Is there a difference in tone or meaning between accidentally and inadvertently? I feel like accidentally means they did something that was a bad thing.
Mr Bob Ross would like a word…
I agree with you on inadvertently, but accident, if I’m not mistaken would generally considered something where you do not inherently attribute blame. At least thats what I recall being justification for making the change in UK in calling traffic ‘incidents’ incidents instead of accidents several years back. Dunno if it stuck though.Interesting. Although I still maintain that accident bears a negative connotation, even though blame isn’t necessarily a factor. As if the outcome was a negative thing, rather than a positive, as in this case.
They accidentally became climate change wackos supporting a communist agenda to make everyone gay and push taxes supporting public transportation.
Hmm not necessarily, accidentally has no negative implication unlike accident usually has. In this particular case the meaning of accidentally is synonym with unexpectedly or by chance.
My question was a bit rhetorical. In my opinion there is a negative connotation to accidentally in this case as well. I would personally use a different word. 👍
Aww, shit. Now there’s record all over the floor… I’ll go get the data bin…
You got the statistimop there as well? (I’m reaching…)
Love the user name, by the way. 👌
Thanks! You can have it!
Edit: I like eating poops. Yum yum.
2nd Edit: @victorz@lemmy.world why would you write something that like???
Was going to say this myself and then saw your comment. Totally agree. ‘Accidently’ practically implies that the record keeping itself only happened because some pencils happened to fall on paper. They did exactly what they intended to and used it for their own purpose. It just turned out to have a different purpose, too.
That’s an even better way of looking at it, to avoid “accidentally”. Great point!
Accidents don’t have to be bad? Accident means just “not on purpose” it has no connotation either way
Right. When someone is accused of something, and they say “But it was an accident!”, that’s exactly what it means.
But if you shit yourself and say “I had an accident.”, that’s not what it means. Or you call your parents and say, “I was in an accident.”
It has different connotations and in this case I’m conflicted, and therefore I would’ve chosen a different word.
I had an inadvertent!
I’m not reading any negative connotation at all.
For what it’s worth, those examples for ‘accident’ are being used as euphemisms to soften the blow of the intended message, and you can’t soften the blow without using soft words.
Car accidents have noun-ified the word a bit, though, so I do see where you’re coming from.
Surely “car accidents” aren’t the only way it’s been “noun-ified”?
Even the Latin form would mean “misfortune”.
I’m sorry, I don’t speak Latin.
You… don’t need to be able to in order to follow along here. I provided an image as well. 👍
Mate, I’m familiar with the history of the word. I don’t read any negative connotations in the form OP is using.
Incidentally would be more accurate perhaps.
I looked up the definitions of incidentally and inadvertently, and inadvertently is a better fit IMO.
I salute you. Few are those who take the time to find appropriate word for the meaning.
🫡❤️
I agree, but I think here “accidentally” is used in an ironic manner because this is of course not actually a bad thing.
Depends on who you ask.
I’m asking someone who has insight 😅
Is that dataset up anywhere as a CSV?
I’d really love to build a lesson around it!
Thank you so much!
Well, glaciers keep the longest climate datasets, it’s just in a format that takes some work to translate.
citation for claim that it’s the longest-dated climate dataset?
It’s not the longest climate dataset, but it may be the longest directly recorded by humans. All of these types of data are climate proxies (alternate indicators we can use to gain information about historic climates), the longest of which are ice core measurements.
Idk, egyptian priests kept records of the groundwater levels to predict the nile flood times to keep the peasants in check, and that could count as a climate dataset that far predates and is longer than this.
Do you have a citation for a longer-dated climate dataset?
that’s not how burden of proof works; it’s not “my fantastic claim is true until you can prove it false”
EDIT: <checks mod history> oof, blocked 👋
If someone posts a record of climate data dating back to the year 812, and you demand a citation specifically for the claim that it’s the longest-dated climate dataset, then yeah the burden of proof absolutely works the other way around.
It’s a climate dataset, and it’s freaking old. Unless you can point to one that’s older, it’s the oldest one.
EDIT: <checks mod history> oof, blocked 👋
What, really? People do this?
And why, is it the comment chain where I was saying Adam Schiff has a more consistent track record than Chuck Schumer and other milquetoast establishment Dems, and therefore not the right target for ire? Or the one where I was arguing with someone who was being a bigot under a thin veneer of “feminism”, who pretty consistently stated quite plainly that my feelings don’t matter because I’m a guy and men’s feelings don’t matter so I should just suck it up and not be offended (which is literally toxic masculinity, not feminism)? Or did you scroll all the way down to where a mod called me sexist for responding to a post (that was literally asking why there aren’t more media depictions of positive male role models) by saying that depictions of positive male role models get shunned and canceled because they don’t conform to the narrative that all men are inherently toxic?
Either way, it seems like a silly thing to do, checking someone’s mod history over a simple comment that you happen to disagree with. Especially when your own mod history includes posting unreliable sources to a news comm, being rude to someone for being a guy, getting banned from egg_irl for bioessentialist takes, and apparently… posting NSFW images of… checks notes… “applying lube like condiments on a hotdog”… in a SFW community…
So… you know what they say about glass houses and throwing rocks, right? …
Sounds like a conspiracy theory. Everyone knows climate is a hoax.
/s.
Grind the whole planet into dust and show me one particle of climate. There’s no such thing
Link to a source would be nice.
Seems interesting, but without a source it’s just noise.Looks like FT to me. Also there are citations in the fine prints.
Doesn’t look like much of a trend from the thumbnail. It’s just noise. Cool dataset though.
