Afaik digital cameras don't generally use subpixels. Each pixel is roughly speaking only able to detect one of red, green or blue light - because it's covered by a filter that blocks the other colours. So if it only detects the red part how can we see whether or not there was a green thing there when we look at that pixel in the image? A computer has to guess what the colour is in that precise spot by using information from the neighbouring pixels.

That guessing is called 'debayering'. It means that effectively the image captures black and white textures in much higher resolution than variations in colour. Generally that fits well enough with what we want to look at and how we see things.

Our eyes are more sensitive to green light than to anything else, so they make cameras to match. Half the pixels are sensitive to green, one quarter to red, and one quarter to blue.

Interesting, thanks. Hadn't noticed the tone difference before.

Right, no-one has ever explained to me at what level of purity water would supposedly become dangerous.

I wouldn't say "Reddit reads Sam" is semantically meaningless. It can mean the Reddit community forms an understanding of who Sam is, or just that they read words Sam wrote, depending on context.

I would say the rule has been broken if the speaker intended to communicate that Sam was the one reading but they said the words in the wrong order, perhaps because they didn't know English grammar well. It's a particularly bad mistake because it may lead to a misunderstanding.

CGEL says it's not quite that simple. The sentence does have the other person and we can't necessarily ignore that fact. "Keep Tom and I updated" is not necessarily incorrect.

Even if it wasn't lexicalized, brick still wouldn't be an adjective, would it? I could pile up tomatoes (although they might have to be in tins) and have a tomato wall. That wouldn't make tomato an adjective. I think it's a noun adjunct.

What about the subject-verb-object order rule? I can say "Sam reads Reddit", or I can switch the subject and object and say "Reddit reads Sam". Breaking the rule didn't make an ungrammatical sentence, it made one with different meaning.

> most other grammar rules are broken pretty often in really informal settings

I don't think this is true. There are lots of grammar rules that are followed in any setting. They have to be because they're a big part of how we make ourselves understood. Generally if people don't want to be understood they don't bother speaking at all.

The grammar rules people like to talk about for fun are the ones that are frequently broken, and may even be fake rules that were just made up to give grammarians something to write about.

Real rules that everyone follows are taught to language learners but are not very entertaining for people who already speak the language - like the rule that singular improper nouns must have an article or other determiner, but determiners are optional for plurals and proper nouns. Or the rule that verbs must be inflected for past tense.

I think adjective order is distinctive in being a rule that feels surprising even to native speakers - we imagine we have a free choice and then enjoy learning that we've been following a complex seeming rule that we didn't even know existed.

Right - but in the dragon example I don't think the second word in either phrase could be considered an adjective, if it's part of the name of the species.

Yes - but in all of those cases you'd subtract the costs of the input to the business, so you only count the money that goes to the companies own staff & owners as its productivity.

E.g. to estimate how much value the therapist produces you'd add up the feels their clients pay but then you'd subtract what they pay for room rent, what they pay to their superviser etc. For the bus company you'd subtract their cost of buying or renting busses etc ect. If a business is paying more for its inputs than it takes in revenues then its productivity would be negative.

OK - I think "considered for evaluation" is a much higher standard than palatable. I guess it's only worth considering for commercial evaluation if it seems likely to have some competitive advantage over all the other apple varieties currently available.

Where did you find that 1 in 40000 figure? From what I can see online you can grow and eat apples from seed, it's just a gamble because you don't know what the apples will taste like. Nothing I read said it was extremely unlikely that they will be palatable.

What someone's called in private isn't generally a legal question. Whether or not OP is ok with being called the old name in private probably has nothing to do with whether they went through a legal process to change name.

Yes, and for a rainbow in sunlight the centre of the circle is always exactly opposite the sun, and normally the rain that generates the rainbow is some distance away. It's unusually to be able to look into the distance downwards.