falsprofet

Oxford dictionary is not a primary source, and if I'm not mistaken, they subscribe to the descriptive persuasion, i.e. collecting lexemes as they are in use, especially the online version, and others use it as prescriptive source.

All I see is "I always thought it was make do, because that fits better into my primary vocabulary and I don't speak French so I don't know how to pronounce dew, I mean do, err I mean ... that's just like your opinion, man".

I liked the comment noting the uptick (up take?) of make-do after WW2 much better -- which coincided with the invasion of often underedumacated Americans into Europe.

Here's a nice quote

... which shows how careful the Poet was to make due provision for his amendment.

If you had met due dilligence and followed through from the ngram search I linked before, you'd find plenty more sources from before 1660 like that, one with make do from 1660, and plenty american usage after 1945.

You double checked second hand sources which don't link to primary sources, so at best you are speculating (that) I were wrong, thank you very much.

Edit: And either way, I didn't contest make do as it is used now, I merely hinted at a different origin. So, by that line of reasoning, if make due is in use, it is correct simply by merit of custom, as well.

PS: And this is why these comments are frowned upon, they invariably lead to discussion without a slight chance of consensus.

PPS: But since I tried it already, googles index of old books shows a CLEAR preference for make due. In my opinion though, I'd settle on neither is correct, just like shortenings like "I'd" aren't correct to use in writing.

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=make+do%2C+mak...

Stress being on where - and not only but also on when. Due is from times when French was hip and foxy at the court royal. I'm sure you can tell many first hand tales about that. Wherever in the many different English speaking parts of the world you are.

edit: more to the point, "dues" is pronounced "doos" in one dialect or another, I assure you. This is because it has nothing to do with "mountain dew".

I wouldn't be so sure. "To make due" seems correct to me, as a foreign speaker, because the grammar suggests a noun phrase as object, because it works en lieu "to settle debt". It's easy to see how french-illiterate anglophones would mishear due as do. So I guess you make do now. And I have to ask how are you making do today?

yeah, and if you don't like the law [1], you can leave the country, except that there's no where to go. People are basically telling each other to kill themselves. It's really sad. Oh what's that, you can just try to change the law? What if laws concerning access to law making are concerned, for example? Right back to begging "your local congress man", which is a joke in my opinion, because there's no accountability. That's not just an analogy, there might be laws concerning your provider. For some, there is just one provider available and the law might enable its monopolistic position.

I don't know, but constant as a function return value signature does not make much sense at all.

Which is a rather rough translation, as its missing the relation to Volk. Which is tricky to translate, but nevertheless detailed in the law and officially translated: "... hatred against a national, racial, religious group or a group defined by their ethnic origins, against ...".

For one anecdote, webmasters are held liable for comments hosted on their discussion platforms, if there's no moderation.

Could be the regenerated heads learn faster because they are fresh, just like after a good night of sleep.

Historically the soul was seen sitting in the heart or the diaphragm, the chest basically, as far as I know. Because the torso exhibits features looking like a face (nipples as eyes and so on) which works to scare animals, at least. Therefore, as far as there is a concept, its should be stronly tied to the torso, from a developmental perspective. Decapitation is a rather archaic practice, anyway.

Addendum: The set of cuts would then include all points of the 2D-surface. So in principle, as the number of cuts approaches real infinity (pun intended; if you might call it that) the area left between the cuts approaches zero. That's certainly not infinite. But this cannot be done with only circle and straight edge - thus in no system of only two dimensions, pretty much by analogy - yikes - I mean the apparent isomorphism between Cartesian and polarized coordinate-systems is the only one I know in 2D.

Certainly, cutting is the arch example of proportional rationing, so the word alone implies rational numbers. Then, cutting is the act of removing a set of points from one set. So, the same construction over the real line but circled only a quarter around a midpoint is effectively removing two quandrants, half of the circle. So then you could say you have two infinite sets, but exactly because they don't touch (interact with) each other.

I don't know either, but I read on HN some time ago that the size of a CD were comparable to ... I don't even know, a human genome. So, assuming that's a lower bound, 1% of 600MB is still 48 million bits. 2^48 would be the number of different strings representable with 48MB, but maybe not all of those will be viable.

2^42 is a number so large, it seems highly unlikely. The world population today is only 2^33. There might be - must be - multiple paths leading to the same person, for many persons. In any pedigree.

If you take a pragmatic stance and consider only what you can measure, then the observable universe is certainly limited. And the rest is, as you pointed out, a matter of semantics.

This part of the Hitchhikers' Guide might not have aged well, but because it contributed to that effect.

Wouldn't you get aleph_1 divisions, if, by methods left as exercise to the reader, making a cut for each real number? For example, how many angles are there in a circle? But the real kicker is, that taking the 2D surface of a ball, certainly the area is finite even if there are no bounds at all.

I guess everyone is forced to believe something un-provable about life

Looking at all of those galaxies forces you to come to terms with how little any of us really know for sure.

Only if you are forced to look at all that - in detail - and since that's not essential to a mundane life, there is no obligation to believe anything much.

I mean, I'm trying to make a point about believe in distinction to knowledge. There is yet a weaker modus operandi, which I'd call awareness for now, but that's a loaded term, too. If you hold two thoughts about contradicting possibilities in mind at the same time, that's not believe. Believe happens when externalities force a decision, also called leap of faith. Then you choose to believe in one possibility. Knowledge on the other hand means the possibility of round about 1.