Trump's Second Term

LiteBright said:
I would agree except for the fact that the 2 countries already have a signed agreement about the construction and operation of the bridge. Canada paid entirely for its construction, using roughly half US workers and materials. Ontario and Michigan jointly own it from the start. Canada will collect tolls until their 6.4B investment is paid after which time toll revenue will be split evenly. Trump even fast tracked the project in his first term and praised it several times.
Click to expand...
You can't expect him to remember that.
LiteBright said:
It is a model of cooperation between nations.
Click to expand...
Not as far as Trump is concerned, because both sides benefit. He thinks there has to be a loser.
 
plague311 said:
250,000 subscribers left after Bezo's halted WaPo's endorsement of Harris. No offense, but you can suspect anything you want, but this is directly related.

He acted.
That action had a result.
That result was 250,000less; subscribers.
I'm seeing a WaPo sub is $140/yr on the cheap end, which is around $35 million/yr in lost revenue from his one action.

That's not because of (sad) print media, that's not because of standard subscriber loss, that's $35 million a year lost because Bezo's decided to be a bitch.

I was going to comment on your Amazon stuff but it's honestly not worth it to me. If you think Bezo's playing the bitch is worth it to please his shareholders and make Trump happy then you and I can just differ. That's where I'm lucky. I don't have to think about making sure my company is successful by sucking the toes of our government, and I'd rather have a few hundred million dollars vs a few billion dollars if it meant keeping some of my dignity intact.


All of this might be true, but it has nothing to do with why the 250k left in 2024. The NYT didn't have 250k cancel in 2024. On a smaller scale the LA Times also lost 18,000+ subs because of the same thing (last I saw, it might have been more). These are unforced errors. They aren't because of anything else other than the ownership of the newspaper.
Click to expand...
[Pedant] Countable number = fewer; 250.000 fewer subscribers. Lesser non-countable quantity e.g. there is less support for the WaPo. [/Pedant]

ETA I also message the BBC when their journalists make this error.
 
Last edited:
Planigale said:
[Pedant] Countable number = fewer; 250.000 fewer subscribers. Lesser non-countable quantity e.g. there is less support for the WaPo. [/Pedant]

ETA I also message the BBC when their journalists make this error.
Click to expand...
I have heard professional mathematicians say 3 is less than 4.

I do not recall hearing professional mathematicians say 3 is fewer than 4. It is of course possible that someone said that within my hearing and I just forgot or didn't even notice.

By and large, however, professional mathematicians say 3 is less than 4, and refer to the less than sign (<) as the less than sign, not as the fewer than sign, even in the context of discussing < as a strict total ordering on the natural numbers, integers, ordinals, or cardinals.

Which is why I laugh at your pedantry, and counter it with my own.

(ETA: added links.)
 
Last edited:
W.D.Clinger said:
I have heard professional mathematicians say 3 is less than 4.

I do not recall hearing professional mathematicians say 3 is fewer than 4. It is of course possible that someone said that within my hearing and I just forgot or didn't even notice.

By and large, however, professional mathematicians say 3 is less than 4, and refer to the less than sign (<) as the less than sign, not as the fewer than sign, even in the context of discussing < as a strict total ordering on the natural numbers, integers, ordinals, or cardinals.

Which is why I laugh at your pedantry, and counter it with my own.

(ETA: added links.)
Click to expand...
I would not rely on mathematicians for an expert opinion on grammar. In fact they're probably the least reliable 'expert' opinion.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
I have heard professional mathematicians say 3 is less than 4.

I do not recall hearing professional mathematicians say 3 is fewer than 4. It is of course possible that someone said that within my hearing and I just forgot or didn't even notice.

By and large, however, professional mathematicians say 3 is less than 4, and refer to the less than sign (<) as the less than sign, not as the fewer than sign, even in the context of discussing < as a strict total ordering on the natural numbers, integers, ordinals, or cardinals.

Which is why I laugh at your pedantry, and counter it with my own.

(ETA: added links.)
Click to expand...
I would not rely on mathematicians for an expert opinion on grammar. In fact they're probably the least reliable 'expert' opinion.
ETA
Although mathematically they may be correct grammatically we are looking at integers, countable numbers, mathematically there are an infinite number of numbers between 3 and 4 so not countable. So mathematically 3 is less than 4; grammatically three objects are fewer than four objects.
 
Last edited:
Planigale said:
I would not rely on mathematicians for an expert opinion on grammar. In fact they're probably the least reliable 'expert' opinion.
ETA
Although mathematically they may be correct grammatically we are looking at integers, countable numbers, mathematically there are an infinite number of numbers between 3 and 4 so not countable. So mathematically 3 is less than 4; grammatically three objects are fewer than four objects.
Click to expand...
I would not rely on grammar nazis for an expert opinion on proper mathematical terminology. Especially if those grammar nazis are revealing a knowledge of mathematics that barely exceeds the MAGA level.

In what you wrote above, for example, your argument relies upon there being only one kind of number in the world. FYI, the cardinality of the set of numbers between 3 and 4 depends upon what kind of numbers we're talking about. If we're talking about integers, there are no numbers between 3 and 4. (BTW, the null set is countable.) If we're talking about rationals, there are infinitely many numbers between 3 and 4. (But that infinite set is also countable.) If we're talking about reals, there are a hell of a lot more reals between 3 and 4 than there are rationals between 3 and 4. (Because the set of real numbers that lie between 3 and 4 is uncountable.)

We use the same less-than sign (<) for all three total orderings, even though the three total orderings are distinct.

Such situations never arise in English, of course, because using the same word to mean three entirely different things would be ridiculous.
:)

(Edited to add the parentheticals in red, just in case some grammar nazi was not aware of those facts.)
 
Last edited:
AmyStrange said:
You're right, and I apologize.

By the way, how many people go to a concert because of the lyrics, and should they caption those too?

Hell, half the lyrics I hear at a concert, I don't understand a word of it, but then again, I'm not there for that.
Click to expand...
I understood exactly as much of Lady Gaga as I did of BB.
On second, thought, a few words of HS Spanish have stuck with me, so he wins.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom