SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Hindustan Times reports:
An unrelenting heat wave has killed more than 1,100 people across the country over a fortnight with southern neighbours Andhra Pradesh and Telangana bearing the brunt, as torrid temperatures melted roads in the national capital and have forced people indoors.
Authorities said on [May 26] most of the victims were construction workers, the elderly, or the homeless, as the weather office predicted the mercury will continue to soar this week with substantial relief expected only when the southwest monsoon hits the Indian mainland around May 31.
[...] The meteorological department issued "red box" warnings for Odisha, Jharkhand, and coastal Andhra Pradesh, signalling high chances of heatstroke, dehydration, and fatality with temperatures inching upwards of 45°C and conditions worsened by constant dry, sweltering winds.
[The state of] Odisha continued to reel, with [the town of] Titlagarh in Balangir district clocking the highest temperature of 47.6°C [117.7°F], while authorities said they received reports of 67 deaths in the past week.
[...] Experts warned [that] no let-up in the heat wave would lead to large-scale power outages in several parts of north India, bringing back memories of a horrific blackout in 2012 that affected nearly 600 million people.
In a separate story, Arne Winguth, Associate Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Texas-Arlington led a study on future environmental conditions in central Texas in the year 2100.
The professor was interviewed by KERA TV:
Winguth's study predicts more cracks and potholes, even buckling and melting of roadways in extreme 125-degree heat.
"The 125° Fahrenheit is a prediction for the future that is predicted for the year 2100. That would be the extreme temperature--that is based on most recent climate assimilation from the National Center for Atmospheric research."
[Editor's Comment: Original Submission]
(Score: 2) by Marand on Thursday May 28 2015, @02:45PM
In a separate story, Arne Winguth, Associate Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Texas-Arlington lead a study on future environmental conditions in central Texas in the year 2100.
This is nitpicking, I know, but that sentence should have used led [wiktionary.org], which is the correct past tense for lead [wiktionary.org] as it's used in that context. It's pronounced the same way as the metal, and the metal shares its spelling with led's present tense, so it's an extremely common error.
I think of it like this: if it doesn't involve the metal in some way (as used here [wiktionary.org]) and it's used as a verb, then the correct spelling is "led".
I mention it because the submitter and two editors missed it, so hopefully knowing the difference will help in the future.
(Score: 2) by CoolHand on Thursday May 28 2015, @03:06PM
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job-Douglas Adams
(Score: 2) by Marand on Thursday May 28 2015, @03:33PM
Yeah, in addition to (or perhaps because of) the confusing relationship the different meanings have, it's also extremely easy to miss in proofreading even when you know the difference. Any time I use it I double check to be certain I used the correct one.
In fact, before hitting submit I read my own comment so many times it's kind of sad because I didn't want to screw it up after correcting the summary. :)
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Thursday May 28 2015, @04:11PM
Don't be too hard on yourself. It is an understandable tendency, after hearing the dangers of tossing rocks and glass houses, and whatnot.
The real problem is when either extreme is used. If problems are never pointed out, not much would ever get fixed, most likely; the same is true of doing nothing but pointing out problems. Neither group seems to ever be part of the 'fixing' group.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday May 28 2015, @03:49PM
For what it's worth, my high school Latin teacher moonlighted at the local paper, and said this was by far the most common typo he would catch. It's a real doozy, because "lead" is a different form of the same verb as "led", and "lead" can be pronounced identically to "led" so most miss it when reading through it.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Marand on Friday May 29 2015, @05:27AM
For what it's worth, my high school Latin teacher moonlighted at the local paper, and said this was by far the most common typo he would catch.
Yep, I see it all the time in published works, which is what makes me sensitive to it. It's even worse now because of the prevalence of the "I wish I were a real journalist" bloggers on sites, too. Once, I saw the mistake so many times in a short period of time that I started to wonder if I'd been wrong all along about the proper spelling. It was just a weird coincidence, but it helped emphasise how often it gets overlooked, even among capable writers.
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Thursday May 28 2015, @08:47PM
Yea, spelling error easy to miss.
The other error that got me was the sentence structure is wrong for the description. The "in the year 2100" is a modifier for "lead [sic] a study", so the sentence actually claims that the study was conducted in the year 2100. This could have been corrected without restructuring the sentence merely by using the word for instead of in, indicating that the study was about environmental conditions for the year 2100.
So I see your nitpicking, and I raise.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by Marand on Friday May 29 2015, @05:18AM
I noticed that too, though it seemed more like ambiguity than outright error, so I didn't even consider mentioning it. Everyone occasionally writes something and later notices that it could have been written more clearly, so it's usually not worth worrying about unless it's a common problem or particularly egregious example.
Still, that's some professional grade nitpicking. My inner grammar Nazi approves. :)