The "as if" there negates the incorrectness. As in long form - "you act as if I could care less. You're wrong, I couldn't""...as if I could care less?"
The "as if" there negates the incorrectness. As in long form - "you act as if I could care less. You're wrong, I couldn't""...as if I could care less?"
LOL - Tricky!!!!Your probably correct in you're surmise.![]()
This is how I feel with "literally" because apparently, no one ever use it to really say "literally" anymore.I know that there are linguists who say get over it, just accept it’s part of the language now.
To this, I say over my dead body. The anti-logic of that wording never ceases to fry my neurons.
Literally no-one.because apparently, no one ever use it to really say "literally" anymore.
The phrase is, "I really couldn't care less."![]()
What irks me is otherwise articulate and competent technicians on U-Toob who say things like "That [insert failed gizmo here] needs replaced."
Oy vey...![]()
That seems to be a common construction in one particular region of the US (WVa, Ohio, western PA). I hate it almost as much as I hate the regional tendency to use glottal stops instead of central consonants (e.g., "I wanted to go there but I cou'int" or "That's much beh'er!").
This is how I feel with "literally" because apparently, no one ever use it to really say "literally" anymore.
Hah! even grammar correction gets pissed off:I used to worry about all this stuff, but have since decided it is literally like King Canute who thinks the tide needs stopped, but the waves are just going to bah'er him to pieces. Today I could care less.
Straw man. The second sentence is additional to the first, and not meant to justify it. You seem to have misconstrued my post.The second sentence is not sufficient to justify the first.
That seems to be a common construction in one particular region of the US (WVa, Ohio, western PA). I hate it almost as much as I hate the regional tendency to use glottal stops instead of central consonants (e.g., "I wanted to go there but I cou'int" or "That's much beh'er!").
It seems to have spread -- one of the "offending" U-Toobers is in Wichita KS.That seems to be a common construction in one particular region of the US (WVa, Ohio, western PA). I hate it almost as much as I hate the regional tendency to use glottal stops instead of central consonants (e.g., "I wanted to go there but I cou'int" or "That's much beh'er!").
Did you never hear Sean Connery speak? He's been doing it for decades.This is where people pronounce words like street as “shtreet” or strong as “schtrong”
string as “shtring”….
Did you never hear Sean Connery speak? He's been doing it for decades.
Ugh - I never have. It's always sounded like an affectation to me.(of course people find it charming in his accent)
You misrepresent the experiments @Doodski described. The 'more hifi' amps and speakers were only different in that they allowed more SPL. Below the power limits of the mid-fi amps.... there were no differences.Got it, so mid-fi receivers through mid - fi speakers sound the same, but when using more hi-fi amps and speakers there were differences. That's what I expected and experienced. Thanks.
That's what I expected and experienced.
Also if we are expecting differences then we will be actively listening for them. And so more likely to perceive them, even if there are in fact none.Since you don't seem to be interested in reading about biases, let me say this:
To a great degree, whatever you expect, that is what you will experience. This is not true of there are very obvious and overriding characteristics under consideration, but otherwise, it's the rule for how biases work.
The magazine American Scientist, Volume 113 Number 1, January-February 2025 has an article titled: The Science of Hi-Fi Audio by John G. Beerends and Richard Van Everdingen, eight pages.
The article is behind a paywall of course but the summary seems problematic.Link to info
"QUICK TAKE
- The goal of high-fidelity audio is to capture the feeling of a live musical event. Doing so requires more than just reproducing sound accurately, without audible distortion or noise.
- Perceptual measurement techniques provide an effective way to evaluate sound quality for speech. But the techniques cannot fully capture subjective impressions of music.
- A sense of immersion is crucial for a satisfying musical experience. Most commercial systems fail in that regard; the authors propose a new solution, using both direct and diffuse sound."