This doesn't match my experience, and no dictionary I've checked says the past participle depends on the context; only that "proven" and "proved" can both be used (in any context). See e.g. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/proven#Verb
I'm not a mathematician though, so maybe this is a genuine semantic convention that neither I nor my dictionary are aware of. Maybe it's just that some mathematical style guides say to prefer "proved", for consistency, not that it really depends on the context?
It seems to me that in North American English, we use the proven participle as an adjective (almost exclusively?). So that is to say a remedy, having been proved effective, is then considered "proven effective". This usage is drilled into people's heads by advertisements.
It feels sort of like the difference between gilded and golden. Something that has been gilded now has a golden surface. Now golden has that en suffix like some participles, but isn't one. It's a pure adjective.
To people who accept "proven" as the past participle of "prove", there is no difference. The only reason it would be rejected in English writing about mathematics might be that a good many of mathematicians are also pedants for prescriptive grammar. It is not a mathematical issue whatsoever.
"RP", by the definition it was originally given, doesn't really exist any more in anyone under 70 or so. What you may now think of as "RP" is usually called Standard Southern British, or SSB.
You just need to listen to the various generations of the royal family to see that RP is effectively dead.
I read somewhere that accents “move” up the social hierarchy over time. Aspects of speech which are widely working class will eventually become traits of the upper class - while meanwhile the working cm lass have moved on.
Have you read "You don't need to work on hard problems"? I don’t entirely agree with it, and it's more targeted at early-career people, but it might be interesting to read.
.xyz (alongside some others like .top, .biz?) in particular have a reputation for phishing/malware/etc., I think because they’re among the cheapest to register.
The funny thing is, the number 1 & 2 spam/phishing/malware domains that hit my company's mail server is gmail.com and outlook.com, followed by random .com domains.
My domain block list is approaching 1,000 domains and I don't think I have a single .xyz or .biz in there. There's a few .top. But the overwhelming majority is .com.
This guy says he doesn’t understand why the issue isn’t taken more seriously, and that he’s tried to cover every possible hole in his logic. Here’s a possible reason:
None of the sources he references about the danger of the smoke itself appear to be very confident that it genuinely could kill you in 39 seconds, and they all seem to be from sites that likely have an incentive to sensationalise. Maybe he had better sources for that claim, but didn’t show them (or maybe I didn’t watch the video carefully enough), but I wasn’t convinced that it’s actually true.
But if not, It’s possible the FAA/Boeing have better data or other reasoning that makes them sure that the smoke is not that dangerous. In which case their inaction (but not necessarily their PR strategy...) seems more justifiable.
Even if it doesn't kill them, thick smoke in the cockpit is obviously going to impair pilot performance, and that's a big problem when it's most likely to happen during the most dangerous phases of flight (takeoff and landing) when they already have a lot to deal with. It seems strange to ignore it when the risk could be mitigated with a simple change of procedures.
I haven't watched this channel recently, but from what I saw I the past he seems to have a bias of reassuring the public that air travel is safe and problems are uncommon and usually not as bad as they might seem to the uninitiated. E.g. airline mechanics on the wing applying "duct tape" is normal, not shoddy maintenance.
I agree. I was going to write a similar comment. The guy is slightly in the "FAA is always right" camp, so I got surprised that he disagree now. He must be really worried.
The author is super cool. They are one of very few people to write any substantial programs in Malbolge, a programming language designed to be cryptographically hard to use (or something like that)
