More than a quarter of the independent studies still found neutral outcomes though.
hakase
joined 2 years ago
So it's just Zoomer-speak ("Chat, I farted") instead?
And then if that rando did it every day for like five years, I'd get tired of their shit too.
They did use Y-cruncher.
Edit: Some other fun tidbits: most of that 2.2 petabytes of storage wasn't actually used to store the 300 trillion digits itself - that number of digits fits in like 170 terabytes (which LTT is thinking of making available as a download, lol) - it's actually used as pseudo-ram during the actual calculation.
I wanted to just post the video, which has a lot more information (though not the kind of info you're looking for), but I didn't know if an LTT video was an "official" enough source for this community.
I suppose this was probably the first time that all of the digits of pi up to 300 trillion were calculated, even if the 300 trillionth specifically was already known.
Yeah, liberal/left subs definitely don't do that.
Imagine thinking arbitrary orthographic convention has literally anything to do with intelligence.
I legitimately got top left wrong first time I looked at this.
True, but as usual, that's offset elsewhere in the grammar (and a binary or ternary noun class system doesn't really introduce that much complexity).
English still has number distinctions with multiple irregular patterns (and plural/collective distinctions like "fish/fish/fishes"), and even lesser recognized animacy distinctions that must take up some space in the grammar too ("my face" is fine, but "the face of mine" is odd, while "the clock's face" and "the face of the clock" are both fine).
One example of such a process is subregular patterns getting extended instead of always levelling toward the most productive constructions.
In many southern dialects, for example, even though the productive past tense is the "-ed" past (just like it is in all modern varieties of English), and so we normally would expect to get regularization like "cleave/clove/cloven" > "cleave/cleaved/cleaved", we instead in these dialects get irregular examples like "bring/brought/brought" being regularized not to expected productive "bring/bringed/bringed", but rather "bring/brang/brung" on the pattern of "sing/sang/sung", "drink/drank/drunk", etc.
Extending subregularities like this can cause irregular patterns to persist and grow stronger over time.
I suppose that technically this isn't introducing a new irregularity so much as it is helping an older one persist, but it's a similar process.
Other recent innovations include things like Canadian and northern US English "I'm done my homework", northern positive anymore ("Anymore, I go to the store on Fridays"), and prepositional "because" ("I can't come tonight, because homework").
Again, this isn't exactly the development of new irregular morphology (word-building rules) specifically, but these are analogous processes elsewhere in the grammar.
It's also worth mentioning that English is becoming more and more of an isolating language over time (a language with less morphology/word-building processes), and so we'd expect irregular morphology specifically to become less common in these systems over time.
That was kinda rambly, and way more than you asked for - I hope it made some sort of sense.
The one on All about a week ago was better.