Why are we still discussing $$$? If we’re going as far as UBI, let’s look at basing a society on something other than access to capital. We can form our own little Kibbutz where we emphasize mutual aid and communal enterprise. What greater motivation does a person need than the satisfaction of work, concern for community, competition for prestige, and praise from other community members? Aside from shitting on our enemies as soon as they take a knee.
Do you think those landlords behavior would have changed if a stimulus didn’t go out? Like they would have not tried collecting money?
Similar for other foodstuffs, e.g. “meat”, “cheese”. They can be singular or plural uncountable, whereas “fruits”, “meats”, “cheeses” are plural countable. Uncountable nouns usually take a singular verb (e.g. water, liquid, herd). “People” is an interesting exception. “Company” seems to take either. English is weird.
I don’t know any of the above for a fact btw, just an educated guess.
Just explain it this way: if it’s “fewer”, it’s cheeses, if it’s “less”, it’s cheese 
Reminds me of when I was 4-5 and my step-mom explained division to me as “the inverse function of multiplication”.
“Descriptive grammarians” can fuck off. What’s next, “descriptive mathematicians” telling us that 0.9 recurring is actually not equal to 1? Or maybe “descriptive probability experts” explaining how tails is more likely to come up after a streak of heads.
You been reading diebitter’s posts again?
I was being a tad facetious. Much like anyone driving slower than I am is a pussy, and anyone driving faster is a maniac, I am quite self-evidently the most qualified arbiter of when descriptive grammar is, and is not appropriate.
“More” is not fine for both. It’s two different words, which happen to be homophones and homographs. One is used for discrete/countable quantities, the other for continuous/ucnountable quantities. Prove me wrong 
1 Like
Lol, no. For real?
Yup. I did a trawl through his posting history once when he’d pissed me off about Brexit, and found a couple of gems, namely
- Used to teach maths at college
- 0.9 recurring is not equal to 1
Jeez. It should be relatively easy to prove this to anyone with a modicum of mathematical understanding. Anyone who teaches maths in any capacity and thinks this should be summarily fired and sent away to the gulags for re-education, though.
I think the inference is that like many forumites he’s FoS when it comes to facts about himself.
1 Like
Wait, so you’re saying this dude might not really teach neuroscience? Well, that’s awkward.
1 Like
By the way, the traditional method of proving 0.999… = 1 by multiplying by 10 then subtracting, while intuitive, is totally invalid, since it contains a hidden assumption which basically presupposes the very thing about infinite series that it’s trying to prove in the first place.
Nazis*
I remember from school something simple like
1/3 = 0.333…
so 3/3 = 3 * 0.333… = 0.999…
so 1 = 0.999…
though that was just for kids and I’m sure there are more sophisticated proofs “which this margin is too narrow to contain”.
Second step also pretty much contains the same assumption as I mentioned above. You’re already assuming that 0.9999… = 3/3 = 1. It’s not really proving anything.
The defining characteristic of language is it is always changing. Grammar Nazis are asking water to be less wet.
1 Like
Yes, it’s much easier to explain it this way than it is to explain how to prove a geometric series converges and work out its sum from first principles, that is certainly true.
.
1 Like