They did use Y-cruncher.
Edit: Some other fun tidbits: most of that 2.2 petabytes of storage wasn’t actually used to store the 300 trillion digits itself - that number of digits fits in like 170 terabytes (which LTT is thinking of making available as a download, lol) - it’s actually used as pseudo-ram during the actual calculation.
I wanted to just post the video, which has a lot more information (though not the kind of info you’re looking for), but I didn’t know if an LTT video was an “official” enough source for this community.
I suppose this was probably the first time that all of the digits of pi up to 300 trillion were calculated, even if the 300 trillionth specifically was already known.
Yeah, liberal/left subs definitely don’t do that.
True, but as usual, that’s offset elsewhere in the grammar (and a binary or ternary noun class system doesn’t really introduce that much complexity).
English still has number distinctions with multiple irregular patterns (and plural/collective distinctions like “fish/fish/fishes”), and even lesser recognized animacy distinctions that must take up some space in the grammar too (“my face” is fine, but “the face of mine” is odd, while “the clock’s face” and “the face of the clock” are both fine).
One example of such a process is subregular patterns getting extended instead of always levelling toward the most productive constructions.
In many southern dialects, for example, even though the productive past tense is the “-ed” past (just like it is in all modern varieties of English), and so we normally would expect to get regularization like “cleave/clove/cloven” > “cleave/cleaved/cleaved”, we instead in these dialects get irregular examples like “bring/brought/brought” being regularized not to expected productive “bring/bringed/bringed”, but rather “bring/brang/brung” on the pattern of “sing/sang/sung”, “drink/drank/drunk”, etc.
Extending subregularities like this can cause irregular patterns to persist and grow stronger over time.
I suppose that technically this isn’t introducing a new irregularity so much as it is helping an older one persist, but it’s a similar process.
Other recent innovations include things like Canadian and northern US English “I’m done my homework”, northern positive anymore (“Anymore, I go to the store on Fridays”), and prepositional “because” (“I can’t come tonight, because homework”).
Again, this isn’t exactly the development of new irregular morphology (word-building rules) specifically, but these are analogous processes elsewhere in the grammar.
It’s also worth mentioning that English is becoming more and more of an isolating language over time (a language with less morphology/word-building processes), and so we’d expect irregular morphology specifically to become less common in these systems over time.
That was kinda rambly, and way more than you asked for - I hope it made some sort of sense.
It isn’t though.
It may seem like it is, but English is actually becoming more regular over time in many dialects.
Dialects dropping the 3rd person singular -s, dropping irregular (and even regular!) plurals, dialects eliminating the subjunctive, and past tense/participle distinctions. In the phonology you have marked features like English’s interdental fricatives going away as well. All of these processes are producing less marked and more regular structures across the English-speaking world.
As always, there are processes countering these and introducing more irregularity, but as cattywampas mentioned, these are the sorts of processes that all languages are always undergoing. English really isn’t special - it’s just a natural language like any other.
The New York Times mini crossword for today
Do you know what happens to a toad joke when it’s struck by lightning?
“Open sounds” (which, I assume, refers to continuants) and bilabial sounds aren’t mutually exclusive.
When you pronounce the /w/ at the beginning of “one”, your lips round (purse) and touch each other at the corners, but they don’t form a full closure. So, the oral tract is still open, but the articulators (moving mouth parts) are still touching.
This could be reworded as “the middle of your lips don’t touch each other”, but multiple commenters are correct in that your lips absolutely do touch each other when you say “one” in English.
Regardless of the severity of the offense, sovereign nations ultimately have the right to decide who is or is not allowed into their countries.
If someone finds you trespassing in their garden, they make you leave. If you’re drunk in Kroger, once again, they make you leave. This is perfectly in keeping with the nature of the crime - if you’re in a place where you’re not allowed to be, including nations, you have to leave.
I fully agree with a legal path to emigrate to any and all countries, but only if done ahead of time and through the proper legal channels. (And it goes without saying that once those channels have been gone through, resident status should not be revoked without serious reason to do so, followed by due process.)
Breaking a country’s laws by entering illegally is already serious evidence against your being a good citizen; plus, regardless of how good a citizen you are, countries have a right to decide which non-citizens are or are not allowed to enter their countries in the first place, based on any and all conditions they alone deem relevant.
If you break in to my house and then ask me for a job, even if you’d be the best worker in the world, I’m still gonna respond with, “Get the hell out of my house”, and I’d be right to do so.
There shouldn’t be a path to legality - that just incentivizes more illegal immigration, because they know they’ll get residency eventually.
To be clear, I think what’s going on in El Salvador is abhorrent, and that at this point ICE is basically the Gestapo, but that doesn’t mean that countries shouldn’t have the right to decide who is and who isn’t allowed across their borders.
If I illegally crossed the border into Canada because I don’t like what Trump is doing, for example, they have every right to kick me out.
From what the article says, it seems like that should read, “Being in the country illegally has Detroit woman facing deportation”.
Blink. Winks are voluntary.
From the last answer, it sounds like they would only need to turn in their SIM card.
I wasn’t talking about a trade surplus - I was talking about the huge amount of extra money that we throw away every year on wasteful, nepotistic military contracts with little to no return.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/08/us/reddit-race-black-people-twitter.html