Comments by "Laurence Fraser" (@laurencefraser) on "Today I Found Out" channel.

... which would be great if the changes made Sense, but they're often utter nonsense that actually worsens communication.
13
@cortster12 at least one claim of a state having "more ballots than eligible voters" was utter bunk, because it compared ballots from This election to eligible voters from Last election. Use this election's eligible voter numbers instead and the problem vanishes, and turn-out numbers line up with everywhere else (higher than usual, but not unreasonably so.) Wouldn't be surprised to see the same thing being the case in other instances of such claims.
3
@dieselfan7406 Using 'Accidental', in one form or another, as a verb is not normal/proper/correct/whatever in Formal English, in any dialect speech, but it's pretty common in casual speech these days. Usually, but not always, intended humourously.
3
Standard English orthography would indicate that (unless contraindicated by the (unmarked) stress pattern) Denis be pronounced much like a certain male organ. Thus Dennis, with the double n, where in the second n is silent and cancels the modification the i would otherwise make to the e. Much like the second d in middle, or t in letter. It's why 'cuppa' has a double p, as well.
2
@StfuFFS I can't help but think that most of them wouldn't care much unless you started draining their wallets too. Mind you, you can do That fairly easily, at least a bit, too: Use a laser printer for anything that doesn't need colour, and go to a print shop (or similar dedicated printing facility) for the rare thing that Does. Neither process involves purchasing the rip-off consumer products. It also results in a Lot less e-waste.
2
My understanding is that is Exactly how it was originally meant and used, but standard usage shifted to make that less clear.
2
@lijohnyoutube101 I'd be utterly astonished if they make it through any regulatory process without being declared light aircraft or similar and being subjected to all the regulations that implies. Consider the accidents caused by your typical driver in a Regular car... now give them an extra dimension of freedom to screw up in and make them even Faster... If you can't see the problem, well... there's not much more to say on the matter.
2
@earlgrey2130 Your point about the lamps is true... but that's not the number of parts in the mechanism, as each lamp is a separate mechanism. Rather, each lamp should be as simple as possible to reduce the chances of it failing... and then you carry three just in case they do anyway. You've not actually made the Lamps any more complicated. Arguably you've made your scuba rig (whatever the correct term is), if we treat that as a single mechanism, more complicated by having three lamps rather than one, but that's the difference between the minimum number of parts to achieve a goal of 'x' and the minimum number of parts to achieve a goal of 'x, but with minimum chance of catastrophic failure'. You still want the leat parts possible to achieve the the mechanism's purpose, you're just working with a mechanism that has a purpose for which the 'least parts possible' is a higher number.
1