13 comments

[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 36.7 ms ] thread
Leaves is a misspelling, in the soure. It should be leafs.

    $ dict leaf | head -5
    8 definitions found
    
    From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]:
    
      Leaf \Leaf\ (l[=e]f), n.; pl. {Leaves} (l[=e]vz). [OE. leef,
Leaves is correct. Leafs has a completely different meaning.
Actually, both are correct. But leaves has a second meaning which makes it ambiguous.

If the point of communication is to enhance clarity and avoid ambiguity then leafs is obviously the smarter choice.

https://procopytips.com/leafs-or-leaves/

If the point of communication is to enhance clarity then making sure you've spelled everything correctly before posting would obviously be a smart thing to do. Or did you actually spell it wrong on purpose to get more replies?
No, leafs is incorrect. I'm not sure what you are trying to tell me with your link, it supports what I said as far as I can see.

    Leaves- The plural of leaf, or to depart
    
    Leafs- A verb meaning to rapidly turn pages while skimming for content. 
    
    When to Use Leafs
    
    You will use the word leafs on one occasion. 
    
    As a verb, you can say that someone is leafing through
    a magazine, while as a noun, a single piece of paper is
    a leaf. Leafs is the present tense term for searching
    through a book or other collections of paper.
That is the completely different meaning I referred to. And it does not have the plural of leaf as a second meaning.

> But leaves has a second meaning which makes it ambiguous.

It is unambiguous in that sentence structure where it clearly must be a noun. Even if it was ambiguous here, using leafs would still be wrong.

https://grammarhow.com/leafs-or-leaves/

> “Leaves” is the correct way of pluralising “leaf”. If you say “leafs”, you will be making a grammatical error. If you want to say “leaf’s”, you can do so when talking about possessions.

Nature is lit. Moths' wings and fur are extremely efficient at absorbing sounds. One study showed a moth's wing scales absorbed up to 87% of the sound energy directed at them. ""Even more impressive is that the moth's wings do so despite being extremely thin, with scales only 1/50th the thickness of the wavelength of sound they absorb. This extraordinary performance shows that moth wings are 'supernatural'. surfaces' (materials with unique properties and abilities that cannot be achieved with traditional materials) absorb sound in nature," explains Dr. Thomas Neil, lead author of the study." https://scienceinfo.net/soundabsorbing-weapon-helps-moths-fi...
For more context, look into acoustic metamaterials [0]. I am curious about this 87% number. I would rather see a distribution of absorption by frequency/intensity. I imagine lower frequencies are much less affected while the high frequencies of a bat's pings might be almost entire absorbed.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_metamaterial

Yeah, evolution in nature is really badass. Bats must have some crazy powerful DSP in their brain to process all that.

Fun fact from Ben Rich's Skunkworks book: when the Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk, the world's first stealth plane, was stored in a cave before it's first deployment in the Gulf, it was found in the morning surrounded by dead bats since they keep bumping into it overnight, as the plane was also invisible to their echolocation, which gave the crew reassurance over its stealth capability.

A bit close to the golden angle, and the fine structure constant.
Fun bat fact, bats have good eyesight.