You are comparing the worst countries with a rich, average country to make said country look like the safest, which is deceiving.
1,330 karma · joined January 6, 2012
I have to always correct them and tell them it's not Canadian.
Use a spray bottle to get its wings wet, I usually use Windex or a multi-surface cleaner, then get a paper towel and kill it as slow or as fast as you want
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_S%C3%B8ren_Kierk...
I've noticed this kind of person is usually the most uninteresting to talk to, though. But not everyone has to be interesting. In my experience, aside from their work, they seem to have surface-level conversations and interests and live a much simpler life. It's like an extreme form of pragmatism.
Also, to paraphrase Borges, happiness is its own justification.[1] In other words, it either needs no justification or, at the most, only a surface-level justification.
[1] "He sospechado alguna vez que la única cosa sin misterio es la felicidad, porque se justifica por sí sola."
Other foods with ("a lot of") selenium: salmon, pork chops, and chicken breast
I tried googling it but because it's so nondescript it's hard to find it.
This sounds euro- or western-centric, which is interesting because it is how we've been taught the world is: everything of highest esteem originated in Europe, and different European cities were the cultural capital of the world at different times in history.
There may be some truth to that, but you're not recognizing the original and creative Asian art that does not imitate or derive from European influences.
My take on this whole AI-created influencer is that younger generations (putting aside race and ethnicity) prize beauty and perfection at the cost of human connection and personal stories in the "art" or "celebrities" they follow or admire.
My background is in the arts. I was taught that during most of the 1900s, art was about the process and what gave it value. The output was just an effect of the process of creation. Why did artists put such value in the process? Because that is precisely what is so hard to replicate. The final result (end product) is easier to mimic. The story behind the art is irreplaceable and as personal as the artist's soul, as trite as that may sound.
I would go as far as to say all artists, including Asian ones, understand this, which is what creates such a huge divide between "real art" and "massively produced art," where the human element is lost and things are produced in a "lab."
This is not to say there aren't thousands and possibly millions of Chinese people who are good citizens.
But I mention it because OP seems a little too confident in his belief, when there are are pretty massive examples of the contrary.
That's interesting.
It's the same in Japanese.
I wonder if it's the same in Chinese.
As much as I love a lot of things about Hacker News, most users here have never discussed the indigenous histories of the Americas, so remain ignorant as to how to express themselves in such discussions.
To be clear, you should not be downvoted.
And to others oblivious as to why "peopled" is wrong: To people is frowned upon when discussing early histories of the Americas because it connotes that before the arrival of Europeans, aboriginals were not people and there was a lot of "empty space."
There were plenty of people in the Americas. The vast genocides across all of the Americas by the hand of European governments were due to a culture clash and the European immigrant's need for hegemonic power.
After the deaths of most indigenous population, Europeans used rhetoric to convince people that "vast, empty" lands needed to be "peopled." Genocide was used to replace native tribes with European immigrants.
A lot of the lands that were already rich in resources and on their way to healthy growth (prospering) did not need to be "peopled" by European immigrants.
Yes, if you know all this information and still use "peopled," you should be ashamed of yourself.
Here is a map of all the tribes in just North America:
PDF file: http://www.tribalnationsmaps.com/uploads/1/0/4/5/10451178/pi...
Other maps: http://www.tribalnationsmaps.com/store/c1/Featured_Products....
NPR article: https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/06/24/323665644...
Site of the maker of these maps: http://www.tribalnationsmaps.com
I move among different circles of friends. Some studied philosophy and political science, others arts in general, and others computer science.
It's scary that tech people have this very "blase" attitude (oversimplification perhaps?) that one's motive when it comes to how to handle distribution of money comes down to simple "meritocracy" and/or "greed."
As if the very fact that blaming the innate human debility of giving in to avarice or greed does not presuppose much more problems, such as ulterior motives, cultural bias, nepotism, etc.
There is, of course, the notion that the bigger a corporation gets (e.g., a conglomerate), the more dehumanizing it is. With such large sums of money being moved around (to whatever end or outcome) comes more "bottom line" interests and "corporate interests," and as such, it is less about the individual. The repercussions of this, which are pretty evident to me, is that it creates an institution or entity or agent ("corporation," if you want) that does not have a moral framework or acts not humanely but immorally, while its shareholders and investors can sleep comfortably at night because they distance the self from the company, so it is not the person acting immorally, but some "unknown force" (the Company), which, using reason, cannot actually be "immoral," because surely only humans can act in such a way.
What a world.
Just about every Mexican brick-and-mortar restaurant I go to in Los Angeles has a burrito option, but not always tacos.
What a weird methodology.
I'm assuming most people here have gotten their information off the Web and have a very one-sided view of whatever they have decided they have attained "knowledge" on.
Since we are quoting Wikipedia:
"The concepts and vocabulary from which vulgare latinum descend were known in the classical period and are to be found amply represented in the unabridged Latin dictionary, starting in the late Roman republic. Marcus Tullius Cicero, a prolific writer, whose works have survived in large quantity, and who serves as a standard of Latin, and his contemporaries in addition to recognizing the lingua Latina also knew varieties of "speech" under the name sermo. Latin could be sermo Latinus, but in addition was a variety known as sermo vulgaris, sermo vulgi, sermo plebeius and sermo quotidianus. These modifiers inform post-classical readers that a conversational Latin existed, which was used by the masses (vulgus) in daily speaking (quotidianus) and was perceived as lower-class (plebeius)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgar_Latin
Wiki:
"Philological analysis of Archaic Latin works, such as those of Plautus, which contain snippets of everyday speech, indicates that a spoken language, Vulgar Latin (sermo vulgi ("the speech of the masses") by Cicero), existed at the same time as the literate Classical Latin. The informal language was rarely written, so philologists have been left with only individual words and phrases cited by classical authors and those found as graffiti."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin
Wiki:
"The written Latin of today, as used for Church purposes, does not differ radically from classical Latin. Study of the language of Cicero and Virgil suffices adequately for understanding Church Latin."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiastical_Latin#Compariso...
And finally, to quote what I quoted another user in this thread:
"But you are right, Cicero is Classical Latin. However, we were taught a mix of Latin that is kind of like what this Wiki says:
'The Latin of the panegyrics is that of a Golden Age Latin base, derived from an education heavy on Cicero, mixed with a large number of Silver Age usages and a small number of Late and Vulgar terms.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panegyrici_Latini#Language_and...
'Silver Age' is what I probably should have said instead of strictly Late and Vulgar, which are both technically different terms, but which were also taught in my Latin courses."
Unfortunately, I do not have time to explain everything, and I am also not a Latin scholar. I studied Latin over 6 years ago so my Latin history knowledge is also a little fuzzy.
But you are right, Cicero is Classical Latin. However, we were taught a mix of Latin that is kind of like what this Wiki says:
"The Latin of the panegyrics is that of a Golden Age Latin base, derived from an education heavy on Cicero, mixed with a large number of Silver Age usages and a small number of Late and Vulgar terms."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panegyrici_Latini#Language_and...
"Silver Age" is what I probably should have said instead of strictly Late and Vulgar, which are both technically different terms, but which were also taught in my Latin courses.
In translation class, we were taught about false friends, so this added to my paranoia probably.
I don't mean to brag, but I speak fluent Spanish, and I studied Italian, French, and Latin for four years. I never studied Portuguese, but I can read probably 50% of it and grasp about 70% of its meaning. Romanian looks a lot more like Latin, so I used to be able to spot some words in it, as well. My Latin is rusty these days, though.
The difference between Classical Latin is that word meaning is very different, even though it looks similar. You can't go from a modern Romance language and back, but you can go from Classical/Vernacular Latin forward.
Even Latin speakers would sometimes get confused which words were accusative and nominative cases in complex sentence structures. The easiest ones are genitive, ablative, and dative, but try reading literature that is long, and it starts getting complicated to parse who is doing the action to what.
Not to mention the noun declensions, which are completely nonexistent in all modern Romance languages.
I hate to be so contrarian, and I'm beginning to question people's knowledge in this thread, but I was taught Middle English and they hammered home how it was very close to modern English.
Yes, a lot of students were first shocked and disagreed, but if you stuck with it, you would see a lot of similarities. One thing that I think threw off a lot of students was the spelling versus the pronunciation.
If you analyze Middle English on a purely visual or "literal" level, it looks almost nothing like English. Once you start learning the pronunciation and liaisons and connecting words, and with a few minor pronunciation differences, you really do begin to hear its strong correlations to modern English.
I studied Latin in Canada. Foundation Latin classes are based on the "Latin of Cicero," the writer who is considered to have mastered the language during its Golden Age by most scholars. We are not taught Classical Latin til more advanced courses, as the declensions and conjugations change and so do many word meanings, and instead of learning Classical Latin the language, we learn to close-read Classical Latin literature.
The two broad categories are high Latin and low Latin. Put another way, classical Latin and vulgar Latin. Low Latin was the vernacular and already used by most by 270 AD, including poets, who greatly influenced the formation and unification of the new Latin language. The "Latin" that is generally studied at university these days comes from a mediaeval Latin that is a simplification of this old, vernacular form.
Actually, during the period of classical Latin, the vulgar form already existed and broke off into at least a dozen dialects, some of which include old forms of French, Spanish, Portuguese, and, of course Latin, of which there were many versions. It was a fight between the two, but nobody really used classical Latin in everyday speech. These days, there are I want to say probably a dozen dialects in Italy. But Italian is a simplification of Roman Latin with minor influences by other Romance languages and even less influences by other world languages such as Arabic.
My basic conclusion to what you say is, there is no way you can understand classical Latin if you speak modern Italian.