Stuff I just don't understand, post here yours.

[Gnoman]

Why do people sometimes post links to TvTropes and then follow the hyperlink with "WARNING: TvTropes".

Its been bugging me for weeks and I can't wrap my head around it.

It is a well-accepted phenomenon that TvTropes will get you stuck in a Wiki Walk. The warning is a tongue-in-cheek "don't click this if you don't have twelve hours to spare.

[factotum]

Yeah, TV Tropes is even more of a time vampire than the regular Wikipedia, hence the warnings!

[Vinyadan]

Why do Imperials use 6'4'' instead of 6.3 ft or 76 in.

Also, are "foot" and "inch" supposed to be pluralised or kept singular.

[Knaight]

Why do Imperials use 6'4'' instead of 6.3 ft or 76 in.

Also, are "foot" and "inch" supposed to be pluralised or kept singular.

They pluralize to feet and inches, and if you're going to use the 12 inch to a foot metric you might as well use it consistently and avoid decimal notation in feet.

[Gnoman]

Why do Imperials use 6'4'' instead of 6.3 ft or 76 in.

Outside of personal height, that's exactly what people who work with measurements do - they almost always stick with inches.

[Goaty14]

Outside of personal height, that's exactly what people who work with measurements do - they almost always stick with inches.

"You must be 48" to go on this ride"

I was too young to go

[Honest Tiefling]

Why do Imperials use 6'4'' instead of 6.3 ft or 76 in.

There are 12 inches in a foot, so decimals would get weird. I don't know why people don't do it entirely in inches, probably just habit. I know I don't call it the 60 inch ladder, so there are some uses that use feet.

[Mr Blobby]

I think I can answer this. Most folk who work out lengths regular in Imperial use inch - yards [36-1]. This means there's only one conversion needed [which is trickier due to the 12-3-1 ratios] and means folk like builders etc have a greater chance of doing it in their heads and getting the right result.

Similar is done with pound-stone-ton [14-160-1]; I've always seen folk skip 'stone' as a unit, with perhaps the sole exception of weight of people [and very occasionally livestock].

[Peelee]

There are 12 inches in a foot, so decimals would get weird. I don't know why people don't do it entirely in inches, probably just habit.

You misspelled "metric" there.

[Aedilred]

Why do Imperials use 6'4'' instead of 6.3 ft or 76 in.

They don't use 6.3ft because it's not a decimal system.

They don't use 76in because over a certain value it's easier to approximate to lower numbers of larger units than high multiples of smaller ones. If you know roughly how long a foot is, and roughly how long an inch is, you have a better chance of guessing the length of six feet than 72 inches, because there aren't so many opportunities for small errors to compound.

It's the same reason we have minutes as an intermediate measure between seconds and hours.

Also, are "foot" and "inch" supposed to be pluralised or kept singular.

The terms pluralise as standard, to "feet" and "inches".

However, when talking about someone's height, it is normal (at least in the UK) not to pluralise "foot". So someone would be "six foot two", rather than "six feet two". That's pretty idiosyncratic, though; if you suffix the latter as "tall" for specificity, you revert back to plurals: "he's six feet tall".
Also, and as suggested by the above, when you have both feet and inches in the same measure you don't normally need to specify "inches" as the second measure in colloquial speech: it's taken as read.

As to why these things, you might as well question any idiom. It's a quirk of the language, which presumably started at some point out of convenience and now habitual.

[Mr Blobby]

Sometimes, both units are dropped: 'he's six-two' is generally acceptable in the UK, though technically wrong grammar-wise. Similar was seen in pre-decimal currency; one shilling and sixpence was often simply called 'one and six' and the like.

[ve4grm]

The terms pluralise as standard, to "feet" and "inches".

However, when talking about someone's height, it is normal (at least in the UK) not to pluralise "foot". So someone would be "six foot two", rather than "six feet two". That's pretty idiosyncratic, though; if you suffix the latter as "tall" for specificity, you revert back to plurals: "he's six feet tall".
Also, and as suggested by the above, when you have both feet and inches in the same measure you don't normally need to specify "inches" as the second measure in colloquial speech: it's taken as read.

As to why these things, you might as well question any idiom. It's a quirk of the language, which presumably started at some point out of convenience and now habitual.

There are actually reasons in this case. Apparently it goes back to Anglo-Saxon, or Ye Olde english. But it seems to stay pretty consistent in its applicability.

Specifically, you're not talking about a measurement by itself, but a descriptor.

From a different angle, think about this. Which sounds better:
- "I ran a 45 second lap."
- "I ran a 45 seconds lap."

The lap is what the sentence is about, while "45 second" is a descriptor, and you (at least generally) don't pluralize descriptors. When you reconstruct the sentence so it isn't a direct descriptor, it changes. "I ran a lap in 45 seconds."

Similarly, when you say "The 6 foot 2 inch man stole my rake!" you're talking about the man, and the height is a descriptor.

"He kicked the ball 30 metres."
"That was a 30 metre kick."

So yeah, some combination of old grammar rules (or specifically not having "add an -s" as an old grammar rule) and English being a cobbled-together language.

-

Nah, you want confusing, try to figure out if, when talking about two people, both of which are named Mike Smith, do you refer to them as the "Mike Smiths" or the "Mikes Smith"?

What if it's a title, like Doctor? Are they the "Doctors Smith" now? Or the "Doctor Smiths"? Is it different?

I'm pretty sure the first case is "Mike Smiths", while the second is "Doctors Smith" but I couldn't for the life of me tell you why.

[Gnoman]

Nah, you want confusing, try to figure out if, when talking about two people, both of which are named Mike Smith, do you refer to them as the "Mike Smiths" or the "Mikes Smith"?

What if it's a title, like Doctor? Are they the "Doctors Smith" now? Or the "Doctor Smiths"? Is it different?

I'm pretty sure the first case is "Mike Smiths", while the second is "Doctors Smith" but I couldn't for the life of me tell you why.

This is easy enough. In the first case, the name is not "Mike" or "Smith", but "Mike Smith". For multi word nouns, you pluralize the last word. For the second, you pluralize the modifier "Doctor" instead of the name.

[CoconutKing]

So, there's supposedly two types of coconuts, and I know this because I had both in my childhood. One's the hairy one, with the weird tasting liquid that shows up on Google when you look up "coconut". Then, there's the cool dude coconut that grows on palm trees and stuff, from which the juice tastes excellent. What's the second one, and why is it ALSO called a coconut?

[Keltest]

So, there's supposedly two types of coconuts, and I know this because I had both in my childhood. One's the hairy one, with the weird tasting liquid that shows up on Google when you look up "coconut". Then, there's the cool dude coconut that grows on palm trees and stuff, from which the juice tastes excellent. What's the second one, and why is it ALSO called a coconut?

I have no idea what you mean by "cool dude" coconut, but if I had to hazard a guess, theyre probably both called coconuts because theyre similar species.

[Lemmy]

So, there's supposedly two types of coconuts, and I know this because I had both in my childhood. One's the hairy one, with the weird tasting liquid that shows up on Google when you look up "coconut". Then, there's the cool dude coconut that grows on palm trees and stuff, from which the juice tastes excellent. What's the second one, and why is it ALSO called a coconut?

Do you mean these?



Because they are exactly the same fruit.

EDIT: Wait... Shouldn't you know that? Your tag is "COCONUTKING"!

[factotum]

Yeah, the smooth green surface is the actual fruit, while the thing we call a coconut is the seed inside that fruit, as far as I know. There aren't other varieties of coconut.

[Fiery Diamond]

Do you mean these?



Because they are exactly the same fruit.

EDIT: Wait... Shouldn't you know that? Your tag is "COCONUTKING"!

I think the real question is why does CoconutKing think the drinkables are different?

Edit: A little Googling tells me that the green ones are immature and the hairy ones are more mature, with different amounts of liquid in them depending on the maturity. So that might be the reason.

[Gnoman]

Due to cleaning today, I'm reminded of one of my biggest things I don't understand. Years ago, I owned a flatscreen computer monitor that had the screen covered in hard, clear plastic to protect it. What I don't understand is why doesn't every LED monitor have that? Trying to clean my many screens without damaging them (or being afraid of damaging them) is a major pain.

[Florian]

Due to cleaning today, I'm reminded of one of my biggest things I don't understand. Years ago, I owned a flatscreen computer monitor that had the screen covered in hard, clear plastic to protect it. What I don't understand is why doesn't every LED monitor have that? Trying to clean my many screens without damaging them (or being afraid of damaging them) is a major pain.

Remember the price of those older LED monitors? What do you pay now for one quadruple the size?

[Gnoman]

Remember the price of those older LED monitors? What do you pay now for one quadruple the size?

The ones nowadays are cheaper because the underlying technology has improved, else 4K screens wouldn't have quartered their price in the last two years. I seriously doubt a sheet of clear plastic will affect the price.

[Mr Blobby]

Florian was more referencing the 'price to replace' than 'cost of the plastic'. The price of an LCD TV was [inflation adjusted]...

1997: $39,000
2000: $2,900
2004: $2,000
2008: $900
2012: $500
2018: $400

[Tried to do 'like with like', though is difficult. But a fair guestimate].

Naturally, this price drop would have hit monitors too.

If you had an electronic device which then cost more than some new cars, I think I'd want that piece of plastic to make it less likely to be broken! It may be you had for some reason a very early model.

[Gnoman]

Hadn't considered that angle.

[factotum]

Having a thick plastic layer on top of the screen wouldn't help the clarity of the picture, either. Not so much of an issue when your LCD monitor has pixels big enough that you could see them from across the room, but on a modern hi-res display, more of a problem.

[CoconutKing]

I have no idea what you mean by "cool dude" coconut, but if I had to hazard a guess, theyre probably both called coconuts because theyre similar species.

See, I should probably have considered that.

Do you mean these?



Because they are exactly the same fruit.

EDIT: Wait... Shouldn't you know that? Your tag is "COCONUTKING"!

THEY ARE??? Well, I'm disowning the hairy ones.

Yeah, the smooth green surface is the actual fruit, while the thing we call a coconut is the seed inside that fruit, as far as I know. There aren't other varieties of coconut.

That's so weird. The thing is, I've always seen the green coconut stuff on trees, but I've seen the hairy coconuts at Hindu temples and at family weddings. So I kinda assumed they were different. I just really liked the coconut fruit.

I think the real question is why does CoconutKing think the drinkables are different?

Edit: A little Googling tells me that the green ones are immature and the hairy ones are more mature, with different amounts of liquid in them depending on the maturity. So that might be the reason.

Yeah, they taste different, which was one of the bigger reasons why I figured they were different in the first place. But that explanation makes a lot of sense.



It appears Google-fu thoroughly failed me.

[Peelee]

So I can have coconut that doesn't taste like the white innards? Because that's something I'm interested in. Never liked coconut before, but I'd totally be up for trying the "fruit" part of it.

[Vinyadan]

Fun fact: green and black olives also are the same species. Black olives are fully ripe. Oil is made from the green ones. They both aren't eaten when freshly picked and uncured, because they are too bitter.

[Peelee]

Nearly all mushrooms we eat are the same mushroom. Button, portabello, cremini, etc. If you've eaten one mushroom, you've eaten 'em all. They're all the same species, just at a different stage of development.

[Spore]

I understand the scenario that leads to the discovery of immediately edible stuff, like apples or even more complicated things like nuts or meats.

But how in the world did some recipes come to be? Surströmming is a mild case as "add vinegar" to anything to keep it for longer seems just right. But Hákarl aka the fermented shark meat? Roasted coffee beans ground up in water? Or anything involving distilled or fermented spirits and alcohol?

Surely they must have been based on a rather big dare. "I give you 5 sea shells if you eat this rotten shark, another two if you drink this old cherry juice." "Okay...hey, this is kinda nice."

[Gnoman]

Fermentation is unavoidable with a great many foods. There's a theory that bears like honey because a noticeable amount ferments in the hive, and I remember an incident in elementary school where half the students got mildly drunk on improperly stored orange juice. All it takes is one or two people getting drunk accidentally and liking it, then deciding to figure out how to make that happen again.