Lucky Ten Thousand (TIL)

[Sableagle]

How big a sacrifice? These were not the pizzas I was looking for:

Spoiler:

Somewhere, a dentist and a dietician are having a screaming competition.

[Mutex]

And then shovelling Smarties pizza into their face while sobbing bitter tears.

(Soon to be sweet tears as the sugar level in every fluid in their body rises to 20%)

[pkcommando]

That strawberry-kiwi one would be awesome.

Strawberries + kiwi + cream cheese on a sugar cookie = win^infinity

[CorruptUser]

So...
English has a word for a child who lost their parents; orphan.
English has a word for a wife who lost her husband; widow (and widower for the reverse).
English DOES NOT have a word for a parent who lost their children.

What is this word, and why doesn't it exist? There is a (very tiny) movement to get the word "vilharo" entered into the English language. Ostensibly, it means "against [the] order" in Sanskrit.

[Mutex]

Also if two men are married, one of them dies, is the other one a widow or a widower?

[flicky1991]

English DOES NOT have a word for a parent who lost their children.

I'd say "bereaved parent".

Also if two men are married, one of them dies, is the other one a widow or a widower?

Widower. It's just a female/male distinction - it has nothing to do with the gender of the partner.

[Pfhorrest]

As a child, I thought a widower was (logically!) someone who had widowed someone, i.e. the man who had died to make a woman a widow. I thought it was a joke, then, to hear a live man called a widower.

On the topic of words English may or may not have: can anyone thing of an adjective of a person that means they have a good memory? Something akin to "rememberful", but an actual word people use. The closest I can think of is "retentive" but that seems ambiguous out of context and in context seems more like it applies to the person's memory rather than the person themselves.

[CorruptUser]

Autistic?

[Pfhorrest]

I can't tell if you're just making a terrible joke or not, but that doesn't mean anything remotely like "has a good memory".

[addams]

English DOES NOT have a word for a parent who lost their children.

I'd say "bereaved parent".

Also if two men are married, one of them dies, is the other one a widow or a widower?

Widower. It's just a female/male distinction - it has nothing to do with the gender of the partner.

ah...
Flicky; You are Bright and Quick.
That is the right combination of words.

[flicky1991]

I can't tell if you're just making a terrible joke or not, but that doesn't mean anything remotely like "has a good memory".

I have to admit it was the first word that jumped into my mind too. (But there's a difference between thinking it and posting it...)

[Pfhorrest]

FWIW I'm looking for something like how a person with good attention is attentive, a person with good focus is focused, a person with good dedication is dedicated, a person with good memory is... memor... able? no... iful? that's not a word... what?

[poxic]

"Has a good memory" may be the only option that doesn't need inventing.

There's "sharp" but that usually indicates intelligence as well.

[flicky1991]

Unforgetful?

[CorruptUser]

Googling says "heedful" or "reliable".

[New User]

I'd say heedful means someone can listen well. Reliable means someone that can be relied upon, or someone who can be trusted.

[Coyne]

English DOES NOT have a word for a parent who lost their children.

I'd say "bereaved parent".

Also if two men are married, one of them dies, is the other one a widow or a widower?

Widower. It's just a female/male distinction - it has nothing to do with the gender of the partner.

"Bereaved" has a problem, because a person who lost one of fifteen children (or even a spouse) could be said to be bereaved.

"Childless" describes the condition accurately, but not the loss. Which raises the question whether or not there's a need for distinction between people who never had children and people who lost their children.

[CorruptUser]

I'm also not sure how to treat the, say, 30 year old woman who lost her only child, but then later has two more. Does she cease to be a "vilharo"?

[Pfhorrest]

Is a woman whose husband died but who later remarried not a widow anymore? (parallels parent who had more kids)

Is there any need to distinguish between a woman whose husband has died and a woman who has never had a husband? (parallels the difference between parents who lost children and parents who never had them)

If a woman is in a group marriage and one of her husbands dies, is she a widow or not? (parallels parents who lost one of several children)

[CorruptUser]

If a widow remarries, shes no longer a widow the same way shes no longer a divorcee if divorced instead. In group marriages, no, not a widow if a husband remains, but group marriages like that aren't really commonplace in the west.

[Coyne]

Is there any need to distinguish between a woman whose husband has died and a woman who has never had a husband? (parallels the difference between parents who lost children and parents who never had them)

Traditionally, there was, yes. It was distinction between virgin and not, between a woman who might compromise the male estate or not.

Read this, which expands on the story of Boaz and Ruth in the Bible, with special attention to the legal implications for Naomi and Boaz. Dumb as the law was, there was clearly a difference between a widow and not, from the perspective of Boaz.

I believe the use of the word widower is derived, not original.

[PM 2Ring]

FWIW I'm looking for something like how a person with good attention is attentive, a person with good focus is focused, a person with good dedication is dedicated, a person with good memory is... memor... able? no... iful? that's not a word... what?

How about memorious? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funes_the_Memorious

[Bloopy]

On the topic of words English may or may not have: can anyone thing of an adjective of a person that means they have a good memory? Something akin to "rememberful", but an actual word people use. The closest I can think of is "retentive" but that seems ambiguous out of context and in context seems more like it applies to the person's memory rather than the person themselves.

Surely in context, saying someone is retentive and saying their memory is retentive are one and the same. Only thing is it tends to apply to learning information rather than day-to-day actions. If you said someone who always remembers their wallet and keys was retentive, it'd seem as if you're referring to the properties of their pockets and not their lack of forgetfulness.

[Sableagle]

TIL that the automated system that calls me with flood warnings does actually call me with flood warnings. "Immediate action required," it said. I'm going to go and take a look.

[pogrmman]

TIL that the automated system that calls me with flood warnings does actually call me with flood warnings. "Immediate action required," it said. I'm going to go and take a look.

Did you get an actual call, or was it a message on a smartphone? I think we have both, but I’m only familiar with the smartphone ones (for tornadoes, severe thunderstorms, flash floods, amber alerts, etc...)

[Sableagle]

Got a phone call, picked up, said nothing, got an automated voice telling me there was a flood warning for the river, immediate action was required and to check the website for more info.

I suppose the pics are worthless without the dry-weather versions for comparison. There's supposed to be a two-step weir in one of them, though.

[addams]

FWIW I'm looking for something like how a person with good attention is attentive, a person with good focus is focused, a person with good dedication is dedicated, a person with good memory is... memor... able? no... iful? that's not a word... what?

How about memorious? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funes_the_Memorious

Well....We found the word:Hyperthymesia.
It is a medical word for an abnormality.
It is not a common description of a person with superior recall.

Pfhorrest; You ask difficult and rare questions.


Sableagle?
Is that brook flooding?
The surface of the water is very turbulent.

So?
Is your area of the world going under water or not?

[Sableagle]

We get a pay rise!

Whoooo!

+1.6%, everyone. A whole 1.6% increase in our pre-tax total for a 40-hour week (no increase in overtime rate).

We've gone from paying 1% of it into a workplace pension fund to paying 3% of it into a workplace pension fund, so, roughly speaking, we're taking home (97/99)*1.016 as much, aka 0.452525% less, but if you include the change from +1% to +2% employer contribution to the pension fund, it's a 2.574% increase in our pay. Oh yeah. I'm going into town to book a ...

The inflation rate dipped to 3% in December, down from November's rate of 3.1% - a six-year high.

... haircut, maybe?

[pkcommando]

Show off and make those folks ordering from the $1 menu feel the sting of jealousy as you order from -- the $2 menu.

[Sableagle]

Even better, I'll make myself some beans on toast.

This week I learned the recipe for beans on toast.



Beans on toast are way beyond lembas.

I also learned that the forsythia or fredericcia or whatever it is isn't actually as dead as it looked. In clearing away the dead parts, I found some live parts, some ivy, several ash trees, two holly trees and some pyracantha. Pyracantha does not cooperate with gardening much.

I also found that the akebias are starting to flower, so it must be a warm summer, the hyacinths and anemones are out, so it must be well into spring and early spring, the winter-flowering jasmine and winter-flowering honeysuckle are in flower, so it must be winter and the pyracantha next door is covered in berries, so it must be autumn.

[Sprocket]

TIL that Eric Holder is black.

[ObsessoMom]

TIL that the clove, an old English unit of weight, was equal to eight pounds when measuring cheese.

Somehow I, and probably you as well, have survived this long without knowing that.

[Coyne]

TIL that the clove, an old English unit of weight, was equal to eight pounds when measuring cheese.

Somehow I, and probably you as well, have survived this long without knowing that.

So, let's see, that means there would be 14 clove in a Dutch cask...and also that there would be 21 1/3 clove in a tub...

Extremely useful information...

Seriously, I often wonder about the history of these odd measures. Why 8 pounds? Why 112 pounds in a Dutch cask?

Take acres for example. Why 43,560 square feet per? That is 208.710325571 feet on a side, if you take it to be a geometric square. Which is stupid, right?

For starters: A township is 6 miles square, 36 sq. miles, divided into 36 sections. So a section is a square mile, which is 640 acres.

Now, in the imperial system, land was actually measured in chains and furlongs. A chain was 66 feet and there were 10 chains in a furlong; or 80 chains to the mile and 8 furlongs to the mile. 8 x 80 is 640 rectangles. So, 640 rectangles, each 66 feet by 660 ft, in a square mile. Who would have thought that 5280 would be divided so easily by 66?

Well, actually, 5,280 is an interesting number; evenly divisible by (at least) 2, 3, 4, 5 ,6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 20, 22, 24, 30, 32, 33, 40, 44, 60, 64, 66, 80, 96, 120, 132, 160... Is that an accident? (No.)

Given all that, acre makes perfect sense...and so does 5,280 feet. Right?

I have heard it said that primitive does not mean stupid. Such historical "oddities" often reveal enormous cleverness on the part of the humans that created them. But that cleverness is not always obvious to us in retrospect, and so it's tempting to wonder, "What idiot thought this up?"

[Thesh]

Sorry, but there is no excuse for having 11 as a factor for the number of feet/yards in a mile. It's nonsensical.

[Coyne]

Sorry, but there is no excuse for having 11 as a factor for the number of feet/yards in a mile. It's nonsensical.

Well, maybe not to divide by 11 per se. But what about dividing by 440, just for example? If you want to divide by 440, there has to be an 11 factor in there somewhere. And it's a good thing I said "at least" because I didn't list 330, and we all know how important that is. And then there is 132, which I did list, and is so important to traditional computer printers, that needs 11 as well.

[Raidri]

...

Well, actually, 5,280 is an interesting number; evenly divisible by (at least) 2, 3, 4, 5 ,6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 20, 22, 24, 30, 32, 33, 40, 44, 60, 64, 66, 80, 96, 120, 132, 160... Is that an accident? (No.)

...

fixed

Prime factors are 2⁵ * 3 * 5 * 11.

[Thesh]

Well, maybe not to divide by 11 per se. But what about dividing by 440, just for example? If you want to divide by 440, there has to be an 11 factor in there somewhere. And it's a good thing I said "at least" because I didn't list 330, and we all know how important that is. And then there is 132, which I did list, and is so important to traditional computer printers, that needs 11 as well.

5280 and 5760 both have 48 divisors.

Which are nicer, these:

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 12 | 15 | 16 | 18 | 20 | 24 | 30 | 32 | 36 | 40 | 45 | 48 | 60 | 64 | 72 | 80 | 90 | 96 | 120 | 128 | 144 | 160 | 180 | 192 | 240 | 288 | 320 | 360 | 384 | 480 | 576 | 640 | 720 | 960 | 1152 | 1440 | 1920 | 2880 | 5760

or these:

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 15 | 16 | 20 | 22 | 24 | 30 | 32 | 33 | 40 | 44 | 48 | 55 | 60 | 66 | 80 | 88 | 96 | 110 | 120 | 132 | 160 | 165 | 176 | 220 | 240 | 264 | 330 | 352 | 440 | 480 | 528 | 660 | 880 | 1056 | 1320 | 1760 | 2640 | 5280

Plus, the former is just easier to remember since you already remember that there are 5760 grains per pound.

[Coyne]

But, if we did 5760, we'd have to find/make a new chain, and that's just such a pain...

Add...

If we chopped 2 feet off the chain, it would be 64 feet, so Acres would be 90 x 900, 81000 square feet. If we tacked on 6 feet, it would be 72 feet, and Acres would be 80 x 800, 64000 square feet.

Okay, I changed my mind. They should have gone with 5760, and used 72 ft chains.

[Thesh]

An acre is 1/640 square miles, so it should be 51,840 square feet.

[Coyne]

You are right, I was using the wrong multipliers in my calculation. That's the problem with thought problems, you have to think...and I am obviously thought-challenged.