{"id":2225,"date":"2009-01-21T13:47:16","date_gmt":"2009-01-21T17:47:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.chrismclaren.com\/blog\/?p=2225"},"modified":"2009-01-21T13:47:16","modified_gmt":"2009-01-21T17:47:16","slug":"language-by-example-again","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.chrismclaren.com\/blog\/2009\/01\/21\/language-by-example-again\/","title":{"rendered":"Language By Example, Again"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>As I said <a href=\"http:\/\/www.chrismclaren.com\/blog\/2008\/12\/16\/language-by-example\/\">the last time I talked about this<\/a>, several times a week I find myself saying something and I realize that while I know what it means, I don&#8217;t know <em>why<\/em> it means that. When I catch myself at this, I&#8217;m off to find out why.<\/p>\n<p>This morning brought two new examples.<\/p>\n<p>The first was &#8220;proof&#8221;. I mean &#8220;proof&#8221; in the alcoholic sense, of course. I know, as everyone does, that the &#8220;proof&#8221; of a particular booze is a number that&#8217;s twice its alcohol percentage. What I realized today is that A) I have no idea why this is called &#8220;proof&#8221;, and B) I have no idea why it&#8217;s twice the alcohol level.<\/p>\n<p>A little research turned up the very interesting explanation of why it&#8217;s called proof: apparently this comes from a British practice dating back to the 18th century, where liquor was checked to see if it was boozy enough by mixing a specified amount of the alcohol with a specified amount of the booze. If you could ignite the mixture, it was &#8220;proved&#8221; strong enough to use for the liquor ration, etc. If the mixture wouldn&#8217;t light, then there wasn&#8217;t enough alcohol in it. This, incidentally, is a lovely story with essential Man elements: booze, fire, rough measurements, and the potential for explosions.<\/p>\n<p>The point that it would light at, it turns out, is 57.15% ABV. Since they called this &#8220;100 degrees proof&#8221;, it follows from a little math that 100% alcohol was 175 degrees proof.<\/p>\n<p>What my research didn&#8217;t turn up, and which I&#8217;d love to know, is how we went from that to the modern North American 2:1 standard. In North America we don&#8217;t talk about something being &#8220;80 degrees proof&#8221; (not quite 46%ABV), but instead say &#8220;80 proof&#8221; (for 40%ABV). I can see the laws that establish this 2:1 relationship, but I can&#8217;t seem to dig up information on the point at which we switched from &#8220;degrees proof&#8221; to &#8220;proof&#8221;, and why it went from 175:100 to 2:1.<\/p>\n<p>The other one that hit me today was &#8220;vicious circle&#8221;. I think, in my head, this was defined as &#8220;one of those things that keeps repeating, which there&#8217;s no way out of&#8221;, and when I ran into a technical work today that referred to a &#8220;non-vicious circle&#8221; I was stopped. The definition I was using internally didn&#8217;t really explain how a circle could be non-vicious&#8211;I mean every circle kept repeating over and over, right?<\/p>\n<p>Turns out I was just wrong on that one, that a &#8220;vicious circle&#8221; is essentially what I, as an engineer, would call a &#8220;positive feedback loop&#8221;&#8211;that is, a series of events or operations that drives a loop in which each cycle reinforces itself. Actually, it&#8217;s a specific case of a positive feedback loop: one in which the thing that&#8217;s being reinforced is undesirable, or &#8220;bad&#8221;. There is also a &#8220;virtuous circle&#8221; in which the reinforcement leads to a desirable or or &#8220;good&#8221; result. So rather than &#8220;a cycle that is locked into repetition&#8221;, a vicious circle is more &#8220;a cycle that is locked into a repetition where each subsequent cycle follows the same pattern but <em>is worse<\/em>.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Of course, any engineer will tell you that a positive feedback loop tends, and rapidly, to an unstable state. For a vicious circle, this kind of makes sense&#8211;the negative outcomes reinforce themselves until the cycle is interrupted, or else it will inevitably lead to its own collapse. For a virtuous circle this makes less sense&#8211;that the desirable outcomes keep reinforcing themselves until some kind of positive singularity, unless interrupted. Maybe that&#8217;s the Nerd Rapture again.<\/p>\n<p>These facts brought to you by an interminable meeting about <a href=\"http:\/\/www.sei.cmu.edu\/cmmi\/general\/\">CMMI<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p class=\"excerpt\">As I said the last time I talked about this, several times a week I find myself saying something and I realize that while I know what it means, I don&#8217;t know why it means that. When I catch myself at this, I&#8217;m off to find out why. This morning brought two new examples. The first was &#8220;proof&#8221;. I mean&hellip; <a href=\"http:\/\/www.chrismclaren.com\/blog\/2009\/01\/21\/language-by-example-again\/\">Read more &rarr;<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":13,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[5],"tags":[105,319,165,159],"class_list":["post-2225","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-storytime","tag-behind-the-scenes","tag-cliche","tag-etymology","tag-thinking","xfolkentry"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p5UQvw-zT","_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.chrismclaren.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2225","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.chrismclaren.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.chrismclaren.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.chrismclaren.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/13"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.chrismclaren.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2225"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/www.chrismclaren.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2225\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2226,"href":"http:\/\/www.chrismclaren.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2225\/revisions\/2226"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.chrismclaren.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2225"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.chrismclaren.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2225"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.chrismclaren.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2225"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}