392 karma · joined June 27, 2018
I wonder if, though possibly solving the problem of clean energy, it will also create other problems, say, something like "geomagnetic field pollution".
I’ve been reading so much english lately, that I’m losing grasp of my native norwegian. (Yet I can’t seem to get my syntax quite right.) This is frightening and also the reason I’m always trying to find norwegian books on whatever subject I’m interested in — which isn’t always easy...
I really had not heard of this; which was why I asked for a source, so that I could learn of it. The request was stupidly lazy, I admit; but I think asking (if done properly) for a source is one of the things that never should be met with disapproval.
“Common knowledge” of history (ancient and recent) differs vastly from country to country. In Norway, we basically just learn of USA that it’s the country that turns the tide of war whenever it enters; for which we learn of two occasions: 1st and 2nd WW; not much else.
Pardon my english.
Source?
This concentration of asterixes had me laugh out loud. Anyhow, this reminds me of so-called “auxilliary”, constructed languages of communication, which are supposed to be easy to learn all over the world for as many people as possibe all over the world. In reality though, they’re almost without exception wholly eurocentric, built mostly on germanic and romance languages, which barely covers one of the main language families just in europe... likewise, this citrine promises grossly more than it delivers.
Though we shouldn’t stop at that; if we look away from what it claims to be, what it is seems pretty neat. For education, maybe this is great.
HN ‘markup’ diversity is always a joy for the punctuation mark enthusiast.
\Hooray for markup/
Maybe my initial comment should be that this is taken out from [a book] that both Orwell, and the Khmer Rouge has read; which book would this be?
This sounds like it’s taken straight out of Orwells 1984.
This is a bit discontenting... as the author himself notes:
> without some kind of direct experience to use as a touchstone, people don’t have the context that gives them a place in their minds to put the things you are telling then.
Generalizing from mine and friends’ experience, all who have ever tried explaining anything in depth have been exposed to this, thereby we–I expect the HN crowd have all been there–should understand this, we should “get it”.
As an ending note, both OPs post and my comment are grossly simplified; for example, even with “a touchstone” people won’t understand with mere exposure confronted with anything of slight complexity, they probably won’t get it until knowing the stone inside out; I remember after half a year with programming in high school, many people that genuinely tried to learn, still didn’t get why they should bother with getting the syntax exact...
Hehe, does anyone know some good resources for semiotics self study?
This is not fun?
When I want to look something up in the norwegian Wikipedia I do !wno, for english just !w or !wen (and if I for some reason unbeknownst would want search in another language, it would be just a language tag away), I was very happy to see bangs for both the online norwegian dictionaries I use (!naob and !norsk), and some of the nicher sites, though, maybe not quite so niche here in HN: !dfw (Dwarf Fortress Wiki), even !nhw (nethack), etc.