User:JMF/sandbox

Ticking time bombs

 * talk:Chris Curtis

Flush this page

 * to flush the cache

Inappropriate category challenges
Category:Political terminology Category:Linguistic controversies

replaced category per Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 9

span style="font-family

 * keypress: ' '
 * char: © cC © cC
 * Original char: © cC
 * code: © cC © cC is monospaced so a squeezed oval
 * samp: © the © the is also monospaced
 * with font var: © the
 * para: © the © the
 * Unicode:
 * © cC serif ⚕ : (span style serif)
 * © cC sans-serif ⚕ : (span style sans-serif)
 * Mono: U – U U
 * Arial: Ç ç Ḉ ḉ Ḑ ḑ Ȩ ȩ Ḝ ḝ Ģ ģ Ḩ ḩ Ķ ķ Ļ ļ Ņ ņ P Ŗ ŗ Ş ş Ţ ţ : (span style Arial)
 * Times New Roman: Ç ç Ḉ ḉ Ḑ ḑ Ȩ ȩ Ḝ ḝ Ģ ģ Ḩ ḩ Ķ ķ Ļ ļ Ņ ņ P Ŗ ŗ Ş ş Ţ ţ (span style Times New Roman)
 * Garamond: Ç ç Ḉ ḉ Ḑ ḑ Ȩ ȩ Ḝ ḝ Ģ ģ Ḩ ḩ Ķ ķ Ļ ļ Ņ ņ P Ŗ ŗ Ş ş Ţ ţ (span style Garamond)
 * Courier New: Ç ç Ḉ ḉ Ḑ ḑ Ȩ ȩ Ḝ ḝ Ģ ģ Ḩ ḩ Ķ ķ Ļ ļ Ņ ņ P Ŗ ŗ Ş ş Ţ ţ (span style Courier New)
 * Noto: Ç ç Ḉ ḉ Ḑ ḑ Ȩ ȩ Ḝ ḝ Ģ ģ Ḩ ḩ Ķ ķ Ļ ļ Ņ ņ P Ŗ ŗ Ş ş Ţ ţ : (span style Noto)
 * Verdana: Ç ç Ḉ ḉ Ḑ ḑ Ȩ ȩ Ḝ ḝ Ģ ģ Ḩ ḩ Ķ ķ Ļ ļ Ņ ņ P Ŗ ŗ Ş ş Ţ ţ : (span style Verdana)
 * Trebuchet MS: Ç ç Ḉ ḉ Ḑ ḑ Ȩ ȩ Ḝ ḝ Ģ ģ Ḩ ḩ Ķ ķ Ļ ļ Ņ ņ P Ŗ ŗ Ş ş Ţ ţ : (span style Trebuchet MS)
 * Georgia: Ç ç Ḉ ḉ Ḑ ḑ Ȩ ȩ Ḝ ḝ Ģ ģ Ḩ ḩ Ķ ķ Ļ ļ Ņ ņ P Ŗ ŗ Ş ş Ţ ţ : (span style Georgia)


 * Don't forget serif

XT

 * testing testing 1234 testing testing
 * testing testing testing
 * testing testing 1234 testing testing xt2
 * testing testing testing
 * testing testing testing

x

Why did I want to cite this?

 * The Lotus Transcendent: Indian and Southeast Asian Art from the Samuel Eilenberg collection.
 * Artistic canon?

Diffs
Institutes of the Laws of England wikisource

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FPerennial_sources&type=revision&diff=983827787&oldid=983690192

with, xyz

Parishes
parish.

Circumflex
Gramadeg y Gymraeg", by Peter Wynn Thomas, University of Wales Press, 1996 edition, Appendix IV, sections 18 and 37-41

Temp


yᷤ 𝔶ᷤ

Bringurst on typography
Denunciation of unspaced mdash is on page 80

Snowflake

 * and more.

Neoclassical facial canons of Farkas et al
sometime maybe

Type games

 * 𝕁𝕠𝕙𝕟 𝕄𝕒𝕪𝕟𝕒𝕣𝕕 𝔽𝕣𝕚𝕖𝕕𝕞𝕒𝕟
 * $$\mathfrak{John Maynard Friedman}$$
 * span style="font-family: monospace; font-size: larger" blah blah

Listed buildings etc

 * in Emberton, not Stoke Goldington


 * Abbey Hill
 * Astwood and Hardmead
 * Bletchley and Fenny Stratford
 * Bow Brickhill
 * Bradwell
 * Broughton
 * Calverton
 * Campbell Park
 * Castlethorpe ✅
 * Central Milton Keynes
 * Chicheley
 * Clifton Reynes
 * Cold Brayfield
 * Emberton
 * Fairfields
 * Gayhurst ✅
 * Great Linford ✅
 * Hanslope ✅
 * Hardmead
 * Haversham-cum-Little Linford ✅
 * Kents Hill, Monkston and Brinklow
 * Lathbury
 * Lavendon
 * Little Brickhill
 * Loughton and Great Holm
 * Milton Keynes
 * Moulsoe
 * New Bradwell ✅
 * Newport Pagnell
 * Newton Blossomville
 * North Crawley
 * Old Woughton
 * Olney
 * Ravenstone ✅
 * Shenley Brook End
 * Shenley Church End
 * Sherington
 * Simpson and Ashland
 * Stantonbury ✅
 * Stoke Goldington ✅
 * Stony Stratford ✅
 * Tyringham and Filgrave
 * Walton
 * Warrington
 * Wavendon
 * West Bletchley
 * Weston Underwood
 * Whitehouse
 * Woburn Sands
 * Wolverton and Greenleys ✅
 * Woughton

Climate
all done

Dates

 * today
 * extract
 * julian day number
 * Today's date in the Julian calendar
 * Today's date in the Julian calendar

Questions parked in a lay-by, pending developments
Fractional people are somewhat disturbing. Is there a cleverer way to express this: "Even at 3 or the risk is low; however at densities of 5 /m2 the possibilities for individuals to move become limited, while at higher densities (6 to 7 /m2) individuals become pressed against each other, and can be unable to move of their own volition."

Another editor has hand-crafted the 4 to 5/sq m case as (about 2.5square feet per person

Follow up

 * Mandher Devi temple stampede move

Letters as letters, symbols as symbols
At the risk of mission creep, IMO we should make clear that the directive to use italics does not apply to the case of "letters as letters" or "symbols as symbols". In the latter case especially, the italic form may change the shape of the glyph confusingly or may not even exist at all.

"For 'letters as letters' or 'symbols as symbols', do not use italic, bold or quotation marks. To set a letter off from surrounding text, use template:angbr (e.g., $⟨ŵ⟩$). For symbols, use template:char (e.g., @). Do not hyperlink the symbol because hypertext underlining may confuse what is being shown: link its description instead (e.g., underscore, _ not _)."

Do we need to address CJK, Arabic and South Asian scripts explicitly? I don't believe that the same issue arises, so I think not. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Diacritics

 * Diacritic Why? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Madame la Marquise
see user:JMF/Chastelet

Ball cites Stephen Peter Rigaud for the attribution to Clairaut, citing Historical Essay on the first publication of Sir Isaac Newton's Principia, p. 66

The Birth of a New Physics



 * "When Newton declined to credit authors who tossed off general statements without being able to prove them mathematically or fit them into a valid framework of dynamics, he was quite justified in saying, as he did of Hooke's claims: "Now is not this very fine? Mathematicians that find out, settle, and do all the business must content themselves with being nothing but dry calculators and drudges; and another, that does nothing but pretend and grasp at all things, must carry away all the invention, as well of those that were to follow him as of those that went before".


 * In any event, by January 1684 Halley had concluded that the force acting on planets to keep them in their orbits "decreased in the proportion of the squares of the distances reciprocally"


 * "Newton's" First Law: first stated by Descartes and printed postumously in his ''Principles of Philosophy" 1644.


 * "Newton was therefore correct in his judgment that Hooke did not really understand the consequences of his guess that the attractive force varies as the inverse square of the distance and that he did not therefore deserve credit for the law of Universal gravity. This would have seemed all the more true in that Newton was aware that he did not need Hooke to suggest to him the inverse-square character of the force. Hooke's claim to the in- verse-square law has masked Newton's far more fundamental debt to him, the analysis of curvilinear orbital motion. In asking for too much credit, Hooke effectively denied to himself the credit due him for a seminal idea".

Meteorology
"Hooke was our first meteorologist" 'Espinasse, p 50 https://archive.org/details/roberthooke0000marg/page/50/mode/2up?view=theater

Vivisection
"I shall hardly be induced to make further trials of this kind, because of the torture of the creature" (Hooke to Boyle, 10 November 1664, cited in 'Espinasse, p 52)

Harv problems
ref= works!

Double Dutch
Help with translating a section from an nl.wikipedia article that confuses Google Translate and Microsoft Translate, please? This is a bit wicked I know but I wonder if anyone can spare a few moments to help with a difficult translation, please? The vocabulary is obscure in both languages, which doesn't help. We are working to get Neoplasticism (Piet Mondriaan, Theo van Doesburg and others) up to GA standard: the article borrows heavily from nl:Nieuwe Beelding. We (well, Google and Microsoft) are struggling with this paragraph from nl:Nieuwe Beelding: "In zijn "Grondbegrippen der nieuwe beeldende kunst" stelt Van Doesburg vast dat in de kunstgeschiedenis twee soorten kunstwerken te onderscheiden zijn: kunstwerken die voortkomen uit de idee (ideo-plastische kunst) en kunstwerken die voortkomen uit de materie (physio-plastische kunst). Hij toont dit aan met een beeld van de Egyptische god Horus en een Diadumenos. Van Doesburg, maar vooral ook Mondriaan, voorspelden dat alle kunsten in de toekomst zouden verzinnelijken en alleen nog maar uit de idee zouden voortkomen. Het gevolg hiervan was dat de voorstelling (het object, de natuur) van ondergeschikt belang was. Het eindstadium van dit proces was de abstracte kunst. De kunstenaars van De Stijl gingen echter nog een stap verder en probeerden hun werk langs rationele weg te zuiveren van alles wat nog enigszins aan de natuur herinnerde."

The problem is the word verzinnelijken. Google Translate renders that as "In his 'Basic Concepts of New Visual Art', Van Doesburg establishes that two types of works of art can be distinguished in art history: works of art that arise from the idea (ideo-plastic art) and works of art that arise from matter (physio-plastic art). He demonstrates this with an image of the Egyptian god Horus and a Diadumenos. Van Doesburg, but especially Mondriaan, predicted that all arts in the future would become 'reified and would only arise from ideas. The result of this was that the representation (the object, nature) was of secondary importance. The final stage of this process was abstract art. However, the artists of De Stijl went one step further and tried to rationally purify their work of everything that was still somewhat reminiscent of nature." So now the Dutch word verzinnelijken means in context "reified"! If you translate only "verzinnelijken" (in double quotes) then it comes out as "to symbolise". If you type in 'verzinnelijken' (in single quotes) then it comes out as 'represent'. All of which is meaningless. And translate.bing.com suggests Van Doesburg, but especially Mondrian, predicted that in the future all the arts would 'symbolize' and would only emerge from the idea.
 * 1) "Reified" makes no sense whatsoever in this context.
 * 2) "All arts in the future would become symbolised" makes little sense but maybe "All arts in the future would be symbolic"? It certainly can't mean the (by then) very old-fashioned Symbolist movement.
 * 3) "Become represented"? No, another dead end.

Right of way
I drafted this "I wonder if we have hit a problem of en.UK v en.US usages? In the UK, the term 'right of way' (except at road junctions) is used exclusively to mean the right to walk, ride or row across third party land. Vehicular transit is invariably precluded unless by a very restricted bilateral agreement between neighbours (that could be centuries old). Roads are not 'rights of way' in British law; they are public highways open to all traffic. Railway lines and canals are state owned: the land on which they run was first compulsorily purchased (en.US: eminent domain) by Act of Parliament and subsequently nationalised. In the UK, long-distance trails [e.g, the Cotswold Way) were mainly created by chaining existing rights of way; there are some special cases like the Thames path through London where the relevant London Boroughs used their planning powers to require redevelopers to make available a transit route as a condition of planning consent. I think I recall that the Welsh government used compulsory purchase to complete the Wales Coastal Path." but suddenly realised it is about the "public throughway" article, not about the "property access" article, which is where RWood wrote the post that prompted it. So saving it here as I expect that I will need to use it later.