MaxSeven

I see this a lot on the web, but no references in BMW's literature or documentation. Is the "W" being tacked on to indicate water-cooled? If so, why? The water-cooled engine is only available for model years 2013 and on, so I don't see why it is necessary to distinguish this by adding a "W" after the model name? I also see R1200GSA, which I assume means Adventure.

I've noticed in business and financial media, reporters frequently using these phrases, which don't seem to make much sense. For example: "It's not coincidental that the Twitters of the world have focused brand efforts and marketing around real-time events." or "Yes, it is true that their oils seem superior to others when measured under this light, but for the Mobils of the world, who get a bigger peice..."

Since these companies are unique, and there are no other companies exactly like them, how can they be thrown into some vague category? Saying "the Apples of the world" or "the Pandoras of the world" or "the Netflixes of the world" seems silly to me. :)

In the woodworker's lexicon, it seems odd that the word "glue" or "gluing" when used as a verb, must be changed to the phrase "glue-up".

The "up" doesn't seem to be used for any other action, like sawing, planing, cutting, fastening, nailing, joining, sanding, drilling, etc. Only glue gets this tacked-on adverb.

Maybe the phrase comes from "set-up"?

I've noticed this trend on Youtube. Watch most any video that reviews, demonstrates or is a discussion of, some kind of rifle, pistol or even shooting gear - and video will begin with some variety of heavy, head-banging, metal guitar riffs. What's the psychology behind this?

I have read many references to dispensing powder in the reloading hobby, and am curious as to why the verb "throw" is used? It doesn't seem to make sense. There is no throwing of the actual powder occurring, as it merely trickles, pours or dumps into the brass case. Why "throw?"

Let me be clear in stating that I understand the definition of each designation, which means I am not looking for an explanation of this. What interests me, is why there is a need to designate, mention, label, discuss or even consider the size of a particular action at all? Does this lexicon exist for the sole purpose of aftermarket stock and bottom metal/magazine assembly fitment? In modern rifle design, don't the cartridge specs dictate the action spec? I realize that throughout history there are some exceptions, but I still witness many discussions of whether a rifle's action is short, long or magnum. Actually, the latter (Magnum) is rarely discussed. Please help in clearing up this mystery.

The other group names make sense (Sporting, Toy, Working, Hound, Herding) - but why Non-Sporting, rather than Non-Toy, Non-Herding, Non-Working etc? In other words, why did they pick "Sporting" as the master group to express non-inclusive status?

I noticed (recently) that Santelli keeps using the word 'boon' in such statements as: "But briefly we saw that the boon yield was around 3.07..." and "...look at where the boon yield is today." and "because the boons really have been very close to a 310 to 312 yield for over a week and a half now." Is he misspeaking or is it intentional? I assume he means to say 'bond'. Is he trying to create a new buzzword or jargon?

Some people say they taste like dirt? Not sure what that means. What does dirt taste like and have you actually scooped up a mouthful of dirt and tasted it? I think not. So what's not to like about beets? They are somewhat sweet, with minor salty undertones and very mild tasting. Beets are not bitter, spicy or sour, so these cannot be the reason. What exactly is it that certain people hate about beets?

It is understood that some people may dislike certain foods because of the texture. My question is why? Answers such as "it's slimy" or "it's too lumpy" are incidental, and are neither the cause nor the reason why - so please avoid answering in that manner. So, if we look at an example, perhaps it's oatmeal; We know that this food is a porridge made from ground oats. The resulting texture could be described as a smooth paste, with some particulates and liquid (milk or water). It is pleasant tasting and very healthful. So what exactly about the texture causes the aversion? If it is the paste, what about the paste is unappealing? Why is that unappealing? I suppose I am wondering what is going through the persons mind when they say to themselves "I don't like oatmeal, it makes me feel squeamish or nauseous." It is interesting to me, because if we look at a comparable food texture, smooth ice-cream with chucks of chocolate in it and perhaps some syrup and whipped cream, that same person whom dislikes oatmeal because of texture, will like the ice cream. It's a complicated matter I think.

Describing lenses using the word speed seems to me like a terrible misnomer. A "fast" lens is one that has a large relative aperture, thus allowing a greater quantity of light, which in turn, allows for a shorter exposure time. Light moves at a constant speed, the shutter mechanism speed is fixed (cannot be adjusted - only the interval between open and closed can be adjusted), and finally the glass in the lens gathers light at the same rate no matter what the maximum (or minimum) aperture size is. Only the quantity of light, the exposure time, and the sensor (film) sensitivity are adjustable and have nothing to do with "speed" but only duration of exposure. I think that jargon in photography is probably the main reason why it is confusing to people - because the language doesn't make any sense, is a misnomer, and non-intuitive. It seems like, if you wanted to use sneaky jargon, it would be better to say "bright lens" or "dark lens" instead of "fast" or "slow" lens respectively. For "lens speed", better to say "lens sensitivity" or "lens AV (aperture value)"

In photography, why do they call exposure time "shutter speed"? The speed of the shutter mechanism is a constant, and cannot be adjusted. Why not shutter interval, exposure time, or just simply "duration"?

All they sell is flooring.

In the last couple decades, I have noticed a heavy increase in many people using the phrase: "Can I get..." when ordering at restaurants or bars. Why do people use this odd form of request? As opposed to "May I have", "I would like", "I'll have the", "I'll take the", "Please bring me the", "Can I have" or "I would enjoy the" - much better. When someone is asking "Can I get" it sounds like they are asking permission if they, themselves can get it, rather than the server. Doesn't make sense to me.

Please avoid the cliche response "Well, you can always put on more clothes to stay warmer, but you can only take so many clothes off, and can not cool down." or any variation of that - it is tired, flawed reasoning and is completely invalid. Imagine that everyone walks the world naked, and that is the norm - there is no such thing as clothing. In such a scenario, and if you hate hot weather, how do you feel about it now? Has your opinion changed? What is the ideal temperature given that you are unable to wear clothing? Is it really meant to say that these people hate sweating rather than hot temperatures? That the heat is merely incidental, and it is really just sweating that they hate?

Could be any vintage, modern or older. I'm looking for that quintessential euro-sport driving experience, with a high level of driver engagement. Has to be absolutely fun to drive and gorgeous looking. In other words, which specific model in BMW's or Audi's present or past model line-up is going to be the most satisfying, fall-in-love, car that I will never tire of?

BA statistics are expressed, for example, as .300 or (spoken as three hundred). In this case, a three hundred average means the player succeeds in getting a hit 30% of the number of times at-bat. My question, is why do they need to use three decimal places? So if the BA was say .297, that means they get a hit 29.7% of their at-bats. Why not just round to the nearest ten? So instead it would simply be 30%. Also, why don't they just use percents and say it that way too? For example, Albert Pujols has a current BA of .289 - why not just say 28.9% or 29% ?

I'm sick of hearing the media's narrative citing the reason for a slumping economy is uncertainty. This means absolutely nothing. What specifically is uncertain? Health care costs? Home values? Stock market? Your job? At what point in all of history, were any of these thing certain and a sure thing? It's all just nonsense.

Why is the word "on" (preposition or adverb) sometimes inserted after the word "hate", as in: "Don't hate on Mike, he's a great person." or "Why is Johnny always hating on the neighbor's kid?" I don't get why the "on" part is being used here - is this a corruption of "upon" as in: "Don't bring forth hate upon Mike, he's a fine citizen."