BraveSirZaphod @ BraveSirZaphod @kbin.social

Posts

0

Comments

1,142

Joined

2 yr. ago

Just for the sake of completeness, the actual history here is that Ancient Greek has the latter Phi Φ which, during the classical Greek era of around the 5th century BC, was pronounced as a particularly strong /p/ sound that produced a noticeable puff of air, as opposed to the letter Pi π which was a weaker /p/ sound. It's the exact same story with Greek Theta θ vs Greek Tau Τ and Greek Chi Χ vs Greek Kappa Κ. This distinction is called 'aspiration'.

The Romans obviously had quite a lot of contact with the Greeks and took a lot of Greek words into Latin. However, the issues is that Latin did not have these aspirated sounds natively, and so they didn't have an simple way to transliterate those letters into the Latin alphabet. The clever solution they came up with was to add an h after the aspirated sounds to represent that characteristic puff of air. So, they could easily transcribe the distinction between πι and φι as "pi" and "phi". Thus begins a long tradition of transcribing these Greek letters as 'Ph', 'Th' and 'Ch'.

The awkward issue is that languages tend to change over time, and by the 4th century AD or so, the pronunciation of all the aspirated consonants had dramatically shifted, with Phi Φ becoming /f/, Theta θ becoming the English th sound, and Chi Χ becoming something like the ch of German or Scottish "Loch". This was generally noticed by the rest of Europe, and other European languages tended to adopt these new pronunciations to the extent that their languages allowed, though some languages also changed the spelling (see French 'phonétique' vs Spanish 'fonético'). Plenty of languages kept the original Latin transcription spellings though, and thus we have the kinda goofy situation of 'ph' being a regular spelling of the /f/ sound in English.

So, tl;dr: Ph was just a clever transcription of a unique Greek sound that basically was a P plus an H. Then the Greeks started pronouncing it as an F, and so did everyone else, but we kept the original spelling.

The amount of visceral anger in this thread seems to indicate that people seem to actually care quite a lot about what she says.

If people actually didn't care, they wouldn't have clicked on this.

Who is 'they'?

You're acting like there exists some single high council of concerned people who have unilaterally decided to pin all childhood woes on the phones, when this is a single article primarily about a particular group of UK parents who've focused on this issue and who presumably were never in contact with this American psychologist.

How do you know that these parents haven't also considered helicopter parenting and free play? Do you know them?

Your average pseudoscience obsessed health hobbyist is never going to notice that particular detail though.

Well, on the plus side, now you know to actually read contracts before you choose to sign them.

In the meantime, enjoy your iPhone.

If the cost of not voluntarily choosing to get myself into bad contracts is being a smug asshole, so be it.

If the phone costs $500, they simply increase your monthly bill by $500 / 24 months = $20 a month.

It's a bit more complicated than this, and they'll likely have some interest built in as well, but functionally, it's no different than being given a loan to buy the phone and then paying the loan off over the two years. That's why carriers often require a credit check before doing this.

I've personally clicked on Instagram ads and made purchases from them. This has pretty much always been for various events, and I don't really have any regrets there. I've seen some cool plays and gone to parties that I'd never have known about otherwise.

I can't imagine what would ever drive someone to click on a random banner ad though.

So Verizon gave you a phone for no upfront cost, and they're shitty for making you pay for it if you decide to dash away early?

Fascinating threshold for shitty behavior you have.

It's just amusing that these people know that they can't openly say "I think all Israelis should be either removed or murdered", so they'll just heavily imply it without having the balls to actually own up to their position.

Speaking as someone who would not at all be upset to see a rocket happen to fall on Netanyahu and Ben Gvir.

You're the one who seems to be incapable of actually stating a concrete desire that isn't the violent removal or murder of all Israeli citizens, but by all means, tell me how I'm the genocidal one.

Okay, so who are the people responsible? A handful of leaders? Most of the original Zionists have been dead for a long time. Is it literally every single Israeli? What exactly does this freedom and justice look like? I don't think locking up Netanyahu and Ben Gvir would exactly satisfy the Palestinian cause, so ultimately, you have the situation of millions of Israelis, most of which were born there, who do not want to leave and will only do so by force.

So, what do you want? The forced removal of all Israelis? That's not an inconsistent position given your general perspective, but if that's the case, come out and actually say it.

You've said a lot of nice abstract things about wanting freedom and justice, and very little actual concrete info about the situation on the ground.

Jews conquered large parts of Palestine (not all of it AFAIK)

This isn't really true to the historical record, not that it's significantly relevant to the modern conflict. Contrary to the Biblical Exodus account, from what the archeological and linguistic record seems to show, a unique Jewish culture seems to organically emerge from a particular group of Canaanites who were not otherwise previously distinct from any of their neighbors. There certainly was no mass migration and conquest from Egypt. Over time, the Jews/Israelites developed a distinct cultural identity, possibly with some amount of external influence, and later developed individual minor kingdoms before being subjugated by the Egyptian New Kingdom, the Assyrians (thus the Lost Tribes of Israel), the Babylonians (thus the first Exile and the destruction of the first Temple), the Persians (who returned the previously exiled Jews), Alexander the Great, and lastly the Romans, who destroyed the Second Temple and began the Diaspora.

Again though, none of this should really be seen as being particularly relevant to the modern issue any more than Roman territorial claims are to the modern borders of Italy.

Oh, come on now. And what, exactly, do you want to happen the evil Zionists?

Sure, it'd be nice if there was a cute kumbaya moment, but absent that, if Israelis have no desire to leave, what do you want to happen to them?

If you believe that the murder of all Israelis is just, come out and actually say it. Don't be shy now.

Yes, and the majority of Justices seem to not be buying this logic at all, including the Trump appointees.

This will probably be dismissed from lack of standing, which conveniently allows them to skip addressing the messier questions.

So much for "believe victims".

I really thought we got over this after the election of JFK.

Just to illustrate the point, this is no "tap". A cargo ship like that hitting something is about the same momentum as 14 loaded Boeing 787s hitting something at 800 km/h, simultaneously.