> English has a long tradition of stealing words from other languages then mangling them almost beyond recognition because we're too lazy to take efforts to pronounce them correctly. To me, this is a form of language arrogance.
First, there is more than one English: British (plus England, Scotland, etc), American, Australian, Indian, etc.
Second, each language has its own way of doing things, and so words would be pronounced according to the rules of the context of the language that is being used. Should the Japanese pronounce "tempura" the way the Portuguese do, given that the Japanese got the idea from them? Or should a Japanese speaker pronounce it "properly" for the Japanese, and a Portuguese speaker properly for that language?
> So often one hears TV newsreaders including those on the BBC slur the word as 'sooonami' when clearly its English spelling indicates the correct pronunciation. Tsu, つ, sounds like a hissing snake—say it to yourself. Is that not obvious?
Welcome to the world of accents.
Also worth considering that the fact that English does not really care about accents (or tones) to convey meaning helps non-native speakers use it. Two ESL people can probably communicate well enough to get messages across. (Probably handy for English being the modern lingua franca.)
Most fire department dispatches are for medical events (i.e., they're also doing paramedic work). On average, fire departments get about the same false-alarm fire dispatches and real-alarm dispatches.
If that kind of stuff is on the able you can also use boring 64bit integer keys and encrypt those (e.g. [1]). Which in the end is just a better thought out version of what the article author did.
UUIDv47 might have a space if you need keys generated on multiple backend servers without synchronization. But it feels very niche to me.
> A lot of people feel that the White clique of West Coast jazz capitalized on the popularity of the genre without really contributing much to it.
Meanwhile:
> The nonet recorded 12 tracks for Capitol during three sessions over nearly a year and a half. [Miles] Davis, Lee Konitz, Gerry Mulligan, and Bill Barber were the only musicians who played on all three sessions […]
Someone commented that (one of?) the reason that Trump is using EOs so much is probably because is not willing (or able) to actually get deals on in the legislature to pass his policies (or what passes for policy with him).
I think the Administration is likely to get its toys taken away soon.
the Major Questions Doctrine, the end of Chevron deference, the mandate for Article III courts from Jarkesy, have been building towards this for a while. the capstone in this program of weakening the administrative state, overturning Humphrey's Executor when Trump v. Slaughter is decided, will likely revive the Intelligible Principle Doctrine, as Justice Gorsuch has hinted. the same trend is apparent in the IEEPA tariffs case, where non-delegation got a lot of airtime.
EOs lose a lot of their punch when the Executive's delegated rulemaking and adjudication powers are returned back to their rightful owners in the other two branches.
But they rule in his favor more often than not. They gave him freaking immunity for any crimes he may commit. This alone enables him to disregard the law without any fear of repercussions.
> This alone enables him to disregard the law without any fear of repercussions.
That does not apply to his lackeys though (unless there's a preemptive pardon).
If (!) there's a change in the President eventually, there needs to be a reckoning for everyone that didn't push back on instructions/orders (including all the folks down the line who are blowing up (alleged) drug boats).
I fear by reducing control over executive power to one, squishy standard like the Intelligible Principle Doctrine will let SCOTUS pick and choose which laws have intelligible principles. When conservatives are in power, suddenly all laws will have them. And swing back when liberals are in control.
You don't have that power, you'll either be beaten by your adversaries unless you only target weak people. And then you'll be arrested. You don't have the power you claim to have. You can't punch people.
Each EO tests the waters a bit more with what the public and other branches will tolerate. As we’ve seen with numerous orders already, Congress and business will comply early because they think it will benefit them.
Trump thinks himself a king. He acts like it. He’s attempting to normalize his behavior. He can’t deal with the legislature because it turns out white supremacy isn’t that popular. Who knew?
I think the GOP, the right, etc. do propaganda very well. And they’re good at spinning scandals into things their voter base wants to hear. Or just burying them in a way that makes it hard for their base to find.
Even the centrist TV networks are still treating Trump like a normal president. News like the NYTimes does the same, while platforming horrible people in their op ed section.
Edit: anec-data - I have an embarrassing number of family members that voted for him. I asked why and the surprising common thing among all of them was they just didn’t know. The felonies, convictions, scandals, the racism and transphobia. They were just surprised. And they’re not very good at thinking critically about much of it.
Instead they’re voting for some nostalgia and the idea that they felt safer and more secure in their country when they were younger.
I once heard it said that Trump governs like a dictator because he is too weak to govern like a president. He is extremely unpopular and his party holds one of the smallest house majorities ever.
GOP is a party captured by the very wealthy. It’s minority rule because of certain elites’ trillion dollar plans to control all three branches of government and the courts have come to fruition after decades in the works.
After Nixon a lot of lessons were learned, on how to handle scandals and how to ram unpopular policy down America’s throat.
There is a very vocal opposition to Trump. However, by almost any way you can present "popularity" of a president - be it approval ratings, polling figures, popular vote, electoral vote, etc. - he is one of the more popular presidents in US history.
It's easy to get caught in an echo chamber of like-minded individuals and assume everyone disagrees with his policies - but that is far from reality.
> he is one of the more popular presidents in US history.
Published today: "Trump's approval rating on the economy hits record low 31%"[1]
> President Trump's approval rating on his longtime political calling card — the economy — has sunk to 31%, the lowest it has been across both of his terms as president, according to a new survey from The Associated Press-NORC.
"Trump's Approval Rating Drops to 36%, New Second-Term Low" [2]
> his all-time low was 34% in 2021, at the end of his first term after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.
The man is only two points above where he was when every reputable institution on the planet was running away from him as fast as possible, and he was nearly convicted in the senate. Less than a year into the term.
Yeah it'd be a wild view to call him among the most popular. But he is actually [0] pretty standard for a modern president - probably the least popular [1] but he doesn't stand out that much among the Bush/Biden/Obama polling except that it appears people understood what he was going to do before he entered office instead of discovering it on the way through.
And there is an interesting argument that most modern presidential approvals have more to do with the media environment and better visibility on just how bad their policies are.
[1] I'd argue better than that loser Bush who was probably the worst president in modern US history and who's polling showed it, but for the sake of keeping things simple.
> And there is an interesting argument that most modern presidential approvals have more to do with the media environment and better visibility on just how bad their policies are.
I think you can go further, the ratings are also heavily tied to things like gasoline prices and the overall economy, and generally things the president has little control over. So actually not much to do with their policies at all. I think Trump knows this and it's why he's done some strategically stupid things to the US fossil fuel industry in order to tactically bring down gasoline prices to juice his ratings.
This likely also explains the 2024 election, because it happened in the context of vast sums of money being sucked out of the economy as the fed tried to fight inflation. Incumbents globally got an absolute thrashing that year regardless of what their actual policies were.
> However, by almost any way you can present "popularity" of a president - be it approval ratings, polling figures, popular vote, electoral vote, etc. - he is one of the more popular presidents in US history.
You might want to look up those data yourself because uh he's actually unpopular in those metrics.
Approval - 42.5% [1]. Much better than Trump's love interest Biden's 37.1% [2] but being below 50% is unpopular.
Popular Vote / Electoral Vote - 49.8%, 312. I may need to tell you this so I will. 50% is greater than 49.8%; a majority of voters (nevermind the country) did not want Trump. As before, this is better than Biden's 306 and Trump1's 304 but worse than Obama2 (332), Obama1 (365) and in general 312 (57%) is nothing to write home about.
>>lots of quality (to me) content that I find educational (history, science) and entertaining.
This seems to be a tug of war- that is- information vs distraction
I remember in the 1990s India it was quite common to view kids from homes that had TV/Cable TV as kids who were bad at academics, and distracted without focus.
OTOH, as time passed people realised those kids had better english speaking skills, vocabulary and general awareness of the world. So extreme focus didn't quite work out as well as people though it would.
In the modern context I know quite a few people with laser sharp productivity and get lots of work done. But here's what 'wasting' time on Twitter has led me down rabbit holes in the Stock market that has opened up newer earning opportunities. So its not as simple as saying social media is distracting.
Extreme focus does work when your work is individually measured and judged. And the pay off is immense. Other wise you are better off doing something to keep the wheels spinning while finding more things that can be rewarding.
Pretty much.
People seem to think progress is linear and need razor-sharp focus on a single thing at once.
I don't think it's the case at all; in fact, most good things seem to have come from mistakes or luck.
I also consume a lot of youtube content and after the first on-ramp became wary of just how much time I was spending with it.
Here's a solution that worked magic for me for controlling it: use adblock origin or another plugin to block the video thumbnails from loading on the landing page.
Ever since I've done this I've felt so much more in control of my youtube consumption.
I land on the homepage, I click on each individual subscription that has new content and decide whether I want to watch it now or later and typically that's it.
Sometimes I'll go, I wonder if someone has done an interesting piece on the latest F1 news and specifically search for that.
The irony is if I quit social media, I start devouring youtube, including both high quality video essays and general video slop. If I quit youtube, I'm inclined to binge watch TV. I sometimes wonder if I need a more dramatic act of "unplugging." As writer Manu Joseph says on substack:
"Yet, I do not believe it is true that attention spans have changed significantly over the decades. People’s minds have always wandered. They have always struggled to focus. And most of them couldn’t bear to spend too much time with their own minds.
The real world, outside the phone, is so glorified today. But consider this thing that happens in the real world. You’re at a party and someone comes up and says that inane but useful thing, “What’s up?” And even as you answer, he looks behind you for something more interesting, which is never there. This has happened for decades, and not just in conversations. In everything people did, they looked beyond to see if there was something more interesting, which they never found."
...
"I don’t say there is no substance to the lament about modern attention spans. The fact that human attention was always fragile does not diminish the fact that the modern world has created extraordinary tools to facilitate distraction. A distraction is a kind of boredom that looks like entertainment, which saves you momentarily from another kind of boredom. Today, a slab of metal and glass at nearly everyone’s disposal captures the wandering mind and carries it far away, to some limbo. You could be working and reach for your phone, or an icon on your laptop, and suddenly ten minutes of your life are gone just like that."
That rings true to me as an observation, but the trouble with the smartphones and social media is not just that we happily consume it and have always been susceptible to mindless distraction, it's that the devices and services are actively designed to pull you back in and for as long as possible as much as possible.
Books don't do that, TV does that poorly if it does try.
Yep, it's just that the world is extremely competitive, and you are constantly forced to think about your “productivity.”
If you are not hustling and generating some value, you are “wasting time.”
Of course, that's nonsense. You are living your life to do whatever you want with it, and if that's spending a lot of time on social media, you just need to be OK with that (as in, it is a conscious choice, not an addiction).
> This fails even at the FRAND level because you're not "allowed" to implement it in open source software.
The same conditions apply to everyone: they do not discriminate—the ND in FRAND—open versus closed source. Everyone gets the same contract/NDA to sign.
If there was one contract/NDA for closed source, and another for open source, that would be discriminatory.
It's non-discriminatory, except for the part where the one contract is written in such a way as to exclude certain groups of potential users?
It's like making a law which forbids anyone without gold-threaded clothing from entering certain parts of the city: it doesn't discriminate against the poor, anyone with the right outfit can enter! Oh, poor people can't afford gold-threaded clothing? Sorry, that's just an unfortunate coincidence, nothing we can do about that...
Those potential users are self-imposing on themselves the need to be open source. There are no external, out-of-their-control factors making them 'be' open source (like there are with being poor, a certain gender, etc).
And for the record I do think it would there should be an (open source) HDMI 2.1 implementation in the Linux kernel, but I recognize the same IP law that protects HDMI licensing also allows enforcement of GPL/BSD licenses:
> Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
First, there is more than one English: British (plus England, Scotland, etc), American, Australian, Indian, etc.
Second, each language has its own way of doing things, and so words would be pronounced according to the rules of the context of the language that is being used. Should the Japanese pronounce "tempura" the way the Portuguese do, given that the Japanese got the idea from them? Or should a Japanese speaker pronounce it "properly" for the Japanese, and a Portuguese speaker properly for that language?
> So often one hears TV newsreaders including those on the BBC slur the word as 'sooonami' when clearly its English spelling indicates the correct pronunciation. Tsu, つ, sounds like a hissing snake—say it to yourself. Is that not obvious?
Welcome to the world of accents.
Also worth considering that the fact that English does not really care about accents (or tones) to convey meaning helps non-native speakers use it. Two ESL people can probably communicate well enough to get messages across. (Probably handy for English being the modern lingua franca.)
reply