Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.

Example Input: In other words, which sentence is correct? At least one of them is not coming. At least one of them are not coming.
Example Output: In English, grammatical number often follows the form of the sentence rather than its meaning, especially in cases where the meaning allows for a variable number in the subject. In those cases, the verb usually agrees with the syntactic number of the closest subject noun instead of the meaning of the whole noun phrase. For example: Some of them are not coming. One or more of them are not coming. These sentences means the same thing as your example. They both use a plural verb because the nearest subject nouns, some and more, are plural. However, in your example, the nearest noun is singular: At least one of them is not coming. Therefore, the verb follows the same (singular) form as the noun, even though the noun phrase in the subject allows for the possibility of more than one. Note that this rule affects both the number and person of the verb: Either those jerks or I am not coming. In this case, the verb is the first-person singular am because the nearest subject noun is the first-person singular I. However, many people would find this construction awkward and rewrite the sentence in a more natural way, perhaps: Either those jerks aren't coming, or I'm not.

Example Input: For example, a computer security expert can be an expert and making a basic mistake, perhaps unrelated to his personality but highly relevant to his field of expertise and a mistake that just about anybody could do but just because he is a security expert he especially should not have done it. I don't mean stupid mistake or stupid error but I mean contradictory and almost similar to a double-standard. Jeff teaches English but he couldn't spell 'occurrence'. Or for example George is a professional Microsoft Windows programmer but he doesn't know what alt+tab does. Or Henry is a surgeon but he cut himself shaving. I don't necessarily mean something like a police officer who himself is corrupt or a judge who is corrupt because those are not accidents or mistakes but deliberate. Albert Einstein was a genius but couldn't remember his own address and entered the wrong house when going home. (Perhaps the above Einstein example is not a great example because scientist could be absent-minded.) I mean more like actually mistakenly missing the basics of your own speciality or making a human error that anybody else could do except you because you are supposed to be the specialist. I think the classic example could be Bill Gates trying to show how good Microsoft Windows is and it crashes. Or a news anchor, who should be a specialist in not making a word mistake, actually makes a word mistake. Or a judge or an attorney, who should be experts in law and rights, wouldn't know something trivial about law and right e.g. unknowingly about that blackmailing is a crime. I almost made such a mistake myself. I was an IT specialist and computer technician at a client's office and their boss was teaching himself the basics of programming and asking me about something basic. I actually got it right but I was not completely certain about something basic while actually being able to solve complicated and advanced problems for them.
Example Output: Such mistakes are bloopers. ODO: blooper NOUN North American informal 1 An embarrassing error 'Home cooks perhaps identified with Mrs. Child, who, though she clearly knew her sauces and souffles, also committed bloopers on camera.'

Example Input: Any situation, any time; this person has always something negative to say about it. It should be a noun or an adjective to describe a person who is a damp cloud walking over every sunshine situations at the cubicle, hoping to drench other people with his miserable comments. I considered 'sourpuss' but would prefer something more important sounding, like 'misogynist.'.
Example Output:
In British English, 'Naysayer' is common for someone who says that something is not possible, won't work, shouldn't be tried, etc.

