Quantum Typos - Priority: LOW

Saw a "must read" article making its way around Facebook. It was written with the hope of correcting the misuse of ten scientific terms that apparently scientists are sick of us laypeople using incorrectly. I wonder how those same scientists would feel about Annalee Newitz's apparent inability to proofread her articles?

First I want to address the fact that this is not actually Newitz speaking here. This is a quote from David Goldberg. Without knowing how Newitz conducted the interview I'm not sure if I should blame her for transcribing their conversation incorrectly or if I should blame her for not checking Goldberg's email for typos before including it in her article. Either way, I blame Newitz. Gotta be clear on that.

Now from my perspective there's two things that Newitz could do to fix the offending excerpt:

    1. Add "much" before "smart".

I'm no scientist so I have no idea if "smart" is something that can be quantified and is needed in order to collapse wave functions. If that's the case then the corrected sentence should read, "How much smart do you need to collapse a wave function?" 

I don't know, I'm guessing about 6 cups of smart.

    2. Add the verb "be" after "to".

This seems, to me, to be the obvious choice to fix this sentence. "How smart do you need to be to collapse a wave function?" Clearly one needs to be smart to collapse a wave form, but how smart? Indeed it is something we have all wondered.

Lastly, "wave form" is two words. Not one. You'd think someone writing for a website like io9 would get that right.

In all honesty, I'm sure no one noticed this minor typo. I mean, this article is intended for people who apparently don't understand things like quantum uncertainty or even what "organic" really means. I doubt any of their readers are scouring the internet looking for tiny insignificant typos to write about on their blogs. Nope, just me.

Anyways, this typo is low priority. If it's never fixed Newitz's article won't suffer (much). She'll most likely keep her sweet job writing for a website that people actually visit, even if she is just regurgitating things that made their way around the internet MONTHS AGO.

Cat desk.

Repetitions Repeat Themselves

Here's the original article over at CNN. Now you may read that article and think, "There's no typos there. What's the issue?"

Well here's the issue: CNN reporter Jill Martin got just a little cosy with a particular phrase.

"A person familiar with Sterling's legal strategy." Well that seems like a perfectly sensible person to information from and cite as a source. Sounds like crack journalism so far, what's the problem?

Okay, they cited the same thing again only now it's a source instead of a person. Again, so what?

What? Now they're back to being a person again? C'mon, Jill, make up your mind! Or is the person/source page of your thesaurus stuck to the front of your monitor and you can't think to type anything else?

Hokay, I get it. So basically you have once source and you just alternate between calling them a "source" or a "person" every other paragraph so it doesn't sound too repetitive. I get it. I really do. But maybe next time you can talk to someone who will actually give you their name. I mean honestly, who the fuck needs protection from Donald Sterling so bad they have to hide their identity? You'd think they were giving sworn testimony against Tommy DeVito or something.

Look, Jill wrote an excellent article, and honestly I have zero business critiquing a writer for CNN.com, I honestly just haven't seen any glaring typos online in the past few days and needed something to gripe about. Jesus, I can't even stick to insulting people anonymously via a blog that hardly anyone reads. What's wrong with me?

I'm gonna go read some more.

It's Not A Big Deal, Collider.com, But Dammit It's James Fucking Cameron! - Minor Typo

Am I nitpicky? Has this lost it's charm? I mean I get it, it's just an apostrophe. Who cares? I'm sure Collider.com gets way more page views than my rinky-dink blog. Who am I to point out their faults? Should I not be more preoccupied with the wooden plank in mine own eye? Well I'm not. I fucking care. A lot.

Here's the article in question.

First, let me tell you something: James Cameron wrote and directed some of the best sci-fi films of my childhood. If he can make a glowing CGI water-serpent in the 80's, then the people at Collider.com can have an intern proofread this shit before hitting "Publish" on their goddamn blog.

Do you need me to walk you through this? You take out the apostrophe and it says, "These direct to video movies that we are so sleazy." In what regional English dialect does that make any sort of remote fucking sense? Huh? Did your subconscious join the conversation for a second to tell the world how sleazy you are? Is that what happened?

Look, I get it. You're up at 3AM working on no sleep, you're on your fifth cup of coffee, and you got a 8 o'clock deadline for a boss who would fire you if the next six idiots in line for your job weren't even more illiterate than you are. I get it. 

I'm sorry, I don't want to be angry. Just, can you do me a favor? For a moment, could you pretend you're in high school all over again and read your shit out loud? It'll make the world a better place for everyone.

Cool, now get out of here and go write some more crap for me to read.