eozoon

It's been a while since I watch that video, but I'm pretty sure he mentioned the different team working on it reason as well, and the rest of the video was only explaining the intentional differences instead of the inherent differences that comes from different people working on the translations?

Where I live, due different dialects being widely in use, it's common for TV and movies to show subtitle in the same language as the spoken language. Even then, it is not uncommon for the subtitle to deviate from what is spoken.

Also, as an English learner I used to watch TV shows with subtitles for the visually impaired, and there are times when the English subtitle deviate from what's the actors says as well.

Sometimes it's phrases that are commonly use in speech but strange to see written down; sometimes it's just tonal things that would get lost if written as-is; sometimes long speech is summarized so it doesn't' become a wall of text; sometimes it's most likely to just be mistakes.

Unless the difference actually contains significantly different meaning and can lead to misunderstanding, I don't see why that'd an issue that is worth spending the effort on eliminating?

Especially when it comes to translation, it's not like there's only one possible way of translating a sentence, who should make the editorial choice on which version is best and would that even be helpful for the purpose of disseminating information? If anything, having two version is probably better for gaging the tone and nuance in the original language.

The article is talking about colorectal cancer and bladder cancer, y chromosome owners can get those cancers too whether or not they have female phenotype or not.

Think of it as men = "people with y chromosome" varible setting, or a "People with y chromosome (hereinafter referred to as men)" in a contract.

The scientifically accurate way to describe the subject of the article is "people with y chromosome" but that is clunky to repeat so they want to designate a shorthand for it, while acknowledging that without proper definition the shorthand would be vague and not accurate description.

I'd think defining your terms clearly is perfectly suitable for a scientific journal.

Major charities does the same.

I have heard anthropologists tell anecdotes about Red Cross refusing to help a village just a couple of hours drive away from their outposts because there is no press coverage and they would rather spend their supplies on places where it'd get reported on, because the report brings in more donations. Emotionally I sympathize with the people that the speaker spent time with and resent Red Cross's decision, but pragmatically I can see that it make sense.

I've talked to nurses who volunteered at MSF say they passed by many villages that needed help on their way to their destination, a more well-known location that will bring more attention for their services. Lord knows they lamented over it, but the decision was made by the organization to ensure they get the maximum donation needed to help more people.

I have literally never watched a single Mr Beast videos, but going by what I'm seeing in articles like these, I fail to how what he's doing is any worse than most charities.

Good to know he was professional people he work with - for what it is worth, I am not saying he is not good at what he does, and whatever personal shortcomings he might have, it's not about his work.

That's why I usually hold my tongue when people praise his work, there's no reason his personal believes should affect people's enjoyment of his work (I'd do the same for people enjoying Orson Scott Card's books, for example). I only bought it up in response to someone else mentioning it.

That said, his weird political stance is not a new thing, and not under duress from the CCP. He had been saying things like "freedom is not good for Chinese people" "Chinese people need to be controlled" since around 2009.

And being a general pos, horrible husband/father amongst other things... I usually bit my tongue when westerners fanboy about him since I don't want to be the party pooper but yeah, we don't really like him here. The blooper reels were neat, but that was a common feature in HK action films at the time and not really about integrity, since I don't think the audience were expected to believe any of the action were real.

FWIW, no one use his "real name" even here in HK. He has a chinese pseudonym that most people use, but even Jackie Chan is much more widely known/used than his actual legal name. That was kinda like calling 50 cents "Curtis James Jackson III".

Because people sending dick pics and spam had been a known issue for ages, yet this change came soon after China complaining about people sending protest flyers, rolled out in China first, and with no option to leave your phone open. One can argue whether it's Apple's job to fight censorship (and I might agree that it's not), but you have to willfully blind say this is not pro-censorship.

People who have not heard of King before Twitter and only hear of him from Twitter are not going to be the people buying his books.

So even if there were significant amount of people like you, he is not gaining anything from people seeing his Twitter. On the other hand, I have relatives who created Twitter accounts only to follow authors they like - the number of curated lists of notable literary figures is a testament to that fact.

I'm not saying Twitter is worthless to writers - readers talking about the books certainly helps sales, but that occurs regardless of whether the author themselves are on Twitter or not, and Twitter is certainly not the main platform people use to discuss books.

Money order in post office / banks / WU. The place generating the order will usual check your ID but they do not require you to include that info on what's sent to the recipient.

Netflix doesn't sell you movies, it sells you access to their services. If you look at their site now, it offers you to "create or restart your membership" to their "streaming services". If he purchased Netflix membership for a year and lost access before that year is up, I'm sure he'd be equally miffed.

Minecraft sells you the game - even right now, their site says "Get Minecraft" - in fact, it defaulted to Japanese for me where it says "MINECRAFTを購入" which is an even more unambiguous "BUY MINECRAFT".

It is like the difference between buying a e-book on Amazon and having it removed remotely, versus a book being removed from Kindle Unlimited. You have to be willfully obtuse to not understand why people might have different expectation for the two types of transactions, legalese in be damned.

In my personal experience Airbnb is good when you are travelling with a large group of people (6+) and/or with children. You can get a house with 3-4 rooms, a few bathrooms, a functional kitchen, laundry area, etc, for about half the price as it would be if you got double rooms at hotels for the same number of people, and it's much more convenient since you're not spread across different floors.

For solo travel tho, I'd rather book a hotel sight unseen than use airbnb, since too many people try to make their couch in the corner look like a nice private room in the listing.

> The survey did not ask women to explain the reasons for their regret.

This seems a strange question to omit in the survey. There's a big difference between regretting because:

- the procedure negatively impacted their health

- the eggs failed to produce viable/healthy babies

- they did not end up needing the frozen eggs and felt $10-20k+ was wasted

Not asking and then attributing the regret to the conclusion that the procedure "could lead to unintended childlessness with devastating consequences" make me feel like they started out with the conclusion and worked backwards to try and get supporting results from the survey.

Onyx Boox are basically android tablets with e-ink that you can enable Play store on. I tried a couple of display models in stores and it seems quite responsive. Couldn't justify the price though since I've a backlog of books converted to epub that will take me a decade to get through.

It says he earned a few thousand pounds and recouped his cost upon his return. He would have earned a small amount of money and leveraged on that burst of fame and networking it brought him. Instead he decided to fight a stupid copyright battle. The photo didn't ruin his life, his decisions on what to do with it did.