I could change the example to purple hair and big feet. How does that change the fact that other people with purple hair and big feet could exist in the past/future?
Reiterating on what I said in the other branch of this thread, language exists as a means to convey information. There has to be a way to distinguish between making a general statement and a specific one.
I agree that you can reasonably make this specific statement about the US. I don’t agree that this is what OP said, because the general statement is also valid, and they used the words to convey that it’s a general statement.
How do you imagine language to work if you don’t have a way of communicating what you want to communicate? Both the general and specific statement are reasonable for someone to make in this context, so there should be a way to express both.
Imagine a world where there’s exactly one person who was born was purple hair and they happen to like cookies. You say “People with purple hair like cookies”. It narrows down the pool of existing people to exactly one, but you’re still making a general statement about all people with purple hair. You’re saying that anyone in the past who may have had purple hair also likes cookies. Anyone in the future born with purple hair also likes cookies.
How would you phrase it if you did want it to be a general statement?
That’s the additional info you absolute brickbrain.
The criticism was about the generality, not the implicit evidence.
You can infer additional information when that information isn’t present. Like if you say “A certain system that can […]”, then that sentence refers to a specific system but doesn’t say which. You can infer from context that it’s the US. But if you say “The US system, which can […]” then you cannot infer that “The US system” actually means the Canadian system because it’s clearly stated that it’s the US system. There’s no missing information to infer. In this case, it says “A system”. As you said, that means any system. All systems. We’re given complete information on the subject. There’s nothing to infer.
Maybe what you’re thinking of is that the current context of this post is the recent US election, so the timing of this post is an implicit reference to that. But the reference isn’t meant to change the meaning of the statement. It’s used as evidence to support it. i.e. “This kind of system is bad in general. Look at this example in which it is bad.” and not “This kind of system is bad in general. But not in general.”
Edit: Alternatively, there can be cases where you should interpret a sentence as something different from what was actually written, and that’s when you have reasonable cause to believe they meant the other thing. Here, both the general statement and one specifically about the US are statements that someone can reasonably make so most people will interpret the words exactly as written.
Did you not read the text in the image?
A system that can elect a felon faster than it can prosecute him is fundamentally broken.
I don’t know if the H2O2 is going to cause any problems, but if you have one of those ultrasonic type humidifiers and you do manage to dissolve the black goop, turning it on will just toss that goop onto all the surrounding surfaces.
It’s hard to imagine how you would even begin to learn to read. You see text and you have to translate that directly to meaning without imagining the sound in your head? Witchcraft I say.
I was that idiot once. Nice to meet you.
It basically comes down to finding the longest chain of carbons, then you number each of the carbons on that chain and list off things that are attached to each of them. For example, 1 carbon = methyl, 2 carbons = ethyl, etc.
Tfw you distrust the scientific establishment and take health into your own hands to stick it to the man. But then you realize you’re the man.
This is the main reason I still keep Windows around. The majority of my stuff “just works” much better on Linux, but every once in a while, you need to interact with someone else via some weird proprietary software and it’s not really reasonable to go “sorry, can’t do it because Linux”, nor is it reasonable to spend several hours figuring out for Linux when I’m likely only using it once.
Windows is completely free though. I don’t even bother to remove the watermark.
A lot of people are under the impression that the new guy is getting paid the big bucks to make some extra unpopular decisions before Galen takes over again to “save the day”.
On my first reading of the title, I understood it as
Subject: 4,100-year-old tomb of doctor who
Verb: treated
Object: pharaohs discovered at Saqqara
Seems that there was one just a few months ago
Oh god, imagine having to give birth every day for the rest of eternity.
Unlike conventional batteries, supercapacitors have an exceptionally long lifespan, lasting hundreds of thousands of charge-discharge cycles, whereas lithium batteries typically last only five years or less.
So, what’s the conversation rate between charge-discharge cycles and years?
In the context of programming:
There’s also some very cool applications to game AI that I’ve seen, but this is still in the research realm and much more niche.