That has nothing to do with sloppyness. If you know how to teach writing, publish a book and harvest a noble price. (Strictly speaking, that should be spelled Nobel, as that was his name).
Then why don't you write Nobel prize in the first place? Your comment, on how bad writing should not be contributed to sloppiness is the first time I ever encounter this "noble prize". Also, "Strictly speaking" is completely out of place here. "Strictly speaking" we should also refer to "Murphy's law" and "Newton's law" instead of "muphries law" and "netwon's law", which no-one ever does anyway.
Classic: "My dog has no nose. How does he smell? Aweful." That joke relies on "smell" working as a verb and a adjective
This may be a detail in your explanation, but you are wrong. That joke relies on "to smell" meaning both to observe odors and to spread them. Apart from that, I agree completely with you. There is no good reason to "wrongify" languages, except laziness. Okay, go ahead and stop using correct grammar, but don't attribute this to some higher bullshit principle. The only reason for all this crappy writing is that people are to lazy to put in any effort. As a correct grammar contributes some redundancy, it eases the reading. (non-native English myself).
Easy enough. The "pretty ones" are being fucked more than the ugly ones.
You are completely correct in that. There is indeed a difference between knowledge (data) and reasoning. However, chances are that if you haven't got a clue whatsoever about numbers and orders of magnitude, that you won't reason very much either.
Most of the time when I read something related to physics, I like to do a rough calculation in my head to see if what is stated seems logical to me. Like how high the ocean level will rise when so many tons of ice melts on Antarctica, what efficiency can be reached with some new kind of solar cell (and whether this is spectacular or not), how long it would take an airliner to fly around the world, etc.
Fortunately your book collection is in the bathroom.
Short answer: because people like books.
Books are (at least in my opinion) easier to browse and go everywhere. Also it is faster to reach for a book than to boot some reader, find a file etc... whereas a book is just sitting on the shelf. Obviously this only works for stuff you have read before (and remembered more or less where it was).
You have a point that it makes little sense not to get all books from a library, but sometimes people just want to have something.
And by another odd coincidence, other particle physicists took a detour into Wall Street, where they