Minor things that bother you

[Max Rockatansky]

My wife had a more difficult time trying to change her name on Facebook versus filing the paperwork to legally change it.  In her case Jessica didn't care for her maiden name since it came from her biological father who she never met.

[I-57/Route 66 Fan]

Overpriced things!

[kphoger]

My wife had a more difficult time trying to change her name on Facebook ...

Isn't that a pretty simple, straightforward process?

[wxfree]

Since 2000, I've called him 'the artist formerly and then once again known as Prince'.

I saw, I think in a newspaper, the best name for him in that time: The artist formerly known as the artist formerly known as Prince.

What do we call him now?

Formerly the artist formerly known as the artist formerly known as Prince

[Max Rockatansky]

My wife had a more difficult time trying to change her name on Facebook ...

Isn't that a pretty simple, straightforward process?

That's what I thought.  I never have changed my name on Facebook though.  She was getting pretty flustered over flipping through the menus.

[NE2]

When someone says "free 99" and means free, not 99 cents.

[Max Rockatansky]

When someone says "free 99" and means free, not 99 cents.

It also sounds like the name of a campaign I would start if there was actually some sort of momentum to designating CA 99 as an Interstate.

[hbelkins]

It's a nickname that took hold, and that's what some people call him, and I expect that he should just have to deal with that if he doesn't like it.

Or he could tell them that he doesn't like it and then they could be kind people and stop.

We have the same situation with a certain member of this forum who goes by an amphibious username. Those of us who know him personally used to call him by that nickname up until the point when he retired from the Navy, and he made it known politely that he'd prefer that we call him by his name and not by his amphibious nickname, which is loosely derived from his last name. So now anytime I've seen him -- which, admittedly, has been rare in recent years -- I have made a conscious effort to call him "Adam" instead of his amphibious nickname.


When I have a decent streak going in Wordle and forget to play one day, resetting my streak to zero, that is a minor thing that bothers me.

[JayhawkCO]

It's a nickname that took hold, and that's what some people call him, and I expect that he should just have to deal with that if he doesn't like it.

Or he could tell them that he doesn't like it and then they could be kind people and stop.

We have the same situation with a certain member of this forum who goes by an amphibious username. Those of us who know him personally used to call him by that nickname up until the point when he retired from the Navy, and he made it known politely that he'd prefer that we call him by his name and not by his amphibious nickname, which is loosely derived from his last name. So now anytime I've seen him -- which, admittedly, has been rare in recent years -- I have made a conscious effort to call him "Adam" instead of his amphibious nickname.

And if you screw up, I'm sure he wouldn't get mad, but assuredly is thankful of your efforts.

[Max Rockatansky]

It's a nickname that took hold, and that's what some people call him, and I expect that he should just have to deal with that if he doesn't like it.

Or he could tell them that he doesn't like it and then they could be kind people and stop.

We have the same situation with a certain member of this forum who goes by an amphibious username. Those of us who know him personally used to call him by that nickname up until the point when he retired from the Navy, and he made it known politely that he'd prefer that we call him by his name and not by his amphibious nickname, which is loosely derived from his last name. So now anytime I've seen him -- which, admittedly, has been rare in recent years -- I have made a conscious effort to call him "Adam" instead of his amphibious nickname.

Some of the Navy pilots that I've met have some pretty call signs/nicknames.  One of them apparently called "shit pants."  My understanding is that it is a reference to a digestive issue during a PT exercise.  I'm gathering that isn't a nickname that is going to stick post-career.

[Scott5114]

I understand the sentiment.  I've only ever seen one Cybertruck on the road that was actually hauling cargo in the bed.  And it was noteworthy enough that I mentioned it to a few friends, and they were all as amazed as I was.

The really amazing thing is when you see a Cybertruck with more than one person in it, because it means that someone with a Cybertruck has friends.

(Seriously, though, next time you see one, look at the passenger seat. I have never seen anyone there.)

[kphoger]

The really amazing thing is when you see a Cybertruck with more than one person in it, because it means that someone with a Cybertruck has friends.

(Seriously, though, next time you see one, look at the passenger seat. I have never seen anyone there.)

I'm not sure I've ever seen one whose windows weren't so dark I couldn't see through them.

[wxfree]

The overuse of descriptive words (or use of overly descriptive words).  My specific complaint is about weather.  The excessive heat warning was changed to the extreme heat warning.  Excessive means too much.  That was fine.  Extreme doesn't mean "a lot" or "more than usual," it means "the most ever," referring to the outlyingest of the outliers.  It isn't the right word to use.  The drought monitor also uses "extreme," which would be fine if it referred to the worst drought on record, but it isn't even the highest level.  The highest level of drought is "exceptional."  That means outside the normal range of even severe droughts.  That's a lot of drought, but "extreme" means more.  If you can spend months in the category of "extreme," then you're using the wrong word for it.

This has bothered me for years.  What brought it out now is a news story about low dryness in the West and low flow on the Colorado River.  To me, 25 years is long enough that it's no longer a drought, an abnormally dry period.  It's just normal.  The climatological normals are based on 30 year periods.  They use that period because it's long enough to smooth out abnormal years, but they don't use a longer period or the whole period of record because climate changes, and, for example, the 19th Century of climate history doesn't reflect the conditions you should expect now.

This is the same complaint, because they're overdescribing the dryness by calling it a drought.  By doing that, they're holding on to hope that conditions will go back to normal, when there's enough snow and rain to keep the lakes full and supply endless water to tens of millions of people.  While it may change in hundreds of years, and probably will, people need to accept that the climate, the pattern of weather to be expected, is now much more dry than it was a century ago.  The amount of water they're getting now is what they should expect for decades, and when they get more water, that's an abnormal period, not a restoration of normal.  Once they accept that they'll realize that that have to get serious about the situation immediately, rather than hoping for a return to a normal that no longer exists.  This looks like an anthropological case study is mass truth denial.  Which seems to be the order of the day in this country, but that's a different topic.

[Max Rockatansky]

What if I use that to describe a highway?  For example:

California State Route 245 has excessive extreme curves

 

[kphoger]

What if I use that to describe a highway?

That seems a bit excessive.

[wxfree]

What if I use that to describe a highway?  For example:

California State Route 245 has excessive extreme curves

 

I applied my complaint to weather because the overuse happens frequently (people don't know the difference between moderately uncomfortable heat and "unbearably hot").  And because it's a field full of numbers, so it's easily quantifiable.  At DFW Airport, extreme heat has a definite meaning, 113 degrees, which is the all-time record high.  Anything below that may be very hot, but it isn't extreme.

Roads not as quantifiable.  The perception of them relies a lot on feeling (and the vehicle you drive).  Curves are quantifiable, if you know the numbers, the curve radius and pavement slope and things like that.  But who actually knows those things?

Your description, as I read it, refers to an excessive number of extreme curves.  I don't care for the use of "extreme," because of how often people use it to mean "a little more than normal."  But it doesn't bother me because it's more subjective.  An "extreme" curve on a driveway where you crawl along trying to avoid hitting something, is a very different thing than an extreme curve on an Interstate, where you're trying to avoid flying off the road.  I don't like the use of "extreme," but I can't show you the numbers to prove that it's wrong.  I don't like it, but it doesn't bother me.

[wxfree]

What if I use that to describe a highway?

That seems a bit excessive.

I would say it's extremely excessive.

[Rothman]

Extreme ways are back again.

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm pretty certain that CA 245 has the most curves per mile in the state highway system here.  I've ever bothered to quantify that but it is a number which can be obtained.  One might call that excessive, I wouldn't necessarily say extreme (even though it appears to be).

[wxfree]

I'm pretty certain that CA 245 has the most curves per mile in the state highway system here.  I've ever bothered to quantify that but it is a number which can be obtained.  One might call that excessive, I wouldn't necessarily say extreme (even though it appears to be).

That's an interesting measure, something like the most degrees of curvature per mile for an entire road or a stretch of road.  Since more degrees in the same distance means they must be closer together, I don't think you'd need to account for the radii, which would automatically be smaller if the degrees are crammed together.

[Scott5114]

This has bothered me for years.  What brought it out now is a news story about low dryness in the West and low flow on the Colorado River.  To me, 25 years is long enough that it's no longer a drought, an abnormally dry period.  It's just normal.  The climatological normals are based on 30 year periods.  They use that period because it's long enough to smooth out abnormal years, but they don't use a longer period or the whole period of record because climate changes, and, for example, the 19th Century of climate history doesn't reflect the conditions you should expect now.

This is the same complaint, because they're overdescribing the dryness by calling it a drought.  By doing that, they're holding on to hope that conditions will go back to normal, when there's enough snow and rain to keep the lakes full and supply endless water to tens of millions of people.  While it may change in hundreds of years, and probably will, people need to accept that the climate, the pattern of weather to be expected, is now much more dry than it was a century ago.  The amount of water they're getting now is what they should expect for decades, and when they get more water, that's an abnormal period, not a restoration of normal.  Once they accept that they'll realize that that have to get serious about the situation immediately, rather than hoping for a return to a normal that no longer exists.  This looks like an anthropological case study is mass truth denial.  Which seems to be the order of the day in this country, but that's a different topic.

Okay, but you need some noun to describe the phenomenon. If you look at any relevant graph (this one is my favorite, select "All time lake levels" from the dropdown) there is a pretty clear cutoff of lower environmental water existence starting at the year 2000. So what word is someone to use when they want to describe "the post-2000 lack of water"? The time period may be the "new normal" but the change starting in 2000 is relevant because many of the cities that rely on the Colorado (not including Las Vegas, thankfully) have yet to update their pre-2000 water use policies and infrastructure.

I guess we could call it the wixfree.

[wxfree]

This has bothered me for years.  What brought it out now is a news story about low dryness in the West and low flow on the Colorado River.  To me, 25 years is long enough that it's no longer a drought, an abnormally dry period.  It's just normal.  The climatological normals are based on 30 year periods.  They use that period because it's long enough to smooth out abnormal years, but they don't use a longer period or the whole period of record because climate changes, and, for example, the 19th Century of climate history doesn't reflect the conditions you should expect now.

This is the same complaint, because they're overdescribing the dryness by calling it a drought.  By doing that, they're holding on to hope that conditions will go back to normal, when there's enough snow and rain to keep the lakes full and supply endless water to tens of millions of people.  While it may change in hundreds of years, and probably will, people need to accept that the climate, the pattern of weather to be expected, is now much more dry than it was a century ago.  The amount of water they're getting now is what they should expect for decades, and when they get more water, that's an abnormal period, not a restoration of normal.  Once they accept that they'll realize that that have to get serious about the situation immediately, rather than hoping for a return to a normal that no longer exists.  This looks like an anthropological case study is mass truth denial.  Which seems to be the order of the day in this country, but that's a different topic.

Okay, but you need some noun to describe the phenomenon. If you look at any relevant graph (this one is my favorite, select "All time lake levels" from the dropdown) there is a pretty clear cutoff of lower environmental water existence starting at the year 2000. So what word is someone to use when they want to describe "the post-2000 lack of water"? The time period may be the "new normal" but the change starting in 2000 is relevant because many of the cities that rely on the Colorado (not including Las Vegas, thankfully) have yet to update their pre-2000 water use policies and infrastructure.

I guess we could call it the wixfree.

"Normal," as a technical term, refers to the smoothed averages of temperatures and precipitation over a 30 year period.  They're updated every 10 years, after the end of each 0 year.  The normals for this decade are based on 1991-2020.  That's (roughly) one decade before 2000 and two after.  In 2031 the entire period the normals are based on will be after 2000.  I just think of it that way, as normal, which is an ongoing and updated system.  There's no such thing as a "new normal" because they're always new.  The "old normal" is no longer used.  I saved the DFW old normals from the 2010s about 6 years ago before they disappeared from the NWS web site, so I could compare them with the new ones.

The normal precipitation has a huge affect on the river and hydrology, but if we're talking about river flow and lake elevations, that's different. I don't know how reservoir level and other hydrological statistics are calculated.  The news story about water levels made me think about climate and weather, which is my topic.  After 30 dry years it's no longer a drought, it's just a drier climate.  (I'm referring to the normal precipitation amounts.  I don't know how the drought monitor is calculated.)  That's long enough to define what's normal.  The normals won't be recalculated until 2031, but the first 26 of those 30 years are (just about) behind us.

The way I see it, we don't need a new term, because "normal" doesn't look back forever.  Of course, that's a technical definition that not everyone thinks of.  People who are more than a little over 30 can remember back farther than that, but even in the scale of a human lifetime, climates change.  There's nothing magical about the 30 year period, it's just the length the experts chose.  I might use the term "regularly updated normal" to distinguish from the period of one's memory or the period of record.

[1995hoo]

My wife has decided that it is somehow acceptable to watch YouTube or similar on her phone on the couch while the TV is on. I feel like I'm sitting next to our 23-year-old nephew when she does that. I just turned off the TV, got up, left, and went downstairs to a different TV. Told her why, too, and she doesn't seem to think there was anything wrong. If, of course, I were to watch loud videos during her PBS shows, she'd crucify me.

[kphoger]

Okay, but you need some noun to describe the phenomenon. If you look at any relevant graph (this one is my favorite, select "All time lake levels" from the dropdown) there is a pretty clear cutoff of lower environmental water existence starting at the year 2000. So what word is someone to use when they want to describe "the post-2000 lack of water"?

"In these unprecedented times..." 

[LilianaUwU]

My wife has decided that it is somehow acceptable to watch YouTube or similar on her phone on the couch while the TV is on. I feel like I'm sitting next to our 23-year-old nephew when she does that. I just turned off the TV, got up, left, and went downstairs to a different TV. Told her why, too, and she doesn't seem to think there was anything wrong. If, of course, I were to watch loud videos during her PBS shows, she'd crucify me.

Everytime I see someone complaining about their wife's choice of content, I think of this meme: