Eh, you wouldn’t use the noun water to refer to atoms of water. ‘How many waters are there?’ to refer to atoms of water is the statement of someone deranged

Depends on if you’re using water to include types of water (if, like a maniacal madman, you have mixed Evian, Buxton and Harrogate mineral water into one jug). Then ‘i mixed fewer waters’ or ‘there are fewer waters in that glass’ would be valid.

To be clear: I’m not the person you replied to, just someone who finds it quite interesting (in the same way that the plural fishes is valid if you’re talking about different species of fish).

And yes, I know prescriptivism is bad, but also it is quite fun.

Seems to be the general consensus. Thanks all for the help!

There’s any number of reasons. They might have a friend who uses Reddit who sent it to them. They might have replied on Reddit, and also have thought it worth broadcasting to their shitter followers as well. They might browse Reddit on desktop but not have an account.

It’s also just commonly done in UK newspapers. Age and familial status is always given. Terry Pratchett made a joke about it in one of his books, though I can’t remember the quote.

Edit: found one (not exactly the gag I wanted but CBA to look further)

‘Exc–’ he began. But the citizen’s eyes had already detected the notebook. ‘I saw it all,’ he said. ‘Did you?’ ‘It was a ter-ri-ble scene,’ said the man, at dictation speed. ‘But the watch-man made a deathdefying plunge to res-cue the old lady and he de-serves a med-al.’ ‘Really?’ said William, scribbling fast. ‘And you are–’ ‘Sa-muel Arblaster (43), stonemason, of The Scours,’ said the man. ‘I saw it too,’ said a woman next to him, urgently. ‘Mrs Florrie Perry, blonde mother of three, from Dolly Sisters. It was a scene of car-nage.’

There’s a pretty obvious difference between a kid who’s 12, and someone you could reasonably mistake for being an adult (UK age of consent is 16).

Dunno about you, but when I was 19 the thought of raping a child never crossed my mind. He’s spent less than a year in prison, and hasn’t repented for what he did. Redemption has to at the very least come with an understanding that what he did was wrong.

Edit: slightly more than a year; 13 months

deleted by creator

Coming from a transport modeller, the title of this article is incredibly flawed, and the write up should row back a bit.

The study itself seems great; looking in detail at the carbon cost of a transport mode throughout its lifecycle. However, it emphatically shouldn’t be used to inform transport policy on its own.

This will have a focus on the UK, as this is what I’m familiar with.

Rail schemes, particularly heavy rail, has massively high start up costs due to all the engineering that has to go in place (because if rail goes wrong, it tends to go very wrong, and so the rail industry and legislation is naturally very cautious).

We don’t just need to get to net zero; we need to get to net zero fast. Bus rapid transit is much faster to get off the ground, and can be electrified by putting batteries in and having quick charging at certain stops and, crucially, has a capx that a cash strapped local government is more likely to swallow.

Isn’t this referring to rail lines? I’ve never heard roads referred to as lines.

Today we’re preoccupied with getting rid of the Tories – so finally we’ll be able to unite in celebrating 4th July!

Someone read the prince :P

Believable. However there is a convincing case to be made that tea is demi

Dehydration is ace

And when I give thrwe short blasts, well… pensis

Yeah I suckle on yer pa’s nips – what of it?

merci

Hey baby, are you a werewolf? Because I want you to

#eat me

Edit: aw, # no make things big :(

What are cathedrals but the lungs with which the masses breathe their opium?

(/s)

If you look at the light that’s been refracted through the bottle, it looks kinda like a cathedral.