I think it is because of the latter. The Anglo-Saxons, while coming from an area that coincides with modern day Denmark, did not speak (an ancient form of) Danish.
Interesting, thanks! Probably not as cool, but you could also just get the output of the regular top, parse it and generate HTML from it (a bit like http://tracesof.net/uebersicht/)
I find it works really well for listening to music in album format and getting more albums from the iTunes store. The store integration is well done and I love the (newish) UI that reacts to the colors of the album artwork.
For listening to music that is not in album format and/or which you didn't purchase via iTunes and for any other tasks they have bolted on, such as device management, I find it not so great.
Your comment seems irrelevant - the article never claimed that english has the most (or even a lot of) irregular verbs. If you have some linguistic insights regarding irregular verbs in Polish I would be curious to hear them (I really mean it)
Your comment seems irrelevant - the grandparent never claimed that polish has the most (only many) irregular verbs. If you have some pedantic insights regarding relevant comments on Hacker News I would be curious to hear them (I really mean it)
I think you are correct that english grammar simplified because of the intermix with different languages. For example during the viking conquest, many viking words were very similar to english except or their grammatical endings, so people dropped them.
On the other hand, I think the irregular spelling has more to do with English never undergoing a mayor spelling reform: many times, the spelling reflects an old pronunciation. From what I know, England always had a relatively lax and pluralistic approach compared to other European countries when it came to managing its language. For example in France you have the Académie française, which essentially has authority over the French language. There is no comparable thing for English, which is probably why such reforms never took place.
Also, correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to incorrectly assume that English (or at least English grammar) stems from Latin.
Zug does mean train but it comes from ziehen (to pull) as others mentioned. So I am not sure whether zügig comes from the original meaning or from 'train'. The english cognate for Zug/ziehen is tug btw (follows the common t -> z shift in german)
I can't speak for others, but if you write browser apps/websites for a generic audience you basically have no choice. The reason consist of two letters: IE
We're not talking about imposing a 2pm meeting... we're talking about two people who agreed to a 2pm meeting. (Imposition is something else entirely.)
Also, one thing I'd observe is that there's a difference between social occasions and business. Even as an American, when my family says they're going to show up at 2pm, I don't sit there at 1:59 at the door tapping my foot. However, business is different; if you've mutually agreed on 2pm and you come in at 2:40 pm without having checked or communicated, there is a problem there in many cases. There may have been further scheduled events for 2:30 (odds are good you're meeting with someone who has lots of meetings, statistically), or whoknows what. The casual approach to time risks having three unrelated meetings that were scheduled to be separate trying to happen all at once.
Whether firm or casual time is abstractly "best" is a hard problem, but when it comes to business effectiveness I don't have a problem saying punctuality is a benefit to getting more stuff done. "What if I don't want more stuff done because even that is an American thing to say?" Well, surely we'd all rather then get our things done so we can hit the bar freely later? And it isn't an American truth that businesses really need to accomplish things to survive and thrive, it's the nature of the Universe we live in, where we must work for our sustenance, however distasteful you may find that.
> We're not talking about imposing a 2pm meeting... we're talking about two people who agreed to a 2pm meeting. (Imposition is something else entirely.)
On the face of it, I agree. However, I think this whole thread is neglecting an important dimension by only mentioning "the" time of the meeting. No one ever expects a person to arrive at the exact instant of the scheduled event. There's an interval implied by "the" time, and it's quite possible that the difference here is in cultural expectations regarding the size of the interval or its placement relative to the stated time (US Military culture, for example, seems to have an implied tolerance of -5 min / +0 min).
It may even be the case that your hypothetical second party thinks the first is a bit quirky for insistently describing the meeting as occurring at a particular time, when it is "obvious" to them that what is meant is "we'll meet this afternoon".
Edit: moving scare quotes ("the time" -> "the" time)
This is actually a weird quirk of mine but I try very hard to, if I have a meeting scheduled at e.g. 2pm, to show up at exactly 2pm according to my cell phone, which is more likely to display the same time as their cell phone. Same if I'm visiting somebody's house; if they tell me to show up at 8pm, I'm likely to walk slowly from my car so I can be knocking at their door right as the time switches over from 7:59. Unless they're a very good friend of mine and I'm confident they won't mind me being there early.
The way around this is for people to tell me to show up "around" 8pm or whenever.
I fully recognize that this is something peculiar to myself, and I would never begrudge anybody else for showing up at e.g. 2:04 for a 2pm meeting. But I would definitely apologize for being a few minutes late if I did the same.
And it isn't an American truth that businesses really need to accomplish things to survive and thrive, it's the nature of the Universe we live in, where we must work for our sustenance, however distasteful you may find that.
It's neither an American truth nor the nature of the Universe, it's a story. Older than America (not the continent nor the people in it, but the idea), to be sure, but not that old. The necessity of work, indeed the celebration of it, is obviously interesting to discuss in the age of automation.
Here's the thing, though. Maybe I don't have a business meeting; maybe I'm supposed to go watch my kid's soccer game and I allotted literally an hour for a fifteen minute meeting, because I know this guy shows up late, and here he is an hour late. Am I supposed to tell the kids to just play soccer an hour early so I can watch the game? Should I miss the game just because this guy can't be bothered to get somewhere on time? Should I allot two hours for a fifteen minute meeting?
At what point does that become less reasonable than expecting other people to show up at the time they agreed to show up?
Isn't that exactly the point I made? You mentioned that people who rant about people being late annoy you. You don't have the power to change them, but you can adjust your own action and be on time.
I am not saying you should btw, I am just saying your argument could be interpreted in this way as well.
Thanks, I learned something new! But yeah, as other people have pointed out, browser support starts with IE 11 and almost no mobile browser supports it - so it might as well not exist.
