Germ theory originated in Europe and it took a couple of decades before the knowledge transfer made it to the US and started getting accepted. It took a while for it to be come generally accepted in Europe too. I'm hazy on the exact dates, but even accepting the 1860 date, it's far too close to 1868 to assume politicians and the general public in the US (or even in Europe in 8 years) would have passed a constitutional amendment with full acceptance or understanding of germ theory.
It wouldn't have taken decades. Information might have taken a year or two. Decisions on what to do with that may take longer. I find it unlikely that germ theory wasn't known by those involved with the 14th amendment, even though it wasnt based on it.
I’m basing my assumptions based on a book called Rabid which suggested (if memory serves correctly) that the rabies vaccine (developed in 1885) was the one of the early catalysts for the wide acceptance of germ theory among the American public. If you want a random source here is one https://www.civilwarmed.org/germ-theory-civil-war/
> To his credit, Dr. Lister crossed the Atlantic to deliver a lecture to a hostile American audience to try and convince them of his methods in 1876.
> Our own Jake Wynn argues that it wasn’t until the death of President Garfield in 1881 that the American public and physicians began to turn toward germ theory. His slow and painful descent from an assassination attempt was well documented and publicized at the time.
There is a difference between information transmission and it getting absorbed into the public opinion and understanding so much that a constitutional amendment would consider it. To go from Joseph Lister’s and Louis Pasteur’s work in the 1860s and think that politicians and the general voting public in the US passing a constitutional amendment that considers it in a handful of years just doesn’t make much sense.
I have seen that too many times too in big companies, but I wouldn't say that it results in nothinghappens.jpg
It results in the equivalent of treating an infection with Tylenol rather than antibiotics. The exact symptom reported by a "Leader" will usually get fixed, but in a more of a "KPI hacking" rather than a fundamental fix to the problem. I have seen a "Leader" point to the staggering number of support tickets as a problem then have teams make it incredibility difficult to open a support ticket. The number of support tickets plummets and the first report to instruct their team to do so gets rewarded and all other teams follow suit. Have a leader point to complexity of the sign up process, and have teams "simplify" the signup process by just taking an email to create the account, then make the experience of doing anything post sign up a broken mess because you forgot to go into settings and filling up all the required details. Or have a leader complain about the install process like in this example, and have teams just bundle massive dependencies or make wide horrific modifications to the users machine to "simplify" the install process. Now suddenly installing a video editing software also modifies your default video player, your HDR or scaling settings, your audio device setup, and your keyboard layout (because why not?)
The more interesting question is why would so many thousands of people in a big firm seemingly be fine with frustrating customers and giving the appearance of a gaggle of clowns?
Standard psychology says they should be highly sensitive to status loss, but it almost seems the opposite.
>"The more interesting question is why would so many thousands of people in a big firm seemingly be fine with frustrating customers and giving the appearance of a gaggle of clowns?"
Existing in a large org over the long term becomes a game of survival. It's very much similar to the "dark forest" or the Eye of Sauron. Your number one goal as an IC is to complete the tasks directly assigned to you by a supervisor and avoid at all costs any kind of "hey you" assignments that have zero upside and plenty of possibility for downside. It would be wonderful if we lived in a world where individual initiative mattered and was rewarded, but it doesn't. It becomes "why haven't you delivered XYZ", and the vague ephemeral reasoning of "well A, B and C for team D needed fixing" is not an excuse, and now you can't pay your mortgage anymore.
Ask anyone at a FAANG and they will tell you that large corporations get flak every day for a lot of things, some justified and some unjustified. As an IC, you need to tune it all out and let the people whose full time job is to deal with that sort of thing handle it.
As you get larger there is a fire everyday and ever more competing priorities on which fires get put out.
How much money does movie maker bring Microsoft? Now which executive would want to prioritize movie maker so much that they would directionally alter the company to fix this? Consider the issue that the execs had was fixing all the issues involved a huge number of teams.
Discredit to Bill here but I honestly think he was the only one who had the power to fix this. A Jobs-like figure is the only person with the organizational power and freedom to drive details like this to completion. Anyone else would end up in a power struggle
I drown in support tickets daily that used to go nowhere. Then people started realizing that I knew what I was talking about and not some standard business user. Now I still have to open tickets, but get visibility of the people who know what they’re doing on their end (having been moved up from lowly support to oversee some ticket filling company that doesn’t know crap). We get tom complain to one another how shit is broken, wait mandatory change periods and then get something working by exploiting loopholes because some process was developed and someone put a lot of money behind it.
Large companies are why large companies are large (in IT/OT at least)
When I used to communicate in Arabiz I would rarely use 5, 6 or 9 too, but I get why they are there.
The problem with 6 and 9 is that there are 2 very unrelated sounds for t and d in Arabic. Mixing them is a hallmark of non-native speakers tell signs and to an Arabic speaker’s ear sounds broken. It’s like when German speakers mix th and z sounds in English. It’s very jarring to the ear and requires you to parse the same word you’re reading twice in your mind to tell whether it was 6 or t (or 9 or d) especially that very similar words might exist like 6atreb and tarteb or trab and 6arb. I usually don’t use 6 and 9 either except when I want to emphasis the 6 or 9 sound in a word.
Kh and gh are problematic mainly because you’re relying on the special rule in Arabic that you can’t have 2 constants like k, g and h sounds after one another in a word. You’re relying on the wrongness of a kh or gh construct in Arabic to realize they must be standing for something else. I prefer them tbh, but I get the desire of some to have symbols for them.
غ Is sometimes 3’ but I have seen more gh than 3’ especially that 3’ mixes the academic romanization with the “Arabiz” romanization
My village's name is خنشارة - written in latin as Khenchara. There's precedent for this for kh, so it carries easily to gh as well.
My last name starts with a ق and in latin it's written with a K.
The tools were just to provide a way to write letters that do not have a corresponding letter in latin alphabet, it's not a way to provide all the nuances of pronunciation.
You’re up against a tall order trying to modernize Arabic. Arabic is half a language and half a religious practice in itself. Arabic speakers, who are absolute majority Muslims, have explicit statement from God that Arabic is a holy language sent by God as the most perfect language PERIOD. It’s why he chose it for the Quran, and why it should remain unchanged. All attempts to “improve” it would be an admission of some problem or some deficiency which is heresy in itself. How can you improve on what God has already declared perfect? The solution is often to go back to the older style of Arabic instead of your local dialect if you really want the perfect Arabic, not to invent new concepts.
Even though Arabic script itself isn’t necessarily mentioned in the Quran and Muslims will generally accept that the script itself was “standardized” after the Quran, they would also argue the concept of “Authority of Al-Salaf” which is the belief that the closer the generation is to the prophet, the more authority that generation had on whatever topics they ruled on. There is an important hierarchy of authority in Islam where the Quran is at the top, followed by any saying or a judgement by the prophet, then followed by those of his direct followers, then their followers, then scholars of their followers, then their followers, all the way down to today. Since according to the most accepted story, Arabic and its script were “standardized” in the few decades following the Muslim prophet by his direct followers, you can’t really improve it. Or rather, you have to have a really enormous social influence and respect to be able to even make the slight modifications. There has been few influential Caliphates or scholars in history that have been able to do so, but it’s hard to imagine anyone today with that level of importance or influence.
>Arabic speakers [...] have explicit statement from God that Arabic is a holy language sent by God as the most perfect language PERIOD
This is wrong and I couldn't find a serious source stating anything like it. There's nothing in the Muslim faith that suggests the Arabic language itself is holy or sent by God.
The whole post reads a bit like a rant against Arabs suggesting their background precludes adaptation or something of the sorts.
In my experience there is an implicit understanding that Arabic is at least as close to perfect as it gets. The basic reasoning is that the Quran is perfect and written in Arabic, therefore Arabic is perfect. Nobody says this explicitly so the logic doesn't have to be airtight, but native Arabic speakers in Arabic contexts do tend to behave as if this is the case.
Native Arabic speakers don't speak anything resembling Quranic Arabic though. And modern written Arabic is also very different from Quranic Arabic, to the point native speakers need training to understand the Quran.
I think what you mean is that they believe the Quran itself is literary perfection and sent by God through the last prophet, and that is indeed the belief.
But Arabs neither speak nor write like the Quran, and to the best of my knowledge they are well aware that their written and spoken languages have evolved through the centuries (as evidenced by the many Arabic dialects).
To some extend. Most Arabs would understaff 95% of the words and sentences in the Quran with any special training. Some vocabulary is no longer used and you might need to look those words up. What you often need training on however is called Tafser which is about comprehension. To correctly interpreting what those phrases and analogies imply or trying to communicate with the correct context and be able to correlate different parts of the Quran together. It’s like the difference between an average layman being able to “read” a quantum mechanics book, and actually comprehend it.
However, as mentioned most Arabs also believe that Quranic Arabic is that perfection. As a result, you don’t need to “improve” Arabic, individual people need to learn more Quranic Arabic that’s all. You would frequently see religious figures speaking in Al-Fusha to sound closer to Quranic Arabic. Not quite speaking in the convoluted nonsensical way of the Quran, but close enough to trick people’s ear into it. K-12 education teaches “Arabic” classes to every kid where they learn the “proper” Arabic often using the Quran and poetry from around the same time as the Quran as the reading and study material.
Arabic has absolutely a special place in Islam and to Muslims. It’s the language god chose deliberately to communicate his final message to humans, as a well as the language where religious practices in is the “most rewarded” compared to reciting rituals in other languages. Islam and Arabic are permanently intertwined because the Quran, the literal word of God, is very intentionally in Arabic
This seems wrong. There's a lot of diversity in Arabic, there has been modernization in Arabic, and the Quran does not declare Arabic a perfected language. Arabic has changed already.
I'm not saying this project will be successful and I'm sure the cultural importance of Classical Arabic is one of its obstacles but I don't believe this is a language group that is religiously forbidden to modernize its typography.
Maybe I was wrong in saying it “declares it perfect”, but the Quran declares itself as “sent in Arabic, clear and free from crookedness” or in “a clear Arabic tongue”. Scholars (from Ahl Al Salaf, so they have more authority) often interpreted that as God deliberately choosing Arabic to communicate his message as Arabic was the best language that God chose to communicate his final message in its clearest form to humans. There are further sayings by the prophet that reciting the Quran and prayers in full proper Arabic has a special place to God.
There were modest attempts at reform and improvements, but they were never titled as “improvements” or “modernization” especially that the latter is a word with negative connotations in Islam, but rather as something more pragmatic or logistical like the adoption of new words, or dropping some complex rule or style.
There is indeed a great diversity in Arabic, but there is 1 “correct” Arabic which is the Quranic/Classical Arabic. Egyptian, Levantine, Hejazi, and Maghrabie are only some of the main variations on Arabic, but all those speakers would agree that it’s not the “correct” Arabic. Reciting the Quran or quoting the prophet in such dialect would be extremely disrespectful. Most religious authorities might speak in that dialect to help with communication, then revert to Classical Arabic when quoting either of those.
The most “moderination” Classical Arabic got was Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) which was really about accepting some simplified grammar and prose in professional writing rather than introducing anything completely novel or new. It made it acceptable to write books or articles in simpler prose rather than requiring or expecting the extremely elaborate writing style of true Classical Arabic. Most importantly, it didn’t forbid or declare anything from Classical Arabic “outdated” or “wrong” but rather just saying “it’s a bit too much, maybe”
The resistance to modify the typography is definitely there, but I wasn’t saying that it will necessarily succeed in preventing the modification. The Quran in its 7th century form will have to remain the authority on Arabic, followed by all the writings and literature of the following centuries. However you can find the Quran written phonetically in “Academic Romanization” format as Muslim view it more of a translation of sorts, rather than an actual reproduction of the Quran. I don’t know of any “Arabiz” versions of the Quran, and I suspect it would be viewed as disrespectful by many, but I won’t be surprised if some were on the internet or would appear in print at some point.
FWIW, I don’t think many (of the reasonable people) would oppose the changes proposed by this typography changes, but I suspect that most would either view it as strange or unnecessary because at the end of the day it just looks like a broken font more than anything.
Edit: Theology gets complicated but The Mu'tazilite split in the 9-10th century was mainly about the true nature of the Quran. They argued that it was a created vs being an eternal attribute of God. They lost the debate in the Muslim world and the opinion that won was that the Quran was the literate word of God that is eternal and wasn't created but always existed. The debate wasn't about language, but language (being the medium of the Quran) was part of it where Mu'tazilite had to try to define the difference between expression, and linguistic limitations in communication. They lost the debate and their influence weaned in general though left remnants in post-prophet history of Islam.
Huh, I guess TIL there is a controversy around Omarchy. I generally dismissed it as a serious distro after 5 second once realized it encourages using the AUR as your default package feed. The AUR is useful, but to me it’s something to be very aware of when you’re installing some software. Encouraging people to install everything through it is a crazy way to configure a distro. I just assumed it’s a distro for a very different target audience so kept my thoughts to myself
It's not really around Omarchy, but around DHH due to his political beliefs. I'm not deep into this, but I think the majority of the controversy stems from this article:
Wow. I just read this one now, and DHH really makes it hard to defend him. It's definitely possible to make this argument without likening groups of people to wolves and sheep...
> Cue the gypsies in Copenhagen, and their increasingly brazen behavior, after the city legalized overnight sleeping in parks and other green areas last year. Because "it shouldn't be illegal to be homeless" ...
> This has predictably led to these foreign vagrants setting up camp ...
> Copenhagen is the Danish capital. It's repeatedly been named the safest city in the world in recent years. Partly because it didn't tolerate vagrants ...
It would be easier to ask how this is a normal way of speaking? Gypsies is already a derogatory word, vagrant implies something criminal rather than cultural about their behaviours, and he's making an issue of them not being local vagrants (what?). The decisions he's incredulous about came about democratically and the debates involved were carried out by public representatives and are publicly actually. The incredulity is just rhetoric and the implication that they're dangerous because they're foreign or live transiently surely has no place in a modern society.
> When wolves get out of control, you shoot them.
How is this in any way a non-extreme metaphor to use?
It is. The Romani aren't vagrants and they're doing nothing illegal. Calling them vagrants is charged and misleading.
> Vagrants and transients are often dangerous and mentally ill.
That can be true. Again the Romani aren't vagrants and using the word to describe then implies a level of danger and/or mental health issues that isn't evidenced.
> It is reasonable to use state violence to suppress crimes.
No-one has asserted otherwise.
> the control of dangerous animals being similar to the control of dangerous people is not extreme.
It's generally accepted the dehumanising a people or culture is extreme, I'm not sure how you can argue otherwise. There are any number of alternative metaphors that could have been used (not to mention that the argument could have been built on its own weight) that wouldn't have involved comparing an entire people to a pest that needs to be controlled with lethal force.
You see nothing extreme with dehumanizing a group of people and comparing them to wolfs being killed?
> When wolves get out of control, you shoot them.
There isn’t more extreme than that. If you think that’s a normal way of talking about humans, I’m sorry but you’re very far down a radicalization rabbit hole
“Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.”
The only way to generate a human-only net is to figure out how to remove all economical incentives from there. The “golden age of the internet” a lot of people, including myself, are nostalgic for had very very little economical incentives. I missed usenet, but I remember being active on small forums in the late 90s and early 2000s that were almost entirely passion projects. I recall a huge controversy in one forum when the guy who was maintaining it asked if it’s ok if he puts a banner ad at the top because someone was offering him $200 to advertise another forum.
Removing the economical incentives is very hard though. Even HN is gamed by many tech companies and projects. Reddit is obviously a lost cause. It’s a sad state of affairs, but I don’t think there is an alternative.
Ya, "how do we make money off this?" ruins everything, but it's inevitable. But yes, that is exactly what I liked about the internet back then: I was just browsing the crazy shit people would put online just because they thought it was cool. I'd still have to go to the store to buy stuff and see friends/people in person. I've started doing those things more again.
I really highly doubt that. The way Microsoft uses the “for business” branding is not in an IRS/legal way to distinguish between for-profit vs nonprofit entities. Rather more like “Discord vs Slack” or “a subreddit vs zendesk” type offering.
“For Organizations” would really have been a more appropriate branding. Governments around the world, including the US government, used plenty of “For Business” software from Microsoft. However, the “for business” branding tells you where the money came from.
So a nonprofit would almost certainly be on a “for business” subscription type. That is to distinguish it from a “for students”, “for home”, or the default “for one person” subscription type.
surely it depends on how the data is labeled or classified. When a model is trained on fiction and medical journals, it doesn't assume that a healing potion is the right answer for a runny nose.
reply