In fluent speech, the conjunction (the first “that”) is unstressed, and as a result some speakers reduce the vowel a bit toward schwa. However, if you told those speakers to carefully pronounce each word, I bet they would pronounce the conjunction and the pronoun the exact same same. A more common example of this kind of reduction is the word “to”, which is almost always reduced to /tə/ ([tə] ~ [tʊ] ~ [ɾə] depending on dialect and surrounding words) in everyday speech when unstressed.

Fun fact, you can reduce just about every unstressed vowel in English to schwa (if it’s not already a schwa) and still be largely understood.

dass das das das dass da ersetzen kann ist falsch

translation: that “das” can replace “dass” there is wrong.

same shit different barbarians

Related: spicy foods. I used to be basically intolerant of it but now hate eating non-spicy versions of foods I’ve grown accustomed to. Spicy peppers and hot chili powder have become a crutch for my otherwise mediocre cooking skills.

In grocery stores in many parts of the US at least, it is extremely hard not to find bread in plastic bags. Even the one of 3 near me that has its own bakery puts the bread in a plastic bag, and then in another bag that is paper with a plastic “window”, and the paper part has a PE wax lining for god knows what reason.

Mitochondrion

I mean… just rotate it 90 degrees ((()))

Nah, reach is a huge advantage. I’m not sure how rapier fencing differs from regulation sabre/epée/foil, but here’s my 2 cents from that perspective:

Smaller people are not, as a rule, substantially quicker than larger. If you see any difference in your experience, it’s likely a selection bias (shorter people have to be quicker to compete at the same level). The shorter person must enter the strike range of the taller person before the taller person comes within theirs and must be significantly quicker or more skilled to overcome that dead space. If the taller person can maintain a proper distance, gg. Taller people can also lunge farther, giving a wider active range.

Targeting is a smaller issue than you make it out to be; footwork and maintaining balance, which reposition the core, are at least as important as leaning to dodge, and advantage the taller person (longer legs = more movement range). If the taller person is coming from above as you say, they can just continue their slash (sabre) downward toward that less mobile core, or squat a bit deeper if the arc won’t reach. If instead you were referring to a poke, they’re either already targeting the torso anyway (foil) or whatever body part is most easily reachable (epée; still often torso, but cheeky wrist/arm strikes can be something of an equalizer here), and anyway they are already striking at a range that the shorter person cannot, making a successful counterattack more difficult.

Besides reach, a height difference is brutal when it comes to sabre fencing; the shorter person is restricted to targeting arms and torso (can’t reach the head easily), so the taller person can anticipate strikes from fewer angles. The taller person can come from any direction and has gravity on their side for own overhead strikes. Those suck to defend against.

That’s some expensive cereal…

So could we produce a surface tension-free water?

Homie dats a gas. Or supercritical fluid, which actually is indeed used for “washing” (SC CO2 is used to decaffeinate coffee). However, like others said, surface tension /= cleaning ability. Part of what soap does is increase the effective solubility of things that are not normally soluble.

So you’re saying that you don’t like trying to relight the thermal oxidizer for the formaldehyde stream that went out due to spillover from another process, with an emergency flare? Got it.

I mean, sure, things like that are super dangerous, but at least they’re obviously, flashily dangerous and for that reason have a lot more attention paid to them. The real nasties are arguably the ones that aren’t so flashy but are much more common amd don’t have immediate effects. Formaldehyde and benzene will give you cancer, and acrylate monomers will make it so you one day wake up allergic to the modern world.

This post made me go try something in clojure again and man I forgot just how fucking good the language is. Everything fits together so nicely.

Not gonna lie, I thought about your comment multiple times today trying to make sense of it, and only just now did I realize what you meant by it.

Yes, like Alan Turing. Ugh.

Ya “an historic”, when the h is clearly pronounced, strikes the wonderful double blow of being both pretentious and wrong as far as I’m concerned. Looking at you, NPR. Go run up an hill, why donchya?

I think cleanse and clean are not quite interchangeable. Cleanse has a gravitas that clean lacks. For example, growing up, I heard a lot of things like “be cleansed of your sins”. “Be cleaned of your sins” makes me vaguely uncomfortable.

Hard agree on business lingo, though.

Homogeneous, meaning having a uniform composition. Hoe-moe-jee-nee-us (or hoe-muh- and/or -jee-nyus; point is, there’s an ee sound before the last syllable). Saying homogenous (huh-mah-jeh-nus) in that sense is not only wrong but also means something else.

I went up to the Lake Champlain area where there was some high altitude cloud cover. Fortunately, it didn’t affect the viewing basically at all. A cool side effect of the clouds/related atmospheric conditions though was that the sun had a 22° halo. I wish that 1) I’d had a camera that could capture it and that 2) I’d had the presence of mind to pay attention to what happened to it in the moments before and after totality.

I have this problem with organic chemistry more broadly. On the one hand, I understand that rattling off the IUPAC name of a compound is much less concise and harder to get right than just saying the brand name or chemical name (which, for pharma, is often just as bullshit of a name as the brand name). On the other, you come across names like the Eschenmoser-Claisen rearrangement vs the Johnson-Claisen rearrangement, or the Suzuki vs Stille vs Negishi vs Kumada vs Hiyama/Denmark vs Sonogashira* cross couplings. Each set consists of fundamentally the same reaction with slight variations in the specific reagents. Just saying e.g. “organozinc” instead of “Negishi” would be so much more descriptive. The authors’ names often aren’t even that helpful in an attributive sense. For instance, some of the cross couplings were actually first reported by someone else in that list (though IIRC everyone got at least one), and most of the chemists published work on at least one of the other reactions at some point.

* Okay fine Sonogashiras are a little different what with the copper co-catalyst, but still, same mech at Pd.

you mean let.

and then letting Hindley-Milner do the rest

Committee members be like “Oh, I definitely read your thesis titled “New Palladium-Catalyzed Reactions for the Manufacture of Pharmaceuticals”. So what is the band gap of thallium antimonide doped with 5% polonium in foot-pounds per mol? Why aren’t you answering? Even my undergrads know this!”