This would make Gilgamesh very happy.
An elegant weapon, for a more civilized age...
A few others have mentioned fountain pens, but all new ones. Older pens, in good condition with decent quality to begin with, will blow away new ones for writing quality. I'm currently making notes (for my latest internet startup) with a red ripple hard rubber waterman 52, ~1924 but pretty much never used until I got my paws on it. It's a heavily flex nib which means I can write with it almost as a needlepoint for fine notes, but can still get bold broad strokes at any time I want for effect and flourish, and for signing funding documents. It's unlike any pen most people under the age of 50 or 60 have seen, and no one tries to borrow it. I can change the ink color any time I want.
Slightly more modern, parker 51s from the silver age of penmaking are widely available, reliable as all get out, and can be had in XF nibs. They're not flexy, though, but once given a good cleaning and possible replacement of rubber parts, will last another 60 years.
Or perhaps you've heard the saying about 75% of people think they're above average?
FWIW, 75% can be "above average" if by "average" you are talking about the mean and not the median; it only takes a few outliers to throw the mean off.
9 times out of 10 when the public uses the word "theory" they really mean "hypothesis". Should that stop scientists from using the word "theory" correctly? Should that stop us from educating people about the real definition of the word "theory"? Should scientists have to change their language every time the public warps it beyond recognition?
"Correct" is a matter of context. I shouldn't expect that teenagers writing sms messages are going to eschew expediency for accuracy and as such excessive use of acronyms and false contractions can be considered "correct" in the context of an SMS. However that same message when included in a homework assignment can clearly be considered incorrect given the more formal context. Understanding and adjusting your language to suit the context and intended audience is something that is taught in the first week of nearly every first semester speech, writing and critical thinking course. To disregard these principal in favor of picking arguments based on some false premise is pedantic at best...
And before you jump in with some retort please consider for a moment the formal acceptance of the ideas I've expressed. In an America criminal court an expert recognized by the court is expected to use language that is specific to their expertise in a manner that is both consistent and correct within their claimed/recognized expertise. The same level of expectation is not levied upon an layperson when they are presented as a witness. Such that a layperson could and should be expected to say "theory" when they might actually mean "hypothesis" yet a scientist would be expected to both understand the difference and use the term which is correct within the domain of their meaning.
These types of concerns are of increasing importance to professional system administrators in a time where there (to me at least) seems to be an increasing focus on meeting legally mandated audit and retention requirements.
The unfacts, did we have them, are too imprecisely few to warrant our certitude.