As a native English speaker who learned a foreign language (German) in high school, I have a pet theory about this, which is that I suspect most other languages use a word roughly equivalent to English "appear" (with which it would be correct to use "how", such as "how the atomic tests appeared from Los Angeles") even in colloquial speech, whereas English tends to reserve those synonyms for more formal registers of speech; in casual conversation in English, you wouldn't ask someone "how did he appear?" (unless you meant the other sense of "appear", as in "become visible"), but you would in, say, German (wie hat er ausgesehen? or wie sah er aus?). Of course, I'm sure learners of English as a foreign language are taught to say "what does he look like?" and not "how does he look like?", but I can imagine them struggling with remembering that just like I struggle with remembering genders and cases and declined forms in German.
Hi, American here and "how" + "to look like" makes my teeth itch. However, people generally find grammar corrections to be needlessly pedantic when the erroneous grammar does not impede comprehension, so I've personally decided to choose my grammatical battles and simply fume about people talking about "how something looks like" in private instead.
I generally also choose to keep such complaints private, and I'm not sure what whim motivated me to speak up this time. Rather to my surprise, this trivial gripe has been voted up more than almost anything else I've written here over the last sixteen years. It would seem that there actually is, in some contexts, somehow, at least some appetite for grammatical pedantry!
Language is tricky. One of the trickiest things! There's so much tied up in it, objective and subjective. It's a simple tool. It's an academic object. It's a well-defined spec. It's a living ambiguous blob. But it's also one of the biggest pieces of one's culture. There's a reason the French are so possessive of their language where it lives in cultural exclaves. There's a reason the Irish have laws to keep their native language alive.
I can see at least two grammatical errors in your first two sentences.
Imagine being a grammar pedant and missing a comma before the conjunction linking two independent clauses.
I mean, if you want to be like that, you could generalize that statement to "the fact that they believe there to be a single `$LANGUAGE_OR_REGION` accent means this can be quickly discounted as nonsense". Other languages, and other varieties of English, have regional variation as well, after all--although in the case of other languages, I'll grant that the accents of, say, two German speakers from different regions might not be as distinct from each other in English as they are in German.
At any rate, I was looking forward to finding out what the accent oracle thought of my native US English accent, which sounds northern to southerners and southern to northerners, but I guess it'd probably just flag it as "American".
Agreed. Immersion in a game world, at least for me, is less about how accurately it visually reflects reality and more about how detailed the overall world feels -- whether the designers have crafted worlds that feel like they live and breathe without you, that you could imagine inhabiting as someone other than the protagonist. For instance, I can imagine what it would be like to live in Cyberpunk 2077's Night City, whether I was a merc like V or just one of the nobodies trying to get by that you pass on the street; I can imagine living in Dishonored's Dunwall (or the sequel's Karnaca) in the chaos and uncertainty of their plagues; I can put myself in the shoes of one of the faceless, downtrodden members of the proletariat of Coalition-occupied Revachol in Disco Elysium; a lot of AAA games, on the other hand, feel like theme park rides--well-crafted experiences that are enjoyable but don't stick with you and discourage you from thinking too deeply about them because they don't withstand much scrutiny. But Cyberpunk 2077 is evidence that they don't have to be that way, and Dishonored and Disco Elysium are equally evidence that you don't need a half-billion-dollar budget and photorealistic graphics to create immersive worlds.
(edited to clarify that I'm not laboring under the misapprehension that Cyberpunk 2077 isn't a AAA game)
Can confirm as well, although to my recollection it just shows up as if it's a word the transcription model heard, not "[foreign]" in brackets like with "[Music]" or "[Applause]". It's especially weird to me because I recall the auto-transcriptions being reasonably serviceable when they first rolled them out, only to degrade over time to the point where it was hallucinating the word "foreign" and dropping letters from words or using weird abbreviations (like "koby" for "kilobyte", "TBTE" for "terabyte", or, most memorably weirdly, transcribing the phrase "nanosecond-by-nanosecond" as "nond by nanc") if it didn't decide it heard another one entirely.
I also noticed a couple of months ago that YouTube seems to have quietly rolled out a new auto-transcription model that can make reasonable guesses at where capitalization, punctuation, and sentence boundaries should go. It seems to have degraded even more rapidly than the old one, falling victim to the same kinds of transcription errors. Although the new one has a different hallucination in silence and noise that it wasn't able to classify (which, incidentally, its ability to recognize things like music and applause seems worse than the old one's): where the old model would have hallucinated the word "foreign", the new one thinks it's hearing the word "heat", often repeated ("Heat. Heat.").
The game came first, and the TV shows were spun off from it, which is probably why the game feels more fully developed. It grew into a whole media franchise -- there were Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego? and Where in Time is Carmen Sandiego? game shows on PBS, as well as a Where on Earth is Carmen Sandiego? Saturday morning cartoon, and more recently, an animated series on Netflix. I don't remember there being Carmen Sandiego segments on Square One but I also don't remember Square One all that well in the first place.
There's a collection of images returned by the various Venera probes (including the surface photos from Venera-9, -10, -13, and -14) restored from tapes of the original transmissions here: http://mentallandscape.com/C_CatalogVenus.htm
Edit: Oop, missed that someone else posted a link to that same site (different page) a while before me. Well, nevertheless.
Can't speak for any other Americans, but for me, the objection is rooted in having to watch a video at all. Reading the subtitles in a video is still more time-consuming than reading a transcript (which, mercifully, someone else here in the comments did provide).
The second reply got flagged for being rude, but it's right.
Not wanting to watch a video is valid. Complaining about "foreign language" when there are dubs, subtitles, and transcripts, all human translated, is not valid.
And did the first reply seriously get flagged to death for saying "Dear american"? I can't see any other words in that sentence that I could construe as offensive...
Indeed, I would be surprised if there exists any RDBMS where the content of the select list in an EXISTS subquery matters. Postgres's SQL dialect even lets you use an empty select list (`... WHERE EXISTS (SELECT FROM related_table WHERE related_id = id_from_outer_query)`). In T-SQL, however, a non-empty select list is required, and in my experience, developers writing T-SQL tend to prefer a constant value like `1` or `NULL` over `*` -- I suspect there's some superstition there related to both the common wisdom that `SELECT *` queries are to be avoided (which is true -- you really should only ever select the columns of interest) and a lack of truly understanding that EXISTS only reads enough of the table to ascertain whether rows exist that satisfy the subquery's predicate, and returns a boolean value, not a result set.
As a non-sql-expert (I've used an exists query approximately once in my life) I prefer `select 1` over `select column_name` or `select *` because it doesn't look like it might be meaningful.
Postgres's dialect seems like it made the right choice here.
It works fine for me.. when I'm thinking in sqlese. The bigger travesty here is using SELECT for the tasks which are not selecting (returning data) anything.
Both Oracle and SQL Server have the advice to use a constant value on their documentation. Postgres used to advise the use of `*`, but looks like they improved their optimizer so it doesn't matter anymore.
It's not superstition. It's people that know deeply how a complex system works picking the option with the best set of side-effects.
While this is obviously true, the long term effects of a positive, growth mindset are more likely to have an effect on your net worth than if you cannot or will not take pride in working hard and doing the best job you possibly can.
Keep in mind that this "positive, growth mindset" means quitting your job for a better one if you're not going to get promoted in the job that you have. That, or starting your own business. Many companies have made it abundantly clear that there's no positive growth inside their company for ordinary workers. Only for the wallets of the managers and shareholders.
This reads like its from a questionable research paper funded by an HR group with the sole aim of gaslighting workers into working harder for less money. I’m not buying it.
It is certainly questionable research, but from the lived experience of a superannuated engineer (me!) not an HR group.
As for gaslighting? Well, my aim is indeed to make you work harder. Not only that, but for you to have more money not less. At all levels — our society, the sector in which we work, our businesses as a whole and each team in those businesses — your success has a positive effect on everyone else as well as on you and part of that success will come as “legal tender”.
The flip side is that if we all drag our heels, everyone is worse off. I have sadly met many people in my life who seem to want everyone else to be as miserable as they are.
(Your comment way up this thread talks about jobs with low wages with no future prospects. You make a good point and those jobs really are different — one is unlikely to innovate oneself to greater wealth as a coal miner. Lots of us here on HN don’t fall into this category of work though, and yet, alas, I see the mindset of the low pay / low prospects worker more and more in the tech sector.)
If your boss or—worse—your shareholders are making significant money from your work, and spending it on furthering the climate disaster (like most bosses of large companies do) then I would argue that, no, your work is actually making the world a worse place.
This wealth gap that keeps increasing is not good for anyone (except for bosses) and it is literally destroying our climate, even if it makes your personal net worth increase, that isn’t good enough if it increases your boss’ net worth 100x that.
Working smarter and for better companies also got me working harder. I simply work harder when I'm working for a company I care about, on a job I care about, when I feel appreciated and have the freedom to contribute in a way that works for me.
If you make me care less about the job and worry more about money, that's not going to help my productivity. If you want passionate and productive workers, you've got to give them something to be passionate about, but you also have to make sure they don't have to worry about money. If they're thinking about how they'll make rent or how they're going to pay for some unavoidable expenses, they're not thinking about how to solve an interesting problem for you.
reply