Submitted by OneGuyJeff t3_1274d8q in explainlikeimfive
urzu_seven t1_jegp2fk wrote
Reply to comment by Jimid41 in eli5: Why do seemingly all battery powered electronics need at least 2 batteries? by OneGuyJeff
Again no, strictly speaking he is not. Layman’s terms are just as valid. They do not stop having meaning just because someone uses a term in a technical fashion in a different manner. The usage of the term battery to refer to a singular item is not remotely an oxymoron. It’s a well defined, well understood, broadly used term that is fully consistent in how it’s used.
Jimid41 t1_jegpcmo wrote
What do you think the phrase "strictly speaking" means? And how often are laymen talking about the cell count in a battery? I wouldn't say the topic is broadly discussed by the general public at all. And in cases where it is the definition and understanding indeed dictates a single cell battery an oxymoron.
urzu_seven t1_jegpzu9 wrote
I know it doesn’t mean “I’m going to arbitrarily ignore other definitions of the word to focus on an outdated and/or narrowly used definition”
Again the use of battery to denote a singular object is well established and 100% valid. You can’t ignore the most common usage to try and create a false oxymoron. That’s like saying “Well if you ignore all the points the other team scored, technically I won, even though the final score was 100-1 then”.
Jimid41 t1_jegrr6a wrote
> “I’m going to arbitrarily ignore other definitions of the word to focus on an outdated and/or narrowly used definition”
There's nothing arbitrary about it. The definition isn't dated or narrow, it's properly specific.
>Again the use of battery to denote a singular object is well established and 100% valid
Yes just as a truck is a singular thing, that is made up of other things. Nobody is arguing different.
> You can’t ignore the most common usage to try and create a false oxymoron
How often are you speaking of the cell count on batteries to alledge what the most common usage is?
And again, what do you think strictly speaking means? Might it mean according to the strictest definition?
urzu_seven t1_jegs2jn wrote
You are not using “the strictest definition”. You are using an arbitrarily chosen definition to justify your argument while ignoring other more common and equally valid definitions.
Jimid41 t1_jegsej8 wrote
Oh you have a stricter definition. Let's see it.
urzu_seven t1_jegsuod wrote
There is no “stricter” definition. That’s your problem. You are trying to be pedantic about something that doesn’t apply.
Jimid41 t1_jegt3ad wrote
Are you arguing that more constricting parameters doesn't equate to a stricter definition?
urzu_seven t1_jegv1rg wrote
When it comes to defining whether the meaning of a word is valid or not yes, absolutely you can’t have a “stricter” definition because it’s a binary operation. Either the definition is valid or it’s not.
Battery as a single object is a valid definition. It is, to use your language, strictly valid and just as strictly valid as other accepted and used definitions.
You are, ironically, confusing definition of words, with definition of situations.
Jimid41 t1_jeh1ekm wrote
Good thing in this case validity of the use of the word wasn't in question since it was prefaced with "strictly speaking".
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments