disease.

Other genes seem to show an influence on our sleeping patterns, specifically those among us who are more nocturnal and/or those who take power naps during the day. Maybe linked to their low light environment? Though I have long held to the notion that they were ambush predators, and ambush predators who sat in wait for prey at watering holes and the like and ask any modern hunter the best times for that and they'll tell you dusk and dawn, so a "night owl" would be a charm there. One of those irritating morning people not so much.

On that score they had the biggest eyes of archaic humans. All the better to see you with dearie... Modern Europeans have the biggest eyes on average among modern populations. Which may have increased a risk of myopia as one cause of that is a too large an eye so the image focuses ahead of the retina.

Some mental illnesses may also have a Neandertal factor. Things like bipolar depression and ADHD.

Another odd one seems to be a genetic influence on addiction, in of all things tobacco. Now clearly they didn't sneak behind the bike caves for a sneaky fag,

tobacco wasn't even present in their environment, so that's a bit weird. Obviously some other factor was in play that came out in a very different way in modern folks.

What they didn't influence was quite specific. Language genes for example. No Neandertal genes going on, though their FoxPro gene was once thought very similar. Motor coordination genes another area lacking in their influence. Though these influences may well have been lost in the last 30-80,000 years by unrelated natural processes. Their genes for red hair and eye colour were different too.

I post this as modern European with just under 4% Neandertal DNA, who is pale as Dracula and can't tan, a night owl with very good night vision, likely a bit touched in the head in some way and with a lifelong struggle with nicotine. And a myopic, who heals fast, who has never taken an antibiotic. Sadly didn't get their massive strength or powerful physique and I fall apart when the thermometer hits anything below ten degrees C.

*personal aside. I always though pale skin an anomaly and not so easily explained by latitude. EG the native Tasmanian folks were very dark skinned, yet they lived in equivalent southern latitudes for the same period of time, or near enough, that our ancestors in Europe did. So I long suspected and rabbited on here on Boards that we got that from another source.

MonkieSocks

Fourier wrote: »

Roughly 7% of the human genetic code is made up of viruses that managed to successfully bond with our DNA and are now permanently part of us.

We inherited our immune from Neanderthals.

Scientists have discovered a novel receptor, which allows the immune system of modern humans to recognize dangerous invaders, and subsequently elicits an immune response.

The blueprint for this advantageous structure was in addition identified in the genome of Neanderthals, hinting at its origin.

The presence of this receptor in Europeans but its absence in early humans suggests that it was inherited from Neanderthals.

Whole genome comparisons identified introgression from archaic to modern humans.

Our analysis of highly polymorphic human leukocyte antigen (HLA) class I, vital immune system components subject to strong balancing selection, shows how modern humans acquired the HLA-B*73 allele in west Asia through admixture with archaic humans called Denisovans, a likely sister group to the Neandertals.

Virtual genotyping of Denisovan and Neandertal genomes identified archaic HLA haplotypes carrying functionally distinctive alleles that have introgressed into modern Eurasian and Oceanian populations.

These alleles, of which several encode unique or strong ligands for natural killer cell receptors, now represent more than half the HLA alleles of modern Eurasians and also appear to have been later introduced into Africans.

Thus, adaptive introgression of archaic alleles has significantly shaped modern human immune systems.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/334/6052/89

FrancieBrady

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Always thought it stood for Absent Without Official Leave.