#pedantry

[westi]

Parenting :D

[deelaundry]

ALL CHAPS ARE ASSLESS

If they had an ass, they'd be trousers.

Thank you for coming to my TedTalk.

[captious-solarian]

Everyone come express your opinions on mathematical convention and notation. 100 questions, all optional.

@noelements-setempty

[frustratedasatruar]

I've seen a number of people referring to the post-October7th surge of explicit Leftwing Antisemites as "Tankies." While not unreasonable per-se, I would still like to quibble with this terminology; while most Tankies indeed seem to be happily part of this wave of Judenhass sentiment, they are not, I feel, a sufficient proportion to reasonably categorize the whole movement to be a subset of the Tankies.

Rather, I contend, these Leftwing Antisemites are more aptly described as Strasserites.

[o-craven-canto]

Taxonomy rant

I’m sympathetic to claims that Linnean binominal nomenclature -- you know, the Homo sapiens Felis catus Quercus robur thing -- is inadequate to describe species as they exist in nature. But the problem is not with Linnean names, it’s with names period.

We interact with the world by imagining it’s made up of “things”, of discrete objects that belong to categories, have properties, and interact with each other; and to these “things“ we give “names”, which allow us to think and talk about them. Which is fine, as I don’t think we’d be able to interact productively with the world if it wasn’t for this level of naive abstraction. Imagine if we had to re-deduce the physical properties of each individual chair from its constituent molecules, instead of imagining the category “chair” and a standard protocol to make use of its members.

But then we fall back in the misconception that “species” are discrete, bounded categories built on variation around a central ideal type -- the Platonic essentialism that Richard Dawkins rightly considered the single greatest obstacle to most people in understanding biology and evolution. In reality, there is no “species” beyond the sum of all the individuals that make it up, which form smooth continua of variation and blur at the edges into related species.

We made a brave attempt at defining “species” as a group of individuals capable of interbreeding. This patently fails with bacteria and most protists, which reproduce asexually, and only engage in transfer of genes independently from reproduction. (And bacteria will happily accept DNA from different phyla and kingdoms, as if we could get pregnant from tree pollen.) It also raises the thorny question of what counts as interbreeding. Can two species interbreed if they bear viable but infertile offspring? What if the offspring is fertile, but sicklier than non-hybrids? What if they can interbreed just fine, but just choose not to because they have different mating signals? Even if you choose arbitrarily one step of the ladder of noninterfecundity as your criterion, populations that are not constantly mixed will drift away from each other over time as they accumulate new mutations.

What of ring species, which show that the ability to interbreed is not transitive, so that A can breed with B, and B can breed with C, but C cannot breed with A? In any given moment of time these are fairly rare, but if you pry open time and look at life diachronically, you will see that every single living population is like that. There is an uniterrupted chain of parents and children in which each ring obviously belonged to the “same species” of the previous and the next (or the previous hundred and the next hundred), but the first ring of the chain is a lancelet-like worm-fish thing, and the last is a turtle or a hummingbird or a cheetah.

You can choose to measure genetic distance between populations and set an arbitrary maximum as your species threshold, but distance is again not transitive, and again you run against bacteria -- a population of bacteria, allegedly all of the same species, can have quite different genomes from cell to cell, between environmental pickup of DNA, quasi-sexual transfer, and viral infections.

Shall we then treat individuals as unit of analysis, rather than species? (With a trillion billion billion bacteria living on Earth at any given time? Good luck) But then we run in the same issue -- where are the borders of the individual? Meiosis and fertilization at least create a clean enough break between generations in sexually reproducing species, but what of those parthenogenetic aphids and rotifera in which each individual is just a clone grown from a cell of their mother? What of budding hydrae, and clonal colonies of polyps and trees, in which an “individual” simply grows out of another as if they were but a limb?

For that matter, consider our gut bacteria, which outnumber by far our genetically human cells, and yet are a necessary part of our body no less than our own tonsils or gall bladder, despite being more unlike us than ferns. Consider mitochondria, of which there are a thousand in each eukaryotic cells, without which every oxygen breather would cease to be, and who still retain their own bacterial genome and transcription after two billion years of coexistence. Consider ERV sequences, which are but viruses that accidentally copied themselves into cells about to divide, and which make up at least 5% of the genome of every single human cell (parts of the genes for the mammalian placenta may come from there).

There are no species; there are no individuals either. Even cells and genes are on thin ice. There is just Life, a seething, shoggothy four-dimensional mass rooted in some Archean hydrothermal vent and stretching cancerous tendrils across the aeons, of which species and individuals are merely local clusters and sub-clusters that we point out and give a name to because, much like with constellations, it’s convenient for certain purposes. (Including making sense of Life and Its history as best as we can.)

Enough with that “did you know that sharks are not really fish?” nonsense. Embrace taxonomic nihilism. It is an objective fact about the physical world that the lineage of sharks diverged from the lineage of tunas before the lineage of tunas diverged from ours. It is not a fact that sharks “are” or “aren’t” fish, because categories are phantoms and nothing actually “is” except wave functions and the void. (It is also a fact that sharks are not Osteichthyes, but only because the word “Osteichthyes”, unlike the word “fish”, was defined in a specific way that excludes sharks.)

In sum, I support keeping Linnean nomenclature around on the grounds that

We need to give names to things anyway, and

I have a fetish for Greek and Latin roots. Dicopomorpha echmepterygis. Hrngh.

[friend-crow]

[futurebird]

The Worst Ant Video on the Internet

I did it. I found the worst ant video on youTube. I'm not going to link to it because it's *so* bad that I can't rule out the very real possibility that someone made it this bad just to bait people into watching it. But, let me give you a little taste of the horror.  The calamity starts with the title:

"Most Dangerous Ant Spices"

Yes. "Spices."

Dangerous ant spices? Are we talking tarragon and cumin? Are these spices dangerous to ants? Or is this a warning about the dangers of ant cooking?

The spelling error is bad enough, but also the whole concept of such a list is a little... gauche? Why is there this idea that the only thing that makes insects interesting is thinking about how much they could kill you?

But-- even this I could excuse. After all there are a few ants with dangerous stings. But, what do you think is on the list? Do you want to know? Too bad I'm telling you anyways:  

10. Harvester ant (This ant has a sting as bad as a bee. So, not a terrible entry for the bottom of this list...But the photo they used)

That is NOT a harvester ant. That is a weaver ant, genus Oecophylla. Weaver ants are tropical and use silk to make their nests in trees. Harvester ants are from the families Pogonomyrmecini and Stenammini, these are desert-dwelling ants who collect seeds and live underground. They don't even look alike at all. They do both have a sting, that's about as bad as a bee sting.

Maybe the next ant on the list will be better...? (of course not)

9. Redwood ant (What did wood ants do to deserve this??)

I don't even know what ant they meant by this. They showed an image of Formica rufa, the wood ant, and rufa do have a reddish color ... so maybe they are also called "redwood ants" But, why are these ants on a list of "Dangerous Ants" ?? They are a protected species that lives in the pine forests of Europe! They don't sting and can't even effectively bite a person. Their colonies are huge. They build mound nests of pine needles a meter in height and live in groups of 100s of thousands. They are gentle custodians of the forest enriching the soil and keeping the arthropod populations under-control. Beneficial ants that are so well loved they are protected from poaching since without them the forests would not thrive as well.

8. Odorous house ant (lol what?)

A few years back there was a recurring argument online about if ants have a smell. People who grew up in areas with the odorous house ant know that some ants, when crushed smell like coconut... or rotten face cream. The smell isn't exactly overwhelming and it's only around when the ants are crushed or injured. But it's very distinctive nothing is exactly like it. Most ants have no real smell. So people argued about this online.

But other than the smell there isn't much to say about these little ants. They are tiny, can't sting, can't bite. They can be house pests. So they are dangerous to your poptarts. Might smell a little odd for a few moments if you step on one. If this is "Dangerous" I don't even know.

7. Leafcutter ant

These ants are remarkable but they can't sting, they do have a powerful bite so I guess that's a little "dangerous" ... the majors could draw blood biting you. And they can defoliate a tree overnight ... so that's kinda ... "dangerous" ... at least they used the correct image.

6. Argentine ant

(is this a list of ants... most dangerous to other ants?)

Another ant that can't sting or bite. Linepithema humile is an invasive species and a huge threat to ant diversity in some parts of the world. This makes it even more unfortunate that the video, like many "resources" online used the incorrect photo for this ant. If you search for this ant with the common name "Argentine Ant" you will probably find a photo of another species incorrectly identified as an Argentine ant-- and, since it's invasive, incorrectly identifying one of your local beneficial species of ant as Argentine could lead to killing off the wrong ants. So. I edited this photo as it's not just misinformation... it is destructive misinformation.

Neither the ant in the photo, nor Linepithema humile are in any way "dangerous" except for the danger posed to native ants.

5. Carpenter ant (YES every single one!)

They did at least use a photo of one of the thousands of carpenter ants (Genus Camponotus) for this one. But that doesn't make up for labeling a harmless Campontus as an invasive in the last list item.

None of the Carpenter ants can sting or be dangerous. Some have a significant bite, but not as bad as the leafcutter ants lower on this list.

4. African ant (You aren't even trying anymore.)

I've decided making up something called an "African ant" putting it on a list of "dangerous ants" then using a photo of a trapjaw ant (Odontomachus speceis) that isn't even from Africa is probably racist ... somehow.

I think they meant to show the most famous ants from Africa, the driver ants. (Genus Dorylus) This is a genus of army ant that roves through the forests in columns of thousands. Their majors look vaguely like trap jaw ants. And they are a little "dangerous" ... though they are also well-loved since they will clean your home and land of pests.

3. Red fire ant (Guess what the photo showed. GUESS.)

Oh. NOW they show a harvester ant. I think that people don't think that real fire ants look as formidable as their reputation. So they use photos of the larger more beefy looking harvester ant instead. The common name "fire ant" refers to Solenopsis invicta, and invasive species with the ability to sting.

The sting of one fire ant isn't much... but they sting in great numbers and can be a problem. But this photo is a harvester ant, which is a much larger ant and beneficial. Harvester ants also sting. This may be why these ants are so often confused.

They had correct images for the last two items in their list. And both of these ants have significant stings and bites. That said neither is hunting humans for food or planning to take over your school board and ban books or anything.

2. Bulldog ant 1. Bullet ant

List is hot mess.

[geekysteven]

[Frankenstein's monster gets his PhD]

PEDANTS: 😠😠😠

[scrivnomancer]

[prokopetz]

Saying that things are arguably other things is great because you're not asserting that it is that thing, you're merely asserting that one can frame an argument that it's that thing – and let me tell you, I'm prepared to make some stupid fucking arguments, so it's basically always true.

[burnitalldownism]

Language is bullshit.

The English language even more so. Basically ten linguistic roots crammed into a trenchcoat & masquerading as a language.

Lingua Bastardis.

Pedants, puritanicals and straight up bigots trying to claim anything has “always meant X”are arguing in bad faith, and also thicker than two planks.

They don’t give a fuck about the language. Coz I fecking love linguistics & cannot believe I’m alive to see hundreds of cultures & languages using English as a Lingua Franca online, changing it & evolving it at a rate every week that in the past you would have had to wait a century to observe.

Anyone claiming to be an authority on language who doesn’t embrace its infinite diversity in infinite combinations is not an authority on linguistics. They’re an authority on like one ultra-specific dictionary we used 83yrs ago.

[nerdymemes]

[airyairyaucontraire]

Two equally irritating errors for my pedantry:

When someone says “I could care less” instead of “I couldn’t care less”

When someone says “I cannot stress how important this is” instead of “I cannot stress enough how important this is”*

I was watching an old Adventure Time the other day and Princess Bubblegum did it! Princess Bubblegum, a turbo-nerd! She of all people should know better.

* I would also accept “I cannot stress too much,” although it’s inelegant, and “I cannot overemphasise” would really be preferable to either. If you’re wondering what the point/difference is, “I could care less” means “I care at least a little bit” whereas “I couldn’t care less” means “I don’t care at all and I’m emphasising that by saying it would be impossible for me to care less than that.” It’s - you know what, I don’t know whether to call it hyperbole or litotes, maybe it’s a combo thereof.

Similarly, “I cannot stress enough” or “I cannot overemphasise how important this is” means “This is so vitally important that no amount of emphasis on it is too much. It’s THAT big of a deal.” “I cannot stress how important this is” means “I’m unable to stress how important this is,” like “I’m unable to put any emphasis on it,” as if it isn’t really very important to you at all - almost as if you couldn’t care less.

[shiroikabocha]

I see a lot of people referring to the "Catholic peasants" in Dracula and I just want to note: these peasants are almost certainly Orthodox, not Catholic. Catholics and Orthodox Christians have similar vibes, but they're very different in the particulars.

(source: me, an excommunicated Catholic, trying to ingratiate myself with my girlfriend's Orthodox Romanian mother by making the sign of the cross after she says grace, only to be corrected because I am "doing it wrong")

[random-thought-depository]

Amazon, why does your product information for the microwave pot/steamer I just bought include "Is Electric - Yes"? Yeah, it's meant to go into an electric appliance, but I'm pretty sure that this plastic pot is, in fact, not itself an electric appliance. I'm pretty sure this plastic pot has no electronic components. I'm pretty sure it's just a bunch of simple pieces of plastic and has no machinery of its own, unless you count the purely mechanical hinges on the clamps as machinery. Actually, I think if it did have electronic components this would be a problem, because I think microwaving an electronic device would not be good for it and might be a pretty unsafe thing to do.

It's a Sistema 3.2 liter microwave steamer, if anyone wants to check this out for themselves.

[utterboosheet]

I need everyone who’s ever thought about writing any kind of story for others to read to understand something.

A briefing happens before an event. It is the meeting to discuss the objectives of an undertaking and the plan for achieving them.

A debriefing happens after an event. It is a meeting to discuss what went right, what went wrong, and what steps to take next.

A debriefing cannot happen before an event. That’s a briefing.

Thank you for humoring my pedantry.