Everything he says here also applies to german. For example, to actually say "ich" properly you need to have a wide kind of smile that feels incredibly strange to an english native speaker.
Why? The "ch" in "inc" is exactly the same sound as that represented by "h" in words like "human" and "huge" in English. It's a voiceless palatal fricative. It doesn't require a "wide kind of smile" unless you somehow need to also do that when saying the vowel in "team" too.
Not an expert, but some "to IPA" websites I checked transcribes "the huge human" as "ðə hjuːʤ ˈhjuːmən", but "ich" (voiceless palatal fricative) as "iç" (and "ach" (voiceless velar fricative) as "ax")).
ç != hj
ETA: Wikipedia notes:
> The sound at the beginning of huge in most British accents is a voiceless palatal fricative [ç], but this is analysed phonemically as the consonant cluster /hj/ so that huge is transcribed /hjuːdʒ/. As with /hw/, this does not mean that speakers pronounce [h] followed by [j]; the phonemic transcription /hj/ is simply a convenient way of representing the single sound [ç].
[ç] is an allophone of [h], and it's very hard for English speakers to notice that they're not just saying [h]. I've had the same problem with [e] versus [ɛ].
It very much does exist, and I chose those words on purpose as they're places where the realisation of /h/ is a voiceless palatal fricative (i.e., the German ich-laut) and not a voiceless glottal fricative. "ish" would be a voiceless alveolo-palatal fricative.
I recommend you read up on English phonology, as a video for German learners really isn't a good source.
My point was that what Nabokov said about Russian "When you speak Russian your mouth ought to distend laterally at the corners" also applied to German, and that saying "ich" properly in German was an example of this.
Yes, one does not NEED to have the mouth open wide to express the "voiceless palatal fricative" but if you do not do it with a "slight smile" as described in that video it will not sound right.
I truly hope you know something about German pronunciation, otherwise I don't know what would compel you to even comment on the thread.
Also check out the lingq exporter [1] which works with Youtube as well. Does something similar but also allows you to keep an inventory of your current vocabulary on the lingq platform. I'm a huge fan.
I looked into Lingq, watched a few short videos on it, and saw an interview with the founder, but I'm still not sure I get it. The site is mainly a text-based vocabulary acquisition tool, right?
Yes it is very far from intuitive (as a developer I can tell when uis are designed solely by developers).
The way I think of it is this: you do all of your foreign language reading through the app. Lingq keeps track of which words you have seen: when a new one comes up it's highlighted in blue, when you define the word (mostly automatic) it turns yellow. Once you mark a word as known it is no longer highlighted.
There are SRS features built in, but I ignore them and just add words to anki when I feel like I need to.
If you love reading it's a really great way to get language exposure. Since looking up word definitions only requires a tap or click it enables you to read above your level (like reading with training wheels on). And just seeing a word over and over again in different contexts is a much better way to learn than hammering away at flash cards. The import from netflix/youtube stuff as I mentioned is great as well.
I also upload all of my own material (mostly ebooks) and ignore a lot of stuff they have there.
It's not that difficult of an intellectual exercise to find parallels between one time and place and Weimar Germany.
Honestly this article is a bit intellectually dishonest by saying things like "It seemed as though nothing could go wrong" in Weimar Germany in 1920. There were outright revolutions going on at that time. Like large groups of revolutionaries and freikorps machine gunning each other in the streets of Berlin within 12 months of that election. Did people back then really feel like "nothing could go wrong?"
Paramilitaries and UK armed forces were fighting in parts of the UK relatively recently and that peace is under threat by a no-deal Brexit so I'm not sure that is the best analogy.
Well, the chief of the police of Northern Ireland seems to think there is an increased risk of paramilitary activity of there is a hard-Brexit causing a breakdown of the GFA:
With eggs you are probably getting plenty of protein.
I have been mostly vegan for a while and I don't think my bike riding has been affected, but I can tell you it definitely affected me when it came to weight lifting. For the first time in my life I just wasn't improving at all from session to session (and this is in the early stages when you just start lifting again after time off when gains come easy).
I know there are vegan weightlifters out there but from what I know getting all of your protein requirements from plant-based protein powder is a big undertaking.
It's not enough to make me go back to animal products but definitely something I miss from my meat eating days.
I don't see how getting enough protein on a vegan diet would be a problem, especially when you mention plant-based protein powder. I think healthy calories may be an issue if you don't include nuts and seeds, but as long as you cover your energy needs from vegetable sources you get enough protein and enough of all essential amino acids. You didn't mention this, but protein combination is a myth, and only very few vegetable sources lack certain amino acids. So does some animal sources as well, but that is almost never reported.
You didn't mention this either, but if you want to avoid protein powder, it may be harder to find lean protein sources. I just looked up nuts (peanuts specifically), that have 27% protein but also 51% fat. Chicken breast also has 27% protein, but only 8.7% fat.
I'm not a body builder and haven't investigated how to go about it in detail as a vegan though the full cycle of bulking and shredding, but if you just want to gain strength getting enough calories and protein shouldn't be a problem. I've also read that most body-building magazines completely overestimate how much protein you need, citing numbers four times what sports science says.
You have first-hand experience in this situation and I'm clearly speculating, but perhaps you didn't get enough calories rather than enough protein? Of course it all depends on what you're eating. When some people say vegan food, they mean raw food or mainly vegetables, while others include a lot more legumes, nuts, and seeds.
The real stinger for vegan diets, but also poor meat based ones is lack of certain known micronutrients. Mostly D, B12. Potentially also potassium, magnesium, molybdenum. Some investigational ones like boron as well.
This is because he of the food chain is deprived and in case of D and B12 these really are not available in plant sources only.
Animals that haven't eaten natural diet and haven't seen the sun get B12 shots before slaughter. 99% of meat consumed is so poor that majority of population is B12 and vitamin D deficient despite eating it regularly.
> With eggs you are probably getting plenty of protein.
Eggs are between 6-7g of protein each, which isn't a lot.
Depending on your goals, and where you fall between being sedentary and an athlete, you should be aiming for 1.6 g/kg/day and 2.2 g/kg/day [1].
Add to that the satiating affects of protein in a diet, particularly through ghrelin secretion [2], and you've got a stronger incentive to increase your protein intake.
I can second the Chartrand book (I believe you mean "Mathematical Proofs: A Transition to Advanced Mathematics"). I used this book in a "bridge" class and loved it; it really starts from first principles and gives you a lot of simple examples that you can build on.
I've been reading the Norton Edition of Franklin's autobiography and some of the excerpts in the back of the book are pretty amazing. A lot of them pretty vicious European responses to Franklin's approaches, especially his list of virtues. For instance D.H. Lawrence:
Hehe thanks, that was fun. Well, Lawrence ranted similarly about everyone, with enough truth to make you think for a moment he might be totally right. He got his schtick from his wife Frieda, who'd gotten it from a love affair with the Austrian psychologist Otto Gross, a "champion of an early form of anti-psychiatry and sexual liberation", "proto-feminist and neo-pagan" etc.
I've been devoting a lot of time to learning hardware lately and the resources that have worked best for me are:
Make: Electronics [1]
This is a very accessible, hands on driven book that starts from absolute 0 and builds you up step by step. It focuses on very basic circuits and components (I think only the last experiment involves a microntroller).
UT Texas Embedded Systems / Input Output (edx) [2]
This course I can't speak highly enough of. I started it on a whim and got totally sucked in. Again, very hands on (they wrote custom software that tests the physical devices you build). It's thorough and addicting.
In my experience writing getters and setters has been boilerplate 99% of the time.
But I still write them because situations arise where you do need to change the nature of that property, sometimes dynamically, and then it's suddenly worth it. You can, for instance, change a getter and none of the class's clients need to know or care about the change.
Though I haven't used Groovy much I like their approach to this: "Although the compiler creates the usual getter/setter logic, if you wish to do anything additional or different in those getters/setters, you’re free to still provide them, and the compiler will use your logic, instead of the default generated one."
Why don't you just use plain fields, and if you need to change it later, delete the field and go fix all compile errors? That's an easy way to find all usages.
Or are you not talking about a statically-typed language which would find the errors when you temporarily delete a field?
> Though I haven't used Groovy much I like their approach to this
I like this a lot about Groovy as well. Groovy also provides annotations that relieve a lot of the other points too, such as @Immutable [1], @EqualsAndHashcode [2] and @ToString. It even supports meta-annotations which let you alias several annotations together as one so you can make a complete "data class" with a single annotation.
Five years Ago I started to use it.
Never touched a project without again.
Today I am really interested in kotlin, which provides many of these features.
> I know people will disagree, but a skilled photoshopper can often reproduce the look and feel of film with digital.
But why go through the hassle of photoshopping when you can just get the image out of the camera the way you want it? This is especially the case where you're taking a lot of pictures. All of that photoshopping would be tedious.
And why is a more "accurate" photo superior? Like take any famous photo and ask yourself: If the photo showed even more detail would it be better?
The issue with film is that you can't get an image "out of the camera," it must be developed first. In order to get a usable image, you must know how to properly develop the film yourself, or pay one of the handful of competent remaining labs to develop it for you.
It's a much more sustainable process to throw a digital filter on your image.
>The issue with film is that you can't get an image "out of the camera," it must be developed first. In order to get a usable image, you must know how to properly develop the film yourself, or pay one of the handful of competent remaining labs to develop it for you.
To some degree I think this is part of the reason that film photograph has retained some appeal. There is no instant feedback, the process forces you to be more deliberate with each photograph, and the techniques to create images with film are becoming more arcane each year.
Like many other things that have been made easier by technology, there is often lasting interesting in the art of doing something by hand even if there is an easier/faster/more efficient way to get the same result. See Etsy:IKEA, craft beer:Budweiser, Digital:Vinyl music etc. I see film photography headed towards a similar niche.
>To some degree I think this is part of the reason that film photograph has retained some appeal. There is no instant feedback
Leica took this philosophy to extremes when introducing the M-D a while ago - a digital rangefinder camera with no preview screen. It's one of those Marmite things, apparently. If I wanted to shoot without instant feedback, I'd use a film M, thankyouverymuch - but obviously, YMMV.
If you want a film look on a batch of digital photos, you'd be wise to use one of the very capable batch processing programs.
Digital is going to beat analog for processing times, but the argument for which one is subjectively better is going to go around in circles forever. I still like and will enjoy working with both.
It's interesting how this parallels the arguments around realism in painting. Once you have a machine that can produce a more accurate representation of a scene, the degree of accuracy becomes an aesthetic decision.
