It is a very queerly peculiar thing to be witnessing. The more the dipstick lies and harms the nation the more his adorers adore him. WHY?

Thank you for your thoughtful and informative reply Durdle. You are stuck at definition 1. Here is number 2.

DIPSTICK
Fool, jerk

Which brings me to another question I shall ask. Why is it that almost everyone stops at definition number one and never reads further or farther? A word encompasses ALL definitions and it amazes me that people aren't more curious about all the definitions. So to be clear when I call pumpkina** a DIPSTICK that is shorthand for FOOL, JERK. Thank you for your reply m'dear! This post was edited by RosieG at August 31, 2020 2:35 AM MDT

LOL! I have seen and heard the slang use of "dipstick" quite a few times so I know it's not one you've invented.

It just seems so peculiar to use the name of a simple tool for testing things like the oil-level in a car engine, as a slang word for an idiot!

It is definition number two m'dear. Dipstick...slang for fool, jerk. I love words and use 'em joyfully. Not always in the way the purists prefer but I do it for me and they can/should take a long walk off a short pier for all I care. Language is a living thing. It can be played with. It doesn't have to be treated as if it is sacred sacrosanct and serious. Sheesh. Those who insist on that have steel rods up their butts as far as I'm concerned. Thank you for your reply. Now pumpkina** is definitely a dipstick. No doubt about it. Those who adore him just enjoy fools and jerks apparently. That certainly says something about their taste in homo saps. :) This post was edited by RosieG at September 1, 2020 2:05 AM MDT

It's that point I made, that a real dipstick is a modest and useful thing, that made me wonder how even the slang meaning could be applied to His Nibs! :-) 

I don't mind alternative definitions of words, whether "real" or slang.

What irritates me is people like politicians and journalists trying to sound clever by using technical terms they don't really understand, so they use them directly but badly, or as badly-chosen metaphors that can even change the meaning from what they probably intend.

Favourite examples of theirs, respectively, are "algorithm" (much in the British news lately, where it was used as a scapegoat), and "epicentre" (where the context suggests "centre", a very different thing).   

You know what Durdle in my entire life I cannot remember using either word! Perhaps I did and just forgot. When an earthquake occurs I say "it was centered near/in" not epicentred. And algorithm? I've heard of it and just looked it up.

Algorithm

A set of rules for solving a problem in a finite number of steps as for finding the greatest common divisor.

I've never had a conversation where saying it was appropriate until now. How could it be used as a scapegoat? I guess anything/anyone can. I shall ask. Thank you for your reply m'dear and Happy Wednesday to thee and thine! :)

Well, epicentre is a geological term. It is the point of greatest effect on the land surface (or Continental Shelf sea-bed) of a earthquake which is the shock from rock movements far below. So in practical terms, there is nothing wrong with calling the area worst-affected, the "centre" because that is what really matters to its victims.

(The centre of the movement, or slip, itself could be many miles below ground, and is called the focus. I do know though that parts of the huge fault-bands that bedevil California, reach to the surface. I have seen photographs of their effects, tearing the landscape into huge slabs, and sliding one side past the other. )   

The difficulty is when politicians use it to say something like "we need to be at the epicentre of" this or that policy or treaty. That basically says they want to be at the point of maximum effects, good or bad, of something over which they have no control. What they usually mean is they want to be at the centre of the policy-making where they may have at least some influence over it.

It makes them sound as if they don't really understand the policy or treaty itself, nor what they are paid to do about it. Perhaps they don't....

+++

An algorithm, is as you say, a set of arithmetical steps; usually now in a computer programme;  but anyway designed for some particular purpose. The programme running our exchange here is full of algorithms, but each is only a fraction of the AM web-site and background programmes designed to allow such conversations.

A lot of journalists and politicians, in the UK at least, have latched onto the word because it sounds clever; and some come out with twaddle like "now our lives are so controlled by algorithms". They forget or fail to realise two things.

Firstly, that the algorithm is only a component of an entire programme designed to meet set specifications  - by a rough analogy, just as the engine is only a part of an entire vehicle, and it is the vehicle that is designed to meet the buyers' expectations.

Secondly, that computers do not programme themselves. The programmes and their routines, algorithms etc. are designed and written by people for other people.     

And it was that combination of technical ignorance and a wish to escape blame, that led to our Government blaming a section of a computer programme code for one hell of a shambles the Government had made of rescuing British education from the effects of the pandemic lock-down.

Unable to operate the normal school-leaving examinations, and after most schools had been closed to most pupils for a few months, the Department of Education came up with a computer-assisted way to give students estimated grades instead. Unfortunately, to avoid the risk of over-optimistic grades from teachers, it specified the teachers' assessments of individual students' progress be tempered by the past overall performances of their schools. A well-meant but fundamentally flawed idea, it went too far the other way, especially for exam results intended as individual university-course entry requirements.

Trying to wriggle out of it, the politicians and Press blamed "the algorithm" that had probably worked very well in its own terms - within a computer programme designed as requested, to give estimates based on statistics specified by administrators overseen by politicians, with neither having thought it through properly.

I.e.,  not arithmetical nor coding, but human, error! Hence my scapegoat charge.

There is old saying - "A bad workman blames his tools". Here the "workmen" were blaming the tool-box.  

Do you think that education has been so badly damaged worldwide it may never recover fully?  I don't think it's fair to place blame on people who try to do what they think is best in a situation no one has ever faced before. You can easily differentiate among them. Then you have "the other". Trying to sabotage undermine and taking advantage of every slip or error or misjudgment. I wonder which side has more members? Those who sincerely are trying their best to figure things out and those who are trying their best to wreack havoc and destroy? SIGH. Thank you for your thoughtful reply Durdle. "The sun was in my eyes. The teacher doesn't like me. The dog ate my homework". We've heard that all before haven't we? :(

I don't think it's that bad, and anyway different countries have their own education systems.

I agree with your point about fairness, but in the case of our exam results fiasco those responsible did have time to think about the problem and find the best solution.

Yes, there will always be those who try to take advantage  of even really minor mistakes, but I am afraid that is weakness in politics generally, even though it won't help anyone. In the UK system at least it is the work of the Opposition to hold the Government to account, but they do sometimes do so in a rather negative way.

Politicians can't win! They follow a course of action which proves wrong, so they are attacked for it. So they try to reverse the action or revert to the previous policy, and are then attacked for performing a "U-turn"! 

I think there is a broader point that society generally has come to expect more and more, and more quickly, becomes impatient and cannot understand or accept that no human-built system can ever be 100% perfect and efficient all of the time. Nor understand and accept that people can and often do make mistakes; so when they do, treat the mistake as it was a deliberate act of sabotage or something.

There is another old saying - "The person who never made a mistake, never made anything". 

I think you are indulging in complexification. Here's the bottom line as I see it.

When politicians run for office they make certain promises. All I want from them is for them to live up to those promises. Is that so much to ask? Do you promise with no intention of following through? Many politicians do and for that I fault them bigly. I agree. Nothing ventured nothing gained. It how you go about the venturing that separates the wheat from the chaff. Thank you for your reply Durdle! :)

Oh, they all do that - make promise they can't meet! I suppose they fear that if they were honest and say, "We will do our best to..." voters will think them admitting being unable to do whatever it is even before they've had chance to try it.

So do you think that in generally think voters are too stupid to understand reality in general?

:):):)

So the people are conned and know it and don't mind it? That is a tough pill to swallow Durdle. No. When someone promises something I EXPECT him or her to keep it or DIE TRYING. I am serious. Just because promises are made by pols and that's what they all does not get them off the hook with me. Sigh. Thank you for your reply! :)

The location inside the Earth where an earthquake begins is called the focus (or hypocenter) of the earthquake. The point at the Earth's surface directly above the focus is called the epicenter of the earthquake. At the epicenter, the strongest shaking occurs during an earthquake.

:):):)

Dipstick is an alternate and more polite use of the word 'dipsh**.

Dipsh**? I've not heard that word E. Dipstick means fool, jerk and the "someone" to whom I refer is certainly that. Hmm. Ok. I shall take your word for it. He is definitely chickensh** and flings bullsh** 24/7 and is a sh**ty homo sap whose stench permeates the air around him. Thank you for the info and Happy Friday. Dipsh**. I like it! :)

Dipsh**---a stupid or incompetent person (first known use:1963)  

This post was edited by tom jackson at September 12, 2020 2:24 PM MDT

Ever since Element informed me thereof I have been alternating the spelling from dipstick to dipsh**. Thank you for your reply tom! The more you know the more you know! :)