Looks good. It essentially separates phonotactics out of conjugation patterns instead of conflating them, which works also very well with how I learn languages. How to conjugate then breaks down to finding the stem (yes, some learning is always involved), and then there are not even different conjugations, but there are simply vocalic and consonantal stems -- all the morphology is in the suffix (the 'secret vowel') and the rest is phonotactics. I am sure there are irregular verbs, but probably this explains 90% or more of the verbs with simple rules. For me, this creates a perfectly logical system. Thanks for the overview!
The UB in unaligned pointers is even worse: an unaligned pointer in itself is UB, not only an access to it. So even implicit casting a void*v to an int*i (like 'i=v' in C or 'f(v)' when f() accepts an int*) is UB if the cast pointer is not aligned to int.
It is important to understand that this is a C level problem: if you have UB in your C program, then your C program is broken, i.e., it is formally invalid and wrong, because it is against the C language spec. UB is not on the HW, it has nothing to do with crashes or faults. That cast from void* to int* most likely corresponds to no code on the HW at all -- types are in C only, not on the HW, so a cast is a reinterpretation at C level -- and no HW will crash on that cast (because there is not even code for it). You may think that an integer value in a register must be fine, right? No, because it's not about pointers actually being integers in registers on your HW, but your C program is broken by definition if the cast pointer is unaligned.
Ancient Greek spans several centuries of sound shifts and many dialects. It cannot easily be simplified into one specific pronunciation, particularly not one that is based on your specific dialect of English. Wiktionary has /kǎi̯/, /ˈkɛ/, /ˈcɛ/ and /ˈce/ for "καὶ".
Odd? No, it's normal politician behaviour. Julia Klöckner herself got hacked because she is not aware of phishing. To distract from her incompetence, she urges to switch to Wire to implicitly blame Signal. It's obvious what's going on, but people have so little knowledge about digital communication and security that she will get away with it. Poor woman got hacked by insecure Signal, people will remember.
The constitution made it impossible to make a less sexist law, because it says that women cannot be forced to military service. It is an old document, and it is based on old role models. Modernizing the constitution would require 2/3 majority, and the government was already struggling with making a law at all.
And while we pump CO2 into the atmosphere, we also shrink the engines that could get it out again, like the rainforest in Brazil. Perfect optimisation!
(I don't want to shame Brazil, it's a global chain of problems. And other forests are decimated, too, like in Sweden and Estonia, for the demand of produce worldwide.)
Same here. And I have a friend who keeps his small IPhone because they stopped building smaller phones, too. There is a demand, maybe not that big.
For me, I want to be able to operate the phone with one hand, and the large screen makes it difficult to reach all the spots on the screen even with large hands. I do operate my Fairphone 5 with one hand, but it is super awkward and at some point, the phone will fall into a gully because I cannot hold it tight while navigating.
And I wouldn't mind 2mm more thickness if this means the cameras are flush with the back and the battery is larger.
> But roughly 15% are plausible: “wooden chair,” “morning coffee.” That’s still 30 billion sensible pairs.
(1) Who counted those? Whence those numbers?
(2) The examples are normal two-word phrases with one word modifying the other, often categorised as an adjective. The examples are counter-examples to the very claim made in that article.
(3) Using Clause to brainstorm s.t. is a weird thing to say...
(4) I would say the use of 'lexicalized' is wrong or at least uncommon. It usually refers to specialised semantics of something that could be interpreted generically, too. Like 'sleeping bag'. Or indeed 'cold feet'. Lexicalisation may involve deleting spaces, like 'hotdog'. And I am pretty sure lexicalised phrasal words are usually intensionally listed in dictionaries. And so 'ice' is not lexicalised 'frozen water', but it is not overtly a phrase but is a separate atomic word.
Did anyone else find it wrong that trends like fat-free, lots-of-fat, keto, proteins, sugar-free, low-carb are put in the same category as trends like GMO-free, organic, natural, clean? Lack of differentiation in this regard unmasks the article as opinionated and over-generalizing in a way that I have to ignore it, I think.
Sure, some market dynamics may be similar, and all are probably luxury topics, but the underlying intent and motivation of customers is completely different. The article's main point is to criticise blindly following bogus and unscientific health trends. But this is not really justified for decisions to avoid dirt, food additives, and optimised and exploitive farming methods.