|
|
Post by Chester PB on May 5, 2024 16:28:33 GMT
I haven't read a new copy of AP for years - physical copies are no longer available down here, and the local library doesn't have it in its suite of digital magazines. The AP website says that digital subscriptions exist, but are handled by a third party called 'Pocketmags'. I didn't get as far as the cost of this, but it might be useful to you in NZ. |
|
|
|
Post by Ivor E Tower on May 29, 2024 20:02:13 GMT
I've had a letter through the post from Kelsey saying that the quarterly DD will rise from just over £29 to just under £41. I think I'm going to have to cancel; that's a huge increase in percentage terms; not onlyt that but in the magazine they areadvertising for new subscriptions at only £34.99 every quarter. Time to phone their number and find out what they are playing at
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffr on May 30, 2024 10:44:51 GMT
I've had a letter through the post from Kelsey saying that the quarterly DD will rise from just over £29 to just under £41. I think I'm going to have to cancel; that's a huge increase in percentage terms; not onlyt that but in the magazine they areadvertising for new subscriptions at only £34.99 every quarter. Time to phone their number and find out what they are playing at I’m thinking to cancel my subscription, this week’s article on long exposure landscapes contained a photo that included Godrevy lighthouse. The magazine arrived on Saturday, we were at Godrevy on the Tuesday. Neither of us was impressed with the photograph, and that was the most interesting article in the magazine. |
|
|
|
Post by JohnY on Jun 2, 2024 22:14:16 GMT
Do you find that silly minor errors can ruin the credibility of an author?
From the latest issue "It's also very big and heavy, weighing in at over 1kg, or nearly 2lb."
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffr on Jun 3, 2024 7:01:09 GMT
Do you find that silly minor errors can ruin the credibility of an author? From the latest issue "It's also very big and heavy, weighing in at over 1kg, or nearly 2lb." I haven’t seen that one, I don’t read many reviews these days, but last time I checked 1Kg was 2.2lb so, yes the author’s credibility has taken a hit. |
|
|
|
Post by spinno on Jun 3, 2024 8:17:04 GMT
Do you find that silly minor errors can ruin the credibility of an author? From the latest issue "It's also very big and heavy, weighing in at over 1kg, or nearly 2lb." I haven’t seen that one, I don’t read many reviews these days, but last time I checked 1Kg was 2.2lb so, yes the author’s credibility has taken a hit. What about the sub-editor and editor? Or was it all down to AI? |
|
|
|
Post by MJB on Jun 3, 2024 8:21:02 GMT
Technically 1kg is nearly 2lb. Its all down to whether you interpret 'nearly' to imply something is less than whatever you are comparing it to.
|
|
|
|
Post by spinno on Jun 3, 2024 8:27:01 GMT
Technically 1kg is nearly 2lb. Its all down to whether you interpret 'nearly' to imply something is less than whatever you are comparing it to. You're not wrong...however grumpy curmudgeons like us insist on accuracy in online information, just like that nice Mr Wiki provides in his Pedia. |
|
|
|
Post by geoffr on Jun 3, 2024 9:17:16 GMT
Technically 1kg is nearly 2lb. Its all down to whether you interpret 'nearly' to imply something is less than whatever you are comparing it to. To say “we’re nearly there” suggests that we aren’t actually “there” but we will be soon. I wouldn’t read that as “we went past and ‘there’ is behind us”. I have always considered nearly to mean “just less than” rather than “slightly more than”. However you offer a different perspective. |
|
|
|
Post by peterob on Jun 3, 2024 11:31:16 GMT
Technically 1kg is nearly 2lb. Its all down to whether you interpret 'nearly' to imply something is less than whatever you are comparing it to. To say “we’re nearly there” suggests that we aren’t actually “there” but we will be soon. I wouldn’t read that as “we went past and ‘there’ is behind us”. I have always considered nearly to mean “just less than” rather than “slightly more than”. However you offer a different perspective. Assuming the quote was correct that the measure was "over" 1 kg then that suggests "nearly" 2.5 lbs although it was strictly incorrect to describe either as measures of weight, they are measures of mass. I don't recognise the strange mass unit of 1 Kg equating to 2.2 lbs though - that would be 1 kg. |
|
|
|
Post by spinno on Jun 3, 2024 11:42:10 GMT
To say “we’re nearly there” suggests that we aren’t actually “there” but we will be soon. I wouldn’t read that as “we went past and ‘there’ is behind us”. I have always considered nearly to mean “just less than” rather than “slightly more than”. However you offer a different perspective. Assuming the quote was correct that the measure was "over" 1 kg then that suggests "nearly" 2.5 lbs although it was strictly incorrect to describe either as measures of weight, they are measures of mass. I don't recognise the strange mass unit of 1 Kg equating to 2.2 lbs though - that would be 1 kg. I've heard of grammar N@zis but never Metric prefix ones... |
|
|
|
Post by peterob on Jun 3, 2024 11:47:47 GMT
Assuming the quote was correct that the measure was "over" 1 kg then that suggests "nearly" 2.5 lbs although it was strictly incorrect to describe either as measures of weight, they are measures of mass. I don't recognise the strange mass unit of 1 Kg equating to 2.2 lbs though - that would be 1 kg. I've heard of grammar N@zis but never Metric prefix ones... Every day - something new. Can't say that I am a fan of Gg though. |
|
|
|
Post by spinno on Jun 3, 2024 12:18:28 GMT
I've heard of grammar N@zis but never Metric prefix ones... Every day - something new. Can't say that I am a fan of Gg though. Where did the smilies/emojies go?   |
|
|
|
Post by JohnY on Jun 3, 2024 16:37:47 GMT
To say “we’re nearly there” suggests that we aren’t actually “there” but we will be soon. I wouldn’t read that as “we went past and ‘there’ is behind us”. I have always considered nearly to mean “just less than” rather than “slightly more than”. However you offer a different perspective. Assuming the quote was correct that the measure was "over" 1 kg then that suggests "nearly" 2.5 lbs although it was strictly incorrect to describe either as measures of weight, they are measures of mass. I don't recognise the strange mass unit of 1 Kg equating to 2.2 lbs though - that would be 1 kg. I spotted one error and introduced another. The original text mentioned kg. As to the difference of mass and weight, I think that we are all used to the weight of a one kg mass on earth. Using poundals and newtons would not be helpful in the context. I have just checked my original post I used kg not KG.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterob on Jun 3, 2024 17:06:05 GMT
Assuming the quote was correct that the measure was "over" 1 kg then that suggests "nearly" 2.5 lbs although it was strictly incorrect to describe either as measures of weight, they are measures of mass. I don't recognise the strange mass unit of 1 Kg equating to 2.2 lbs though - that would be 1 kg. I spotted one error and introduced another. The original text mentioned kg. As to the difference of mass and weight, I think that we are all used to the weight of a one kg mass on earth. Using poundals and newtons would not be helpful in the context. I have just checked my original post I used kg not KG.
It was Geoff I was teasing, not you. |
|
