Are you a one hole or two hole person? – politicalbetting.com

System

Are you a one hole or two hole person? – politicalbetting.com

How many holes are there in a straw?One: 54%Two: 42%https://t.co/GxScaapn9H pic.twitter.com/M2JD6n0R3L

Read the full story here

TheScreamingEagles

Apologies for this thread, I blame the heat for my bout of writer's block today and the inability to write a proper political/betting piece this afternoon.

Sandpit

Second hole!

Theuniondivvie

Dunno, but ianal..

IshmaelZ

Edgy, but what I want to see polling on is how much tax is payable on £26m capital gains made selling shares in an online polling company?

ydoethur

TheScreamingEagles said:

Apologies for this thread, I blame the heat for my bout of writer's block today and the inability to write a proper political/betting piece this afternoon.

I assumed it was another thread about where Boris has put his Johnson.

Flatlander

For a straw it is simple.

A person not so much. There's some dead ends and a definite hole, but what do you do with the loops?

dixiedean

Another problem for the new PM.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/aug/14/ministers-admit-hospital-buildings-england-roofs-could-collapse-any-time

Kind of thing that probably won't happen. But disastrous, and politically grievous if it did.

DecrepiterJohnL

Betfair next prime minister
1.08 Liz Truss 93%
11.5 Rishi Sunak 9%

Next Conservative leader
1.09 Liz Truss 92%
11 Rishi Sunak 9%

williamglenn

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Betfair next prime minister
1.08 Liz Truss 93%
11.5 Rishi Sunak 9%

Next Conservative leader
1.09 Liz Truss 92%
11 Rishi Sunak 9%

Has the Edwina Currie endorsement shifted the markets?

SandyRentool

Straws.

That's what Sunak is clutching at.

bigjohnowls

dixiedean said:

Another problem for the new PM.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/aug/14/ministers-admit-hospital-buildings-england-roofs-could-collapse-any-time

Kind of thing that probably won't happen. But disastrous, and politically grievous if it did.

Is this the how many holes in a typical Hospital roof thread

Final straw

Dynamo

Topology isn't everything. A hole doesn't have to go all the way through. Consider your a***hole as an example. How many holes does your alimentary canal have? The answer "One" isn't even hypercorrect. It's simply "my village is the world"-y.

How many holes does a bicycle inner tube have? "One - it's a torus". If you want to climb through it, yes. In most other contexts, no.

Language is a living thing. It's not like a f***ing computer program or code library.

"You're an a***hole".
"Something's wrong with your notation, matey. My alimentary canal hole may START where you said, but it goes all the way through to my mouth. You may as well call it my mouthhole."

CorrectHorseBattery

Why are you looking at my browsing history

DavidL

Suppose you have something in your mouth that gets on one end of the straw which adversely affects the taste. You might switch the straw around and use the "other" hole so that you can continue to drink. I am on the side of the 2 holers, I think.

OnlyLivingBoy

The answer definitely isn't two, but is the answer really one? I wouldn't say that a straw, or any tube, has a hole. Feels to me like a hole needs to be in a surface, whereas a tube has such a negligible surface at each end that the space enclosed by the tube doesn't really qualify as a hole to me.

Carnyx

Flatlander said:

For a straw it is simple.

A person not so much. There's some dead ends and a definite hole, but what do you do with the loops?

Very easy. Like un-Tories in Epping, dead ends don't count. Only through holes do, which makes it the Eustachian tubes and the nostrils plus the gut. Just count the number of hypothetical cuts needed to get to a hole-less state (admittedly very messy with the main and longest hole). Which is 5. Ergo a human is genus 5. Or 6 if you have a bad case of coke septum.

HYUFD

Interesting that on today's Ashcroft poll Ben Wallace, on -0.4%, still has a better net approval rating than Sunak on -1.5%, Truss on -1.5% and Starmer on -1.2%. His decision not to run was a big blow to the Conservative Party

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/LORD-ASHCROFT-POLLS-Leadership-survey-Aug-2022-Full-tables.xls

Stuartinromford

DavidL said:

Suppose you have something in your mouth that gets on one end of the straw which adversely affects the taste. You might switch the straw around and use the "other" hole so that you can continue to drink. I am on the side of the 2 holers, I think.

You may think it's a different hole, but it's really a continuation of the same hole. And it's likely that the unpleasant-tasting mouthfeel will come back fairly rapidly.

And that's why this is an excellent analogy for our political situation.

williamglenn

- There's a hole in my bucket.
- Of course there is, otherwise it would be a cylinder.

Carnyx

Theuniondivvie said:

Dunno, but ianal..

Quite a good pun that.

IshmaelZ

HYUFD said:

Interesting that on today's Ashcroft poll Ben Wallace, on -0.4%, still has a better net approval rating than Sunak on -1.5%, Truss on -1.5% and Starmer on -1.2%. His decision not to run was a big blow to the Conservative Party

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/LORD-ASHCROFT-POLLS-Leadership-survey-Aug-2022-Full-tables.xls

Not really like for like is it, as we haven't heard him Quiet Manning his way through the debates and hustings. I don't remember him ever saying anything, actually.

DavidL

OnlyLivingBoy said:

The answer definitely isn't two, but is the answer really one? I wouldn't say that a straw, or any tube, has a hole. Feels to me like a hole needs to be in a surface, whereas a tube has such a negligible surface at each end that the space enclosed by the tube doesn't really qualify as a hole to me.

To me, a hole is an entry or egress point by which liquid or a gas can go in or out of an object. On that basis a straw has 2 points that qualify.

Carnyx

williamglenn said:

- There's a hole in my bucket.
- Of course there is, otherwise it would be a cylinder.

Except real buckets have two holes, to put the handle throuigh, and a third hole, made by the rim and handle.

IshmaelZ

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Why are you looking at my browsing history

What's it to you?

state_go_away

If a straw or indeed a tunnel only has one hole (does the channel tunnel have only one hole?) then where is it? In the case of the channel tunnel for instance you could not state it is at Folkstone as it could easily be said it is in France.

Carnyx

DavidL said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

The answer definitely isn't two, but is the answer really one? I wouldn't say that a straw, or any tube, has a hole. Feels to me like a hole needs to be in a surface, whereas a tube has such a negligible surface at each end that the space enclosed by the tube doesn't really qualify as a hole to me.

To me, a hole is an entry or egress point by which liquid or a gas can go in or out of an object. On that basis a straw has 2 points that quaify.

Did you ever come across the Victorian cases in (both, I think) Scots law about whether

(a) black stuff that comes out of the ground and burns is coal (this was to do with the funny oil-rich stuff at Torbanehill in W. Lothian)

(b) where the sea begins and rivers end (in the context of salmon fishing, I think)?

Carnyx

state_go_away said:

If a straw or indeed a tunnel only has one hole (does the channel tunnel have only one hole?) then where is it? In the case of the channel tunnel for instance you could not state it is at Folkstone as it could easily be said it is in France.

It's in both at once at the same time, and all the way in between. Like a cosmic wormhole, in fact.

williamglenn

DavidL said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

The answer definitely isn't two, but is the answer really one? I wouldn't say that a straw, or any tube, has a hole. Feels to me like a hole needs to be in a surface, whereas a tube has such a negligible surface at each end that the space enclosed by the tube doesn't really qualify as a hole to me.

To me, a hole is an entry or egress point by which liquid or a gas can go in or out of an object. On that basis a straw has 2 points that qualify.

Polo: the mint with the holes.

Stark_Dawning

It has to be two. If you sealed off one of them then it would still have a hole, proving that they are two distinct entities.

Stuartinromford

state_go_away said:

If a straw or indeed a tunnel only has one hole (does the channel tunnel have only one hole?) then where is it? In the case of the channel tunnel for instance you could not state it is at Folkstone as it could easily be said it is in France.

If the two bits of the Channel tunnel had never joined up, there wouldn't have been any holes. Just two dents.

williamglenn

Stuartinromford said:

state_go_away said:

If a straw or indeed a tunnel only has one hole (does the channel tunnel have only one hole?) then where is it? In the case of the channel tunnel for instance you could not state it is at Folkstone as it could easily be said it is in France.

If the two bits of the Channel tunnel had never joined up, there wouldn't have been any holes. Just two dents.

So if you pay someone to dig a hole, the job isn't done until they reach China?

Sandpit

Why has ‘The Hundred’ persisted with the 1990s neon graphics, which make almost no sense to someone trying to follow the game?

(Not watching it on purpose, but sitting in a bar that has it on in the background).

IshmaelZ

williamglenn said:

Stuartinromford said:

state_go_away said:

If a straw or indeed a tunnel only has one hole (does the channel tunnel have only one hole?) then where is it? In the case of the channel tunnel for instance you could not state it is at Folkstone as it could easily be said it is in France.

If the two bits of the Channel tunnel had never joined up, there wouldn't have been any holes. Just two dents.

So if you pay someone to dig a hole, the job isn't done until they reach China?

And we no longer know whether Keynesianism works.

Stuartinromford

williamglenn said:

Stuartinromford said:

state_go_away said:

If a straw or indeed a tunnel only has one hole (does the channel tunnel have only one hole?) then where is it? In the case of the channel tunnel for instance you could not state it is at Folkstone as it could easily be said it is in France.

If the two bits of the Channel tunnel had never joined up, there wouldn't have been any holes. Just two dents.

So if you pay someone to dig a hole, the job isn't done until they reach China?

If you don't specify in advance what you actually want, you shouldn't complain too much about what you get.

Which also takes us back to current British politics.

dixiedean

Sandpit said:

Why has ‘The Hundred’ persisted with the 1990s neon graphics, which make almost no sense to someone trying to follow the game?

Could have stopped after five words.

Andy_Cooke

Is this the highest proportion of on-topic comments in any thread?
Caused by a discussion on topology?

Actually, I’m not surprised.

Stuartinromford

And because we should still be remembering the great Bernard Cribbins;

https://youtu.be/yShvgXZQBTs

Flatlander

Carnyx said:

Flatlander said:

For a straw it is simple.

A person not so much. There's some dead ends and a definite hole, but what do you do with the loops?

Very easy. Like un-Tories in Epping, dead ends don't count. Only through holes do, which makes it the Eustachian tubes and the nostrils plus the gut. Just count the number of hypothetical cuts needed to get to a hole-less state (admittedly very messy with the main and longest hole). Which is 5. Ergo a human is genus 5. Or 6 if you have a bad case of coke septum.

Ah, that's simple enough. As a humble Engineer I didn't have to study formal topology.

Unless you've been sticking things through your ear drum, though, there's no hole in your ear.


Anyway, I fear I'm taking this too literally...

biggles

Sandpit said:

Why has ‘The Hundred’ persisted with the 1990s neon graphics, which make almost no sense to someone trying to follow the game?

(Not watching it on purpose, but sitting in a bar that has it on in the background).

Agreed. For no clear reason they’ve ignored the lessons of 60 years of cricket broadcasting and done something different for the sake of it. Bonkers. What’s displayed is actively unhelpful and we know there’s a better way because we use it in T20.

LostPassword

Consider a straw that splits into a "Y" shape. This clearly has more holes than the standard straight straw, but it would be nonsensical to say it had two. It has three. One more hole than your standard straight straw. Which therefore has two holes.

biggles

Stark_Dawning said:

It has to be two. If you sealed off one of them then it would still have a hole, proving that they are two distinct entities.

Hmmm. Does a hollow, but sealed, box have a hole in it? I think so. A hole is a gap in an object that one can imagine being filled. Hence a straw has only one.

MattW

That's more holes than a French golf course:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-62532840



(Actually it's not exemption - they have a 70% cut. But another example of the value of water features.)

biggles

LostPassword said:

Consider a straw that splits into a "Y" shape. This clearly has more holes than the standard straight straw, but it would be nonsensical to say it had two. It has three. One more hole than your standard straight straw. Which therefore has two holes.

No it has three openings but one hole. They are not synonyms.

MattW

LostPassword said:

Consider a straw that splits into a "Y" shape. This clearly has more holes than the standard straight straw, but it would be nonsensical to say it had two. It has three. One more hole than your standard straight straw. Which therefore has two holes.

That's a straw man argument !

Carnyx

Flatlander said:

Carnyx said:

Flatlander said:

For a straw it is simple.

A person not so much. There's some dead ends and a definite hole, but what do you do with the loops?

Very easy. Like un-Tories in Epping, dead ends don't count. Only through holes do, which makes it the Eustachian tubes and the nostrils plus the gut. Just count the number of hypothetical cuts needed to get to a hole-less state (admittedly very messy with the main and longest hole). Which is 5. Ergo a human is genus 5. Or 6 if you have a bad case of coke septum.

Ah, that's simple enough. As a humble Engineer I didn't have to study formal topology.

Unless you've been sticking things through your ear drum, though, there's no hole in your ear.


Anyway, I fear I'm taking this too literally...

Quite right! Genus three it is.

(had been harking back mentally to those undergraduate essays on - in part - the topology of the animal body in embryology and evolution. And the Eustachian tube was originally open in fishes ...)

Flatlander

biggles said:

LostPassword said:

Consider a straw that splits into a "Y" shape. This clearly has more holes than the standard straight straw, but it would be nonsensical to say it had two. It has three. One more hole than your standard straight straw. Which therefore has two holes.

No it has three openings but one hole. They are not synonyms.

According to the mathematical definition supplied by Carnyx above, a Y shaped straw has 2 holes.

You would have to cut it twice to obtain a hole-less state.

DavidL

Carnyx said:

DavidL said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

The answer definitely isn't two, but is the answer really one? I wouldn't say that a straw, or any tube, has a hole. Feels to me like a hole needs to be in a surface, whereas a tube has such a negligible surface at each end that the space enclosed by the tube doesn't really qualify as a hole to me.

To me, a hole is an entry or egress point by which liquid or a gas can go in or out of an object. On that basis a straw has 2 points that quaify.

Did you ever come across the Victorian cases in (both, I think) Scots law about whether

(a) black stuff that comes out of the ground and burns is coal (this was to do with the funny oil-rich stuff at Torbanehill in W. Lothian)

(b) where the sea begins and rivers end (in the context of salmon fishing, I think)?

No, can't say that I have come across either. There is a host of 19th century litigation about foreshores and river mouths, usually in the context of baronial titles and whether they included these rights or not. Hay-v-Magistrates of Perth (1863) 1 M HL 41 dealt with the extent of the right to take salmon from a tidal river by net and coble (basically the fisherman still had to have his feet on the ground and not in a boat).

(a) surprises me a bit because most titles excluded minerals so whether it was coal or not wouldn't really matter.

kinabalu

Thus could be a STRAWman (heh heh heh big chuckles!) but what I'm wondering, now I find I'm having to, is whether a 'hole' is more about its visible opening or the depth. At either extreme - a big opening and little depth (eg a paddling pool) or very deep with only a tiny opening (eg I actually can't think of anything) - it probably ceases to be a hole in any meaningful sense, doesn't it, so both factors must be salient.

biggles

Flatlander said:

biggles said:

LostPassword said:

Consider a straw that splits into a "Y" shape. This clearly has more holes than the standard straight straw, but it would be nonsensical to say it had two. It has three. One more hole than your standard straight straw. Which therefore has two holes.

No it has three openings but one hole. They are not synonyms.

According to the mathematical definition supplied by Carnyx above, a Y shaped straw has 2 holes.

You would have to cut it twice to obtain a hole-less state.

Pfftt. Maths. I’m a practical physicist.

ydoethur

I'm surprised TSE didn't ask us how many angels dance on the head of a pin.

It would have had much the same effect.

He could at least have gone for 'Liz Truss voters are tossers, they think Die Hard is a Christmas movie.'

ydoethur

biggles said:

Flatlander said:

biggles said:

LostPassword said:

Consider a straw that splits into a "Y" shape. This clearly has more holes than the standard straight straw, but it would be nonsensical to say it had two. It has three. One more hole than your standard straight straw. Which therefore has two holes.

No it has three openings but one hole. They are not synonyms.

According to the mathematical definition supplied by Carnyx above, a Y shaped straw has 2 holes.

You would have to cut it twice to obtain a hole-less state.

Pfftt. Maths. I’m a practical physicist.

Really? As opposed to an impractical physicist or as opposed to a theoretical physicist?

kinabalu

MattW said:

LostPassword said:

Consider a straw that splits into a "Y" shape. This clearly has more holes than the standard straight straw, but it would be nonsensical to say it had two. It has three. One more hole than your standard straight straw. Which therefore has two holes.

That's a straw man argument !

Drat you nipped in and did me! - Total sickener. Just the pits.

biggles

kinabalu said:

Thus could be a STRAWman (heh heh heh big chuckles!) but what I'm wondering, now I find I'm having to, is whether a 'hole' is more about its visible opening or the depth. At either extreme - a big opening and little depth (eg a paddling pool) or very deep with only a tiny opening (eg I actually can't think of anything) - it probably ceases to be a hole in any meaningful sense, doesn't it, so both factors must be salient.

I think the word “hole” is about expectations. It means a gap where you expect there to be something.

londonpubman

I'm surprised Liz Truss hasn't promised straws with three holes!

Flatlander

ydoethur said:

I'm surprised TSE didn't ask us how many angels dance on the head of a pin.

It would have had much the same effect.

He could at least have gone for 'Liz Truss voters are tossers, they think Die Hard is a Christmas movie.'

https://xkcd.com/356/

ydoethur

biggles said:

kinabalu said:

Thus could be a STRAWman (heh heh heh big chuckles!) but what I'm wondering, now I find I'm having to, is whether a 'hole' is more about its visible opening or the depth. At either extreme - a big opening and little depth (eg a paddling pool) or very deep with only a tiny opening (eg I actually can't think of anything) - it probably ceases to be a hole in any meaningful sense, doesn't it, so both factors must be salient.

I think the word “hole” is about expectations. It means a gap where you expect there to be something.

Cue jokes about divers politicians' heads...

RochdalePioneers

dixiedean said:

Another problem for the new PM.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/aug/14/ministers-admit-hospital-buildings-england-roofs-could-collapse-any-time

Kind of thing that probably won't happen. But disastrous, and politically grievous if it did.

Thought the Tories were fixing the roof when the sun is shining...

biggles

RochdalePioneers said:

dixiedean said:

Another problem for the new PM.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/aug/14/ministers-admit-hospital-buildings-england-roofs-could-collapse-any-time

Kind of thing that probably won't happen. But disastrous, and politically grievous if it did.

Thought the Tories were fixing the roof when the sun is shining...

Yes, but on whose house?

Carnyx

DavidL said:

Carnyx said:

DavidL said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

The answer definitely isn't two, but is the answer really one? I wouldn't say that a straw, or any tube, has a hole. Feels to me like a hole needs to be in a surface, whereas a tube has such a negligible surface at each end that the space enclosed by the tube doesn't really qualify as a hole to me.

To me, a hole is an entry or egress point by which liquid or a gas can go in or out of an object. On that basis a straw has 2 points that quaify.

Did you ever come across the Victorian cases in (both, I think) Scots law about whether

(a) black stuff that comes out of the ground and burns is coal (this was to do with the funny oil-rich stuff at Torbanehill in W. Lothian)

(b) where the sea begins and rivers end (in the context of salmon fishing, I think)?

No, can't say that I have come across either. There is a host of 19th century litigation about foreshores and river mouths, usually in the context of baronial titles and whether they included these rights or not. Hay-v-Magistrates of Perth (1863) 1 M HL 41 dealt with the extent of the right to take salmon from a tidal river by net and coble (basically the fisherman still had to have his feet on the ground and not in a boat).

(a) surprises me a bit because most titles excluded minerals so whether it was coal or not wouldn't really matter.

IIRC the point was that the judge(s) found for a non-commonsensical solution to (b). Hence some rather sarcastic journalists remarking on the matter ...

In (a), the problem was whether a very valuable oil shale came under the definition of coal when dealing with what was leased or not. This was of great interest in the Central Belt in the 1850s during the first oil rush, as you can imagine, and there is at least one fat book on the case which I found in a library once.

Carnyx

biggles said:

RochdalePioneers said:

dixiedean said:

Another problem for the new PM.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/aug/14/ministers-admit-hospital-buildings-england-roofs-could-collapse-any-time

Kind of thing that probably won't happen. But disastrous, and politically grievous if it did.

Thought the Tories were fixing the roof when the sun is shining...

Yes, but on whose house?

The ducks'?

Chris

state_go_away said:

If a straw or indeed a tunnel only has one hole (does the channel tunnel have only one hole?) then where is it? In the case of the channel tunnel for instance you could not state it is at Folkstone as it could easily be said it is in France.

The Channel Tunnel _is_ the hole!

RochdalePioneers

One hole or two? Is that before or after administrations by Mistress Truss?

DavidL

londonpubman said:

I'm surprised Liz Truss hasn't promised straws with three holes!

She should, if only so SKS could promise 4, and a fully self funding 4 at that.

ydoethur

Chris said:

state_go_away said:

If a straw or indeed a tunnel only has one hole (does the channel tunnel have only one hole?) then where is it? In the case of the channel tunnel for instance you could not state it is at Folkstone as it could easily be said it is in France.

The Channel Tunnel _is_ the hole!

Really? Most people would say that was Calais.

kinabalu

LostPassword said:

Consider a straw that splits into a "Y" shape. This clearly has more holes than the standard straight straw, but it would be nonsensical to say it had two. It has three. One more hole than your standard straight straw. Which therefore has two holes.

Yes, is it just the opening (2d) or is it the whole 3d thing? If the 1st that straw, like you say, has 3 holes. If the 2nd, it has 2 that are part merged.

Also, does a hole have to have a depth? ie does it have to end? A hole in the ground does. It ends where it stops - where a stone would come to rest if you threw it in. But a hole in (say) a polo mint (or indeed a straw) doesn't have an end in quite the same way. It starts and finishes in fresh air. But still it does kind of end at the point where the polo mint (or the straw) ends.

So, what I'm getting at, are these 2 fundamentally different types of holes? Holes with a bottom vs Holes without a bottom?

RochdalePioneers

Forget your HS2 outrage, Tories planning to revive the "Great Boris Canal" to transport water from the north of England to the south.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11109579/Could-Great-Boris-Canal-fix-Britains-water-woes-Tories-call-review-plan.html

kinabalu

Stuartinromford said:

state_go_away said:

If a straw or indeed a tunnel only has one hole (does the channel tunnel have only one hole?) then where is it? In the case of the channel tunnel for instance you could not state it is at Folkstone as it could easily be said it is in France.

If the two bits of the Channel tunnel had never joined up, there wouldn't have been any holes. Just two dents.

Arguable - and the very nub of the matter!

eristdoof

This is a philosphy student's argument.

A mathemanticians answer is: Tell my what your definition of a hole is and I'll tell you how many holes there are.

kinabalu

eristdoof said:

This is a philosphy student's argument.

A mathemanticians answer is: Tell my what your definition of a hole is and I'll tell you how many holes there are.

Well that's no fun at all.

MattW

biggles said:

Flatlander said:

biggles said:

LostPassword said:

Consider a straw that splits into a "Y" shape. This clearly has more holes than the standard straight straw, but it would be nonsensical to say it had two. It has three. One more hole than your standard straight straw. Which therefore has two holes.

No it has three openings but one hole. They are not synonyms.

According to the mathematical definition supplied by Carnyx above, a Y shaped straw has 2 holes.

You would have to cut it twice to obtain a hole-less state.

Pfftt. Maths. I’m a practical physicist.

What's a practical physicist?

Has one been invented yet?

Alistair

@TheScreamingEagles

Why stop at straws? So many objects have a questionable
number of holes

https://twitter.com/lexaloffle/status/1326453266343849985

Carnyx

RochdalePioneers said:

Forget your HS2 outrage, Tories planning to revive the "Great Boris Canal" to transport water from the north of England to the south.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11109579/Could-Great-Boris-Canal-fix-Britains-water-woes-Tories-call-review-plan.html

Not just the north of England. From Wales and Scotland too.

I wonder how long Kielder Water would last? Not to mention the local tourist industry built up around it.

kinabalu

biggles said:

kinabalu said:

Thus could be a STRAWman (heh heh heh big chuckles!) but what I'm wondering, now I find I'm having to, is whether a 'hole' is more about its visible opening or the depth. At either extreme - a big opening and little depth (eg a paddling pool) or very deep with only a tiny opening (eg I actually can't think of anything) - it probably ceases to be a hole in any meaningful sense, doesn't it, so both factors must be salient.

I think the word “hole” is about expectations. It means a gap where you expect there to be something.

In which case a straw has zero holes.

ydoethur

kinabalu said:

biggles said:

kinabalu said:

Thus could be a STRAWman (heh heh heh big chuckles!) but what I'm wondering, now I find I'm having to, is whether a 'hole' is more about its visible opening or the depth. At either extreme - a big opening and little depth (eg a paddling pool) or very deep with only a tiny opening (eg I actually can't think of anything) - it probably ceases to be a hole in any meaningful sense, doesn't it, so both factors must be salient.

I think the word “hole” is about expectations. It means a gap where you expect there to be something.

In which case a straw has zero holes.

Unless the 'something' you expect to be there is, in fact, the hole.

TOPPING

One. I like the pair of trousers analogy by whoever it was.

DavidL

Carnyx said:

DavidL said:

Carnyx said:

DavidL said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

The answer definitely isn't two, but is the answer really one? I wouldn't say that a straw, or any tube, has a hole. Feels to me like a hole needs to be in a surface, whereas a tube has such a negligible surface at each end that the space enclosed by the tube doesn't really qualify as a hole to me.

To me, a hole is an entry or egress point by which liquid or a gas can go in or out of an object. On that basis a straw has 2 points that quaify.

Did you ever come across the Victorian cases in (both, I think) Scots law about whether

(a) black stuff that comes out of the ground and burns is coal (this was to do with the funny oil-rich stuff at Torbanehill in W. Lothian)

(b) where the sea begins and rivers end (in the context of salmon fishing, I think)?

No, can't say that I have come across either. There is a host of 19th century litigation about foreshores and river mouths, usually in the context of baronial titles and whether they included these rights or not. Hay-v-Magistrates of Perth (1863) 1 M HL 41 dealt with the extent of the right to take salmon from a tidal river by net and coble (basically the fisherman still had to have his feet on the ground and not in a boat).

(a) surprises me a bit because most titles excluded minerals so whether it was coal or not wouldn't really matter.

IIRC the point was that the judge(s) found for a non-commonsensical solution to (b). Hence some rather sarcastic journalists remarking on the matter ...

In (a), the problem was whether a very valuable oil shale came under the definition of coal when dealing with what was leased or not. This was of great interest in the Central Belt in the 1850s during the first oil rush, as you can imagine, and there is at least one fat book on the case which I found in a library once.

I wonder if your shale case was Gillespie-v-Russell 1854 17D 1, which concerned whether or not oil shale fell within the scope of a lease that included coal and other specified minerals. It is a case of such moment that I do not think it has been cited for anything in the last 170 years.

kle4

TheScreamingEagles said:

Apologies for this thread, I blame the heat for my bout of writer's block today and the inability to write a proper political/betting piece this afternoon.

Only the heat could have led you to the conclusion you reached, however.

occasionalranter

Stark_Dawning said:

It has to be two. If you sealed off one of them then it would still have a hole, proving that they are two distinct entities.

This is the most circular argument I have ever seen.

biggles

MattW said:

biggles said:

Flatlander said:

biggles said:

LostPassword said:

Consider a straw that splits into a "Y" shape. This clearly has more holes than the standard straight straw, but it would be nonsensical to say it had two. It has three. One more hole than your standard straight straw. Which therefore has two holes.

No it has three openings but one hole. They are not synonyms.

According to the mathematical definition supplied by Carnyx above, a Y shaped straw has 2 holes.

You would have to cut it twice to obtain a hole-less state.

Pfftt. Maths. I’m a practical physicist.

What's a practical physicist?

Has one been invented yet?

We come up with vague ideas engineers and technicians can perfect while we enjoy the tea and medals that come with proposing them. That’s as opposed to theoretical physicists we come up with even more vague ideas we can start with so we don’t have to be truly original.

biggles

kinabalu said:

biggles said:

kinabalu said:

Thus could be a STRAWman (heh heh heh big chuckles!) but what I'm wondering, now I find I'm having to, is whether a 'hole' is more about its visible opening or the depth. At either extreme - a big opening and little depth (eg a paddling pool) or very deep with only a tiny opening (eg I actually can't think of anything) - it probably ceases to be a hole in any meaningful sense, doesn't it, so both factors must be salient.

I think the word “hole” is about expectations. It means a gap where you expect there to be something.

In which case a straw has zero holes.

Hmmm. Yes. Needs work.

Daveyboy1961

kinabalu said:

LostPassword said:

Consider a straw that splits into a "Y" shape. This clearly has more holes than the standard straight straw, but it would be nonsensical to say it had two. It has three. One more hole than your standard straight straw. Which therefore has two holes.

Yes, is it just the opening (2d) or is it the whole 3d thing? If the 1st that straw, like you say, has 3 holes. If the 2nd, it has 2 that are part merged.

Also, does a hole have to have a depth? ie does it have to end? A hole in the ground does. It ends where it stops - where a stone would come to rest if you threw it in. But a hole in (say) a polo mint (or indeed a straw) doesn't have an end in quite the same way. It starts and finishes in fresh air. But still it does kind of end at the point where the polo mint (or the straw) ends.

So, what I'm getting at, are these 2 fundamentally different types of holes? Holes with a bottom vs Holes without a bottom?

A hole in the ground doesn't have a hole, unless it becomes a tunnel.

Barnesian

There's a difference between a hole and an entrance.
The tories are in a hole.

Carnyx

RochdalePioneers said:

Forget your HS2 outrage, Tories planning to revive the "Great Boris Canal" to transport water from the north of England to the south.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11109579/Could-Great-Boris-Canal-fix-Britains-water-woes-Tories-call-review-plan.html

PS Notd the first time he's been on that hobby-horse.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-13765279
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18890231.pipe-dream-ministers-block-boris-johnson-inspired-bid-export-scots-water-england/

Carnyx

biggles said:

MattW said:

biggles said:

Flatlander said:

biggles said:

LostPassword said:

Consider a straw that splits into a "Y" shape. This clearly has more holes than the standard straight straw, but it would be nonsensical to say it had two. It has three. One more hole than your standard straight straw. Which therefore has two holes.

No it has three openings but one hole. They are not synonyms.

According to the mathematical definition supplied by Carnyx above, a Y shaped straw has 2 holes.

You would have to cut it twice to obtain a hole-less state.

Pfftt. Maths. I’m a practical physicist.

What's a practical physicist?

Has one been invented yet?

We come up with vague ideas engineers and technicians can perfect while we enjoy the tea and medals that come with proposing them. That’s as opposed to theoretical physicists we come up with even more vague ideas we can start with so we don’t have to be truly original.

I thought for a moment you were talking about Mr Johnson's Canal.

Carnyx

DavidL said:

Carnyx said:

DavidL said:

Carnyx said:

DavidL said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

The answer definitely isn't two, but is the answer really one? I wouldn't say that a straw, or any tube, has a hole. Feels to me like a hole needs to be in a surface, whereas a tube has such a negligible surface at each end that the space enclosed by the tube doesn't really qualify as a hole to me.

To me, a hole is an entry or egress point by which liquid or a gas can go in or out of an object. On that basis a straw has 2 points that quaify.

Did you ever come across the Victorian cases in (both, I think) Scots law about whether

(a) black stuff that comes out of the ground and burns is coal (this was to do with the funny oil-rich stuff at Torbanehill in W. Lothian)

(b) where the sea begins and rivers end (in the context of salmon fishing, I think)?

No, can't say that I have come across either. There is a host of 19th century litigation about foreshores and river mouths, usually in the context of baronial titles and whether they included these rights or not. Hay-v-Magistrates of Perth (1863) 1 M HL 41 dealt with the extent of the right to take salmon from a tidal river by net and coble (basically the fisherman still had to have his feet on the ground and not in a boat).

(a) surprises me a bit because most titles excluded minerals so whether it was coal or not wouldn't really matter.

IIRC the point was that the judge(s) found for a non-commonsensical solution to (b). Hence some rather sarcastic journalists remarking on the matter ...

In (a), the problem was whether a very valuable oil shale came under the definition of coal when dealing with what was leased or not. This was of great interest in the Central Belt in the 1850s during the first oil rush, as you can imagine, and there is at least one fat book on the case which I found in a library once.

I wonder if your shale case was Gillespie-v-Russell 1854 17D 1, which concerned whether or not oil shale fell within the scope of a lease that included coal and other specified minerals. It is a case of such moment that I do not think it has been cited for anything in the last 170 years.

That's it!

kle4

biggles said:

Sandpit said:

Why has ‘The Hundred’ persisted with the 1990s neon graphics, which make almost no sense to someone trying to follow the game?

(Not watching it on purpose, but sitting in a bar that has it on in the background).

Agreed. For no clear reason they’ve ignored the lessons of 60 years of cricket broadcasting and done something different for the sake of it. Bonkers. What’s displayed is actively unhelpful and we know there’s a better way because we use it in T20.

I get that the Hundred is, by definition, a gimmick, but the graphics, and the way they show clips in a non standard fashion, are such weirdly pointless gimmicks that I don't really get why they've retained them.

Just have it displayed in the same way as any other cricket game, only it has different teams due to the format and you just count down from 100 - it's enough of a gimmick.

Edit: I maintain that the Welsh Fire, as a team name, still sounds like some kind of horrible STD though.

williamglenn

Barnesian said:

There's a difference between a hole and an entrance.
The tories are in a hole.

When you're in an entrance, keep digging.

biggles

Carnyx said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Forget your HS2 outrage, Tories planning to revive the "Great Boris Canal" to transport water from the north of England to the south.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11109579/Could-Great-Boris-Canal-fix-Britains-water-woes-Tories-call-review-plan.html

PS Notd the first time he's been on that hobby-horse.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-13765279
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18890231.pipe-dream-ministers-block-boris-johnson-inspired-bid-export-scots-water-england/

Let me get this straight. One end of AN ISLAND WITH ABOVE AVERAGE RAINFALL is talking about importing water from the other end of AN ISLAND WITH ABOVE AVERAGE RAINFALL rather than desalination or building more sodding reservoirs?

TOPPING

The clue is in that graphic when it comes to a bowl. If you flatten the bowl out on the ground it has no holes. If you compress the straw (long ways) so that it's flat then it only has one hole.

Carnyx

biggles said:

Carnyx said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Forget your HS2 outrage, Tories planning to revive the "Great Boris Canal" to transport water from the north of England to the south.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11109579/Could-Great-Boris-Canal-fix-Britains-water-woes-Tories-call-review-plan.html

PS Notd the first time he's been on that hobby-horse.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-13765279
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18890231.pipe-dream-ministers-block-boris-johnson-inspired-bid-export-scots-water-england/

Let me get this straight. One end of AN ISLAND WITH ABOVE AVERAGE RAINFALL is talking about importing water from the other end AN ISLAND WITH ABOVE AVERAGE RAINFALL rather than desalination or building more sodding reservoirs?

Yep.

Folk are even talking [edit] (though not in this latest report) bout getting it from Loch Ness. Which is barely above sea level. With rather a lot of high ground in between.

TOPPING

Barnesian said:

There's a difference between a hole and an entrance.
The tories are in a hole.

But they continue to keep digging so perhaps they will end up in one formally after all.

Edit: beaten to it and more elegantly by @williamglenn

biggles

kle4 said:

biggles said:

Sandpit said:

Why has ‘The Hundred’ persisted with the 1990s neon graphics, which make almost no sense to someone trying to follow the game?

(Not watching it on purpose, but sitting in a bar that has it on in the background).

Agreed. For no clear reason they’ve ignored the lessons of 60 years of cricket broadcasting and done something different for the sake of it. Bonkers. What’s displayed is actively unhelpful and we know there’s a better way because we use it in T20.

I get that the Hundred is, by definition, a gimmick, but the graphics, and the way they show clips in a non standard fashion, are such weirdly pointless gimmicks that I don't really get why they've retained them.

Just have it displayed in the same way as any other cricket game, only it has different teams due to the format and you just count down from 100 - it's enough of a gimmick.

Yup. They can even be neon if they want, so long as they go back to the proper info.

Northern_Al

kle4 said:

biggles said:

Sandpit said:

Why has ‘The Hundred’ persisted with the 1990s neon graphics, which make almost no sense to someone trying to follow the game?

(Not watching it on purpose, but sitting in a bar that has it on in the background).

Agreed. For no clear reason they’ve ignored the lessons of 60 years of cricket broadcasting and done something different for the sake of it. Bonkers. What’s displayed is actively unhelpful and we know there’s a better way because we use it in T20.

I get that the Hundred is, by definition, a gimmick, but the graphics, and the way they show clips in a non standard fashion, are such weirdly pointless gimmicks that I don't really get why they've retained them.

Just have it displayed in the same way as any other cricket game, only it has different teams due to the format and you just count down from 100 - it's enough of a gimmick.

I'll normally watch pretty much any old cricket, but I can't watch the Hundred. The graphics are awful, and take up far too much of the screen on my relatively modestly-sized TV. Really irritating.

Meanwhile, I know August is the silly season, and it's a slow/no news day, but this thread is something else. Kudos.

ydoethur

biggles said:

kle4 said:

biggles said:

Sandpit said:

Why has ‘The Hundred’ persisted with the 1990s neon graphics, which make almost no sense to someone trying to follow the game?

(Not watching it on purpose, but sitting in a bar that has it on in the background).

Agreed. For no clear reason they’ve ignored the lessons of 60 years of cricket broadcasting and done something different for the sake of it. Bonkers. What’s displayed is actively unhelpful and we know there’s a better way because we use it in T20.

I get that the Hundred is, by definition, a gimmick, but the graphics, and the way they show clips in a non standard fashion, are such weirdly pointless gimmicks that I don't really get why they've retained them.

Just have it displayed in the same way as any other cricket game, only it has different teams due to the format and you just count down from 100 - it's enough of a gimmick.

Yup. They can even be neon if they want, so long as they go back to the proper info.

They can do what they like with the graphics, as long as they get back to proper cricket.

kinabalu

ydoethur said:

kinabalu said:

biggles said:

kinabalu said:

Thus could be a STRAWman (heh heh heh big chuckles!) but what I'm wondering, now I find I'm having to, is whether a 'hole' is more about its visible opening or the depth. At either extreme - a big opening and little depth (eg a paddling pool) or very deep with only a tiny opening (eg I actually can't think of anything) - it probably ceases to be a hole in any meaningful sense, doesn't it, so both factors must be salient.

I think the word “hole” is about expectations. It means a gap where you expect there to be something.

In which case a straw has zero holes.

Unless the 'something' you expect to be there is, in fact, the hole.

Head now spinning as we veer into the most dense and complex of geophilosophical musings.

MattW

RochdalePioneers said:

dixiedean said:

Another problem for the new PM.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/aug/14/ministers-admit-hospital-buildings-england-roofs-could-collapse-any-time

Kind of thing that probably won't happen. But disastrous, and politically grievous if it did.

Thought the Tories were fixing the roof when the sun is shining...

Hmmm. Guardian competing with the Daily Mirror again, I'm afraid.

No analysis of probability of collapse at all in the piece. Nor any indication that any Govt Minister or official has admitted the claim in the headline.

One hopes that the author, if numerate, is currently gently caressing the headline writer's genitalia with a blowtorch.

On these criteria, any house of any PBer could collapse at any time.

Given the weather, I would not like to be living in one of those speculatively thrown up poorly built multi-million pound Georgian slums .

My best advice for trad houses is to be living in the Northern half of a pair of 1930s East-West facing semis, in the basement. Or similar in a terrace.

Endillion

Glad to see I'm not the only one whose brain is being affected by the heat.

Northern_Al

kinabalu said:

ydoethur said:

kinabalu said:

biggles said:

kinabalu said:

Thus could be a STRAWman (heh heh heh big chuckles!) but what I'm wondering, now I find I'm having to, is whether a 'hole' is more about its visible opening or the depth. At either extreme - a big opening and little depth (eg a paddling pool) or very deep with only a tiny opening (eg I actually can't think of anything) - it probably ceases to be a hole in any meaningful sense, doesn't it, so both factors must be salient.

I think the word “hole” is about expectations. It means a gap where you expect there to be something.

In which case a straw has zero holes.

Unless the 'something' you expect to be there is, in fact, the hole.

Head now spinning as we veer into the most dense and complex of geophilosophical musings.

You're digging a hole for yourself now. Don't go there.

kle4

Endillion said:

Glad to see I'm not the only one whose brain is being affected by the heat.

In all seriousness I've never felt as affected by heat as in these last few days, not even during the hot period a few weeks ago.

MattW

Stuartinromford said:

williamglenn said:

Stuartinromford said:

state_go_away said:

If a straw or indeed a tunnel only has one hole (does the channel tunnel have only one hole?) then where is it? In the case of the channel tunnel for instance you could not state it is at Folkstone as it could easily be said it is in France.

If the two bits of the Channel tunnel had never joined up, there wouldn't have been any holes. Just two dents.

So if you pay someone to dig a hole, the job isn't done until they reach China?

If you don't specify in advance what you actually want, you shouldn't complain too much about what you get.

Which also takes us back to current British politics.

Aren't holes traditionally dug to Australia from here?

China is opposite Argentina.