814
Japanese monks and emperors kept meticulous records of cherry blossom festivals for 1,200 years. They accidentally built the world's longest climate dataset (cdn.bsky.app)
submitted 7 months ago by to c/mildlyinteresting@lemmy.world
81 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 81 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 137 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (47 children)

Is there a difference in tone or meaning between accidentally and inadvertently? I feel like accidentally means they did something that was a bad thing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 47 child comments
    •
  • [–] 48 points 7 months ago (5 children)

    I agree it seems a strange choice of words.

    Japanese monks and emperors kept meticulous records of cherry blossom festivals for 1,200 years. They accidentally In doing so they built the world's longest climate dataset

    Something like that seems more straightforward.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 36 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    I think “inadvertently” fits in that it isn’t what they were intending to do.

    “Accidentally” feels sorta judgy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    I think a journalist might choose the word 'unintentionally'; inadvertently is a bit clunky, it lacks a bit of music, and it gives me a sense of slapstick comedy. This sentence, for instance, "Having inadvertently caused the death of her son," sounds to me like the son died as a result of some Pink Panther bit.

    I don't think 'accidentally' here needs to feel judgy per se, but it is hard to imagine an English major choosing it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Yeah I like “unintentionally” better as well.

    Why do I feel like we are making AI better by having this conversation?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 14 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Hmm not necessarily, accidentally has no negative implication unlike accident usually has. In this particular case the meaning of accidentally is synonym with unexpectedly or by chance.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 23 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    Mr Bob Ross would like a word...
    I agree with you on inadvertently, but accident, if I'm not mistaken would generally considered something where you do not inherently attribute blame. At least thats what I recall being justification for making the change in UK in calling traffic 'incidents' incidents instead of accidents several years back. Dunno if it stuck though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago

    Interesting. Although I still maintain that accident bears a negative connotation, even though blame isn't necessarily a factor. As if the outcome was a negative thing, rather than a positive, as in this case.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago (19 children)

    Accidents don’t have to be bad? Accident means just “not on purpose” it has no connotation either way

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (18 children)

    Right. When someone is accused of something, and they say "But it was an accident!", that's exactly what it means.

    But if you shit yourself and say "I had an accident.", that's not what it means. Or you call your parents and say, "I was in an accident."

    It has different connotations and in this case I'm conflicted, and therefore I would've chosen a different word.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (16 children)

    I'm not reading any negative connotation at all.

    For what it's worth, those examples for 'accident' are being used as euphemisms to soften the blow of the intended message, and you can't soften the blow without using soft words.

    Car accidents have noun-ified the word a bit, though, so I do see where you're coming from.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (15 children)

    Surely "car accidents" aren't the only way it's been "noun-ified"?

    Even the Latin form would mean "misfortune".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (14 children)

    I'm sorry, I don't speak Latin.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (13 children)

    You... don't need to be able to in order to follow along here. I provided an image as well. 👍

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (12 children)

    Mate, I'm familiar with the history of the word. I don't read any negative connotations in the form OP is using.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago* (11 children)

    Alright, mate.

    Then I don't understand what you're argument is. You know the connotation people have, you know the origins of the word... 🤷‍♂️

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (10 children)

    Uh, my argument is that my eyes see no devils yonder. If you'd like to know why, I guess, have a look at 1-a.

    I should have pulled up a dictionary to begin with, honestly. I just thought I was arguing from a more colloquial standpoint. Which I would still defend; I love slang.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (9 children)

    Are we ignoring 1-b?

    happening without intent or through carelessness and often with unfortunate results

    🤷‍♂️

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago (8 children)

    I mean, I was hoping to, yeah.
    I don't much care about 2 or 3 either.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (7 children)

    So you're making some strange argument for some reason, and providing evidence to support your claims that actually show evidence to support my claims, but you want me to ignore that part.

    Let's wrap this up shall we. 🙄

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (6 children)

    The strange argument is that they meant to use definition 1-a, and they did. It is a perfectly normal use of the word.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (5 children)

    And I'm saying 1-b is so strongly universal in English speaking countries that it should probably swap places with 1-a. Arguing against this feels pretty nitpicky to be honest. Look at the ratio of people who agree with the top level comment, e.g. 🤷‍♂️

    I'll concede your argument might not be "strange"—that was a poor choice of word—but you are openly ignoring counter arguments which feels strange. And saying things like "I don't speak Latin" out of nowhere in the middle of argumentation, like that's a counter argument.

    This whole correspondence just feels like I'm talking to a character from Alice in Wonderland. 🫪

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (4 children)

    What would swapping 1-a and 1-b's places do? I'm not ignoring 1-b because it's lower in rank or something. In the context of the given sentence, it just doesn't apply.

    I'll share an anecdote, okay. This is an excerpt from Dickens' Bleak House, the beginning of chapter 1:

    Implacable November weather. As much mud in the streets, as if the waters had but newly retired from the face of the earth, and it would not be wonderful to meet a Megalosaurus, forty feet long or so, waddling like an elephantine lizard up Holborn Hill.

    The word 'wonderful' there is not being used to mean 'good' or 'exciting', it's leaning on an archaic definition that means 'strange'. It might have positive connotations; I sort of feel like it does. It's kind of hard to understand, though, unless you have that piece of information.

    When I learned this information, let's say about a month ago, my initial thoughts were "Oh wow. I didn't know wonderful could mean that. That's cool. I learned something." And now, Bleak House, which is before my time, will be slightly less challenging to read. I'm sure I won't, but it will be.

    I'm not being nitpicky for no reason, I'm arguing in favor of literacy. Knowing that 'accidental' can be used in ways you don't expect should be interesting, and not just flatly refused.

    Further, I don't see people who agree that the word is used incorrectly, I see people who are mildly confused by it. All of them understand what's being said just fine. And all I'm saying is that they don't need to be confused.

    Out of curiosity, how do you feel about the word 'literally'? About how it's often used as an intensifier now and has lost some of its significance as an antonym to figurative. I'll share my answer after yours.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago* (3 children)

    All that is fine and dandy, just like "awesome" and other examples, but when there are more descriptive words, I still think it's better to use them, also in favor of literacy. Why stamp everything with "accident" when you can use better words from a more expansive vocabulary? These are journalist writers ffs. They do this for a living. I'm merely disappointed. [Edit: huh. I guess there's no article here. 😳 Never mind about expectations, I suppose.]

    I agree with you that you should respect all meanings of a word but sometimes it becomes ambiguous, as in this case (1-b is, too, applicable), and sometimes there are just more descriptive, seemingly forgotten words to choose from, also as in this case.

    I'm also on your side regarding "literally", from the tail end of your comment. I don't use it as an intensifier. It's stupid. But I reluctantly accept that language is malleable.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago* (2 children)

    I don't know what you mean by more descriptive. The only meanings here that are necessary are "by chance" and "unexpected".

    The word 'uninentional' would convey a similar meaning, it'd be fine, but there are situations out there where it doesn't work.

    "Their meeting was entirely unintentional."

    By whose intent? If we're speaking from the perspective of fate, then this is actually a bad choice.

    "Their meeting was entirely inadvertent."

    I'm... not sure what this would even mean. I would probably assume this came from a 17-year-old who got their hands on a thesaurus.

    "Their meeting was entirely by chance."

    This obviously works. I think it lacks a bit of whimsy. Maybe it trades one whimsy for another. Accidental means "by chance," though, you'd only be trading the word for its definition.

    but sometimes it becomes ambiguous, as in this case (1-b is, too, applicable),

    1-b is not applicable. The outcome of this accident is a fortunate one, so a misfortunate interpretation would be incorrect. I mean, this is why it feels odd to you, is it not?

    I can only assume that what happened is you read the sentence and thought it would end "They accidentally shit their pants," or something, and were surprised it didn't. That didn't happen to me. And even if it had, I could have recovered.

    I'm also on your side regarding "literally" [...] I don't use it as an intensifier. It's stupid.

    Eh heh~ This is not the side that I'm on.

    Knowing different sides of a word, or in this case adding new ones, allows you to affect your speech in different ways to say different things about yourself. If you're being formal, then you wouldn't use the intensifier variant of literally, or at least you would be more precise about it, but if you wanted to seem more street, or maybe youthful, then literally might be a great choice. Think about the power this gives you when writing dialogue for characters, or when speaking to certain demographics.

    In my view, 'literally' getting another definition only increases the number of toys in my toybox.

    I did say earlier that I defend slang.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Was going to say this myself and then saw your comment. Totally agree. 'Accidently' practically implies that the record keeping itself only happened because some pencils happened to fall on paper. They did exactly what they intended to and used it for their own purpose. It just turned out to have a different purpose, too.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Aww, shit. Now there's record all over the floor... I'll go get the data bin...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • [–] 29 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    Is that dataset up anywhere as a CSV?

    I'd really love to build a lesson around it!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
    • [–] 25 points 7 months ago

    https://globalobserver.github.io/projects/cherry-blossom/index.html

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 18 points 7 months ago

    Well, glaciers keep the longest climate datasets, it's just in a format that takes some work to translate.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 32 points 7 months ago*

    "Kill them all. Steal their data." - MAGA

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 10 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    So temperatures are going down soon, right? RIGHT?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    That all depends on where you live, and how ocean currents change. But perhaps actually. Not likely though. We had a super cold year here where I'm at, not as bad as in the 80s but we had like 4 polar inversions hit us, it got down to 33 degrees one morning in late august in a couple of weeks of cold weather, and we got a hard snowy cold winter. It's still fucking cold, but that is normal here.

    But europe might get hosed if that ocean currents change, they are way far north, if not for the warm carribean waters circulating up there they could be like ice ageing it. There is no way to know obviously, except that it will happen faster than expected.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 18 points 7 months ago (14 children)

    citation for claim that it's the longest-dated climate dataset?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 23 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    It's not the longest climate dataset, but it may be the longest directly recorded by humans. All of these types of data are climate proxies (alternate indicators we can use to gain information about historic climates), the longest of which are ice core measurements.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Idk, egyptian priests kept records of the groundwater levels to predict the nile flood times to keep the peasants in check, and that could count as a climate dataset that far predates and is longer than this.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 7 months ago (9 children)

    Do you have a citation for a longer-dated climate dataset?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [+] -8 points 7 months ago* (8 children)

    that's not how burden of proof works; it's not "my fantastic claim is true until you can prove it false"

    EDIT: oof, blocked 👋

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago (6 children)

    Yes and no. Just like the claim of God, you can't prove that something doesn't exist. If it exists, then you may be able to show it. If it doesn't exist then there's no way to show that. Proof, in this case, would be somehow showing that something doesn't exist. You can provide evidence, but not proof. You can provide proof against this, by just providing an older record though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 7 months ago (5 children)

    you can prove some things do or don't exist, the problem with God is that the existence of God is proposed in a way that is non-falsifiable (not all existence claims are non-falsifiable even if some are)

    But the burden of proof works the same with God as with other claims.

    I'm not saying burden of proof is a form of falsification (i.e. we can know something is false until proven true), you are right about that - just because it's a good practice to not treat as true or serious an extraordinary claim that has not been given sufficient evidence or proof to back it up doesn't mean that this practice somehow is the same as proving the negative. That is, if claims of God's existence are extraordinary and not sufficiently proven or evidenced, dismissing the claim under burden of proof practices is not the same thing as proving with certainty God doesn't exist. But I never made these claims, I just said you can't treat an extraordinary claim as true until I successfully prove it's false (because some extraordinary claims are non-falsifiable, like God's existence).

    Proof, in this case, would be somehow showing that something doesn’t exist. You can provide evidence, but not proof. You can provide proof against this, by just providing an older record though.

    it seemed like you just said you can't show proof, then demonstrated how you can provide proof? Maybe I miss your point here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    you can prove some things do or don't exist...

    Yes, specific claims. Non-specific claims, like this one, can't. It could be that we just aren't aware of an older record, but that can't be proven. It's also really difficult to even prove it's the oldest that we know of. That'd take at least many hours of research, and that's if you're lucky and find a counter-example early. Most likely it'd be days/months.

    But the burden of proof works the same with God as with other claims.

    Yes. The burden of proof is the same. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that you can take their word for it or not. Asking them to prove it is insane. This is a casual internet forum. No one is spending the time or effort to get anywhere near a proof for you. If you don't want to believe it then fine. Just don't. If you want to prove it yourself, you're welcome to do so, and I'm sure posting it would be appreciated. Asking others to is needlessly aggressive for a casual internet trivia post.

    Proof, in this case, would be somehow showing that something doesn’t exist. You can provide evidence, but not proof. You can provide proof against this, by just providing an older record though.

    it seemed like you just said you can't show proof, then demonstrated how you can provide proof? Maybe I miss your point here.

    I demonstrated how you can prove it wrong, not right. There's no way to know what isn't known. Proving it true is effectively impossible. Proving that it's the oldest that we know of is still incredibly challenging.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    for context I assumed the graph and headline were both pulled from a piece of journalism where the epistemic standards are higher than a casual internet forum; I don't intend to apply high epistemic standards in a context where it is inappropriate, I just want a link to the original source they got the claim and graph from so that I can explore from there.

    Sorry it came across as aggressive, that wasn't my intent at all - I thought what I was asking was entirely reasonable.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    I think I know why that happened.

    citation for claim that it's the longest-dated climate dataset?

    This comes off a bit curt, which can be read as a challenge. I don't typically ask for citations unless I'm implying the other person either doesn't have them or has bad information. It's almost always an attack on their character.

    I'm just musing from the sidelines, by the way, don't take this as a lecture:

    This is actually what the social function of filler words like 'please' and 'thank you' are for. They provide a base level of politeness that, much like a tone-tag, shapes the way the rest of the message is meant to be received. Sort of similarly, a question like "Is this really the longest-dated record? Do you have a citation?" shifts focus away from the person and toward validity, making the citation just a matter of course.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    oo, thanks - this is helpful; sometimes I am writing things too quickly and too to-the-point, so I think it's entirely a fair criticism that I came across as challenging when instead I meant to come across more as curious and wanting more information than dismissive.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 19 points 7 months ago

    If someone posts a record of climate data dating back to the year 812, and you demand a citation specifically for the claim that it's the longest-dated climate dataset, then yeah the burden of proof absolutely works the other way around.

    It's a climate dataset, and it's freaking old. Unless you can point to one that's older, it's the oldest one.

    EDIT: oof, blocked 👋

    What, really? People do this?

    And why, is it the comment chain where I was saying Adam Schiff has a more consistent track record than Chuck Schumer and other milquetoast establishment Dems, and therefore not the right target for ire? Or the one where I was arguing with someone who was being a bigot under a thin veneer of "feminism", who pretty consistently stated quite plainly that my feelings don't matter because I'm a guy and men's feelings don't matter so I should just suck it up and not be offended (which is literally toxic masculinity, not feminism)? Or did you scroll all the way down to where a mod called me sexist for responding to a post (that was literally asking why there aren't more media depictions of positive male role models) by saying that depictions of positive male role models get shunned and canceled because they don't conform to the narrative that all men are inherently toxic?

    Either way, it seems like a silly thing to do, checking someone's mod history over a simple comment that you happen to disagree with. Especially when your own mod history includes posting unreliable sources to a news comm, being rude to someone for being a guy, getting banned from egg_irl for bioessentialist takes, and apparently... posting NSFW images of... checks notes... "applying lube like condiments on a hotdog"... in a SFW community...

    So... you know what they say about glass houses and throwing rocks, right? ...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Link to a source would be nice.
    Seems interesting, but without a source it's just noise.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

    Sounds like a conspiracy theory. Everyone knows climate is a hoax.

    /s.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [+] -12 points 7 months ago

    Doesn't look like much of a trend from the thumbnail. It's just noise. Cool dataset though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •