I personally know people that would claim a phoneless phone is useful, right away, without having used the device once, as long at it was released by Apple.
You mean that it is just as bad if not more, right?
Because it is making Einstein out to be some sort of rebel like who wants things to be "relative" as if it is a religion or philosophy of some sort.
Relativity is just what he discovered, not some ideology he set out to prove or invented.
Then the author goes on to try and apply this relativity to all aspects of the world, try to make puns on it despite Einstein specifically telling him that it is explicitly only about those physical and mechanical facts.
It is like the whole article author tried to apply this idea in the exact way Einstein was annoyed about, perpetuating the same misunderstanding described.
exactly, plus the author's warped understanding, like einstein reinventing the wheel for every equation to make it "more" perfect, whatever that means; or in multiple instances, drawing up conclusions and asking them, or presenting these as facts in the article.
or one article being split on 5 pages so I can see some ads in-between (not really the author's fault there though).
Choice of appropriate notation can absolutely make one version of a formula "more perfect" than another. Maxwell's equations underwent a painstaking "evolutionary" process as vector notation improved.
Ditto for proofs; it's not hard to believe that Albert Einstein could prove a theorem from scratch and end up with a better argument than one found in a previous textbooks.
The fatal flaw in the article, rather, is exemplified by the quote
> With the advent of Einstein, mathematics ceased to be an exact science in the fashion of Euclid.
Which I am in complete disagreement with. Einstein exploited elegant, novel (at the time), anything but inexact mathematical tools for his theory. That the theory posits uncertainty and, well, relativity of real-world phenomena has no bearing on the exactitude of mathematics. If anyone ever put a dent in that, it should be Gödel :)
Einstein initially wanted to emphasize the 'invariance' aspect, used Invarianz-Theorie in correspondence, and said about the proliferation of 'relativity': "I admit that it is unfortunate and has given rise to philosophical misunderstandings."
There are serious allegations that Einstein stole the work of Henri Poincaré and Hermann Minkowski because he had access and the right to review their work before anyone else did.
It is well known and absolutely not a secret that Einstein "stole" from fellow scientists and mathematicians. That's the whole "shoulders of giants" thing and how science typically works. If you study relativity, you will stumble upon the names of Poincaré (Poincaré group) and Minkowski (Minkowski metric) as well as others, like Lorenz (Lorenz transformation).
What Einstein is credited for is applying all these maths to the real world, coming up with a theory that is based on observations and testable.
The last paragraphs really are beautifully written:
"When he ascends to his attic, she does not cling to his coat tails. When he wishes to be alone, she completely eliminates herself from his life. She spares him disharmonious contacts and protects the serenity of his mind with the devotion of a vestal virgin guarding the sacred fire.
It is by no means impossible that with a less-sacrificing mate, Einstein would not have made the discoveries which link his name with the immortals. Thus love, that moves the sun and all the stars, sustains in its lonely path the genius of Albert Einstein."
I saw people reuse the same mask for weeks, cloth or surgical. I think this is what some of the "experts" were referring to, that is even more dangerous than being maskless
Roman type has roots in Italian printing of the late 15th and early 16th centuries, but Times New Roman's design has no connection to Rome or to the Romans.
It was created by the descendants of the Romans, in the same physical location as Ancient Rome, and based on the numerous examples of letters that were still around on Roman buildings.
If that is “no connection” what exactly would a “connection” look like?
I'll admit I'm no typeface expert, but this seems to miss the point. Wikipedia's own page on Roman type [0] says "Roman type was modelled from a European scribal manuscript style of the 15th century, based on the pairing of inscriptional capitals used in ancient Rome with Carolingian minuscules". And visually, there's clearly an influence, though many centuries removed. My point is merely these very old typefaces remain modern looking because we still use similar ones today.
The capital letters were indeed inspired by Roman monumental inscriptions. But all the lower case forms were taken from Carolingian designs. Humanists wanted to copy Roman forms to go back to what they saw as writing uncontaminated with medieval influence, but the texts of Roman authors they used to do so were not actually written by Romans but copied by Carolingian-era scribes. It's why its generally much easier for us to read ninth-century texts than, say, earlier (e.g., Merovingian chancery script, yikes) and later scribal hands (e.g., late medieval Gothic).
"If my grandmother had wheels, she could have been a bicycle." Serif type is based on the use of chisels to carve rock. ANY other semblance is purely speculative. The trademark for Times New Roman is owned by the British, not the Italians.
