Chicken/pullet seems to have gone the opposite way: pullet (French) is exclusively for the animal but chicken (Germanic) can be either the animal or its meat.
Is chicken really German though? A hen is called "Huhn" (Das Huhn), and chicken may be more appropriately translated as "Geflügel" (or rather, the latter would be poultry; chicken would be "Huhn" or "Hähnchen"). I don't see the germanic origin insinuated here for the word "chicken", whereas I do so it for "hen" <- "Huhn" quite easily. (And "Geflügel" has "Flügel" which relates more easily to flight/to fly, or better Flügel=wing).
Wiktionary [0] seems pretty confident ("Germanic" includes all of the languages below, not just modern German).
[0] From Middle English chiken (also as chike > English chick), from Old English ċicen, ċycen (“chicken”), of uncertain origin. Possibly from Proto-West Germanic kiukīn (“chicken”), or alternatively from Proto-West Germanic kukkīn, equivalent to cock + -en.
Compare North Frisian schückling (“chicken”), Saterland Frisian Sjuuken (“chicken”), Dutch kuiken (“chick, chicken”), German Low German Küken (“chick”), whence German Küken (“chick”), (elevated, obsolete) German Küchlein (“chick”) and Old Norse kjúklingr (“chicken”).
In the same family of languages (proto-germanic), you'll have Swedish for which the word for the meat is "kyckling" which more pronounced like "chickling".
Modern German might have changed along the way, but if you go back far enough, there should be something. I'm not a linguist or a native speaker of a Proto-Germanic language, so I don't know enough to pinpoint this better.
Sounds very french-like in origin. Do all in Switzerland use that though? Even the exclusively german-speaking part? In Austria there is a West-East difference, some words spoken by the Vorarlbergers (most western part) we don't too easily understand in the east (it's quite similar to swiss-german in some ways in the western area, but not identical either).
If no one else wants to burn coal, coal will be cheap. It's not that expensive to dig it out of the ground and transport, and most of China's coal is mined in China.
Any solution that doesn't involve everyone agreeing to care about the externalities of coal (air pollution and greenhouse gases) will result in someone continuing to burn a lot of coal.
That's assuming the main cost of burning coal is the cost of coal mining rights, which it isn't. Less demand doesn't make it any cheaper to mine it or transport it instead of leaving it in the ground (which are actually significant costs), and doesn't make it any cheaper to build or staff the power plant relative to alternatives.
I feel like the first part of your post shouldn't be needed. But perhaps the word Kafkaesque will long outlive the memory of Franz Kafka, and future generations will curse the name of the unknown Kafkae who delighted in building such impenetrable systems. Perhaps he was an emperor of Byzant or a rival of Orwel.
I don't see the purpose in this feature even if your alarm was at 4:00. Why wouldn't you keep charging until the user picked his phone off the charger?
One thing you might do is only charge to 80% or 90%, to improve battery lifetime, unless you detected the user is going on a long flight tomorrow and needs it at 100%. But I don't see any reason for the opposite behaviour.
> Optimized Battery Charging is designed to reduce the wear on your battery and improve its lifespan by reducing the time your iPhone spends fully charged. It is available when Charge Limit is set to 100 percent. When the feature is enabled, your iPhone will delay charging past 80 percent in certain situations.
The idea is that having the battery sit at 100% charge for an extended period of time is bad for the battery. So the phone charges to 80% immediately and then to 100% a little while before it expects to be unplugged.
I don't think Zipf's law gives you this. It mostly says that common words tend to be short, but it doesn't tell you what proportion of the text will be common words. For example, in English writing two-letter words are found much more than one-letter words.
However, I think you're correct anyway. The right distribution to look at is something like the orange series in the bottom graph on [0]. Eyeballing it, it does look like 3/5/7/9/11-letter words appear more in aggregate than those of 2/4/6/8/10 (49% Vs 44.5%), and longer words are a rounding error.
You probably want your washing machine to finish when you'll be ready to take the clothes out, rather than leave them sitting damp in the machine.
There should be plenty of opportunity to load shift with other things though, a dishwasher as you mentioned, or a fridge or a storage heater or a charger for your electric car. All can be done with minimal inconvenience to the user.
Maybe because it's not true? Selling early access to posts through Truth Social is worth $10-20 million a year (most estimates are they have 10-20 subscribers at 60-100k/month). And obviously no one is valuing that revenue stream at 50x or 100x earnings: it's expected to go away when Trump does, which, actuarially speaking, should be in the next ten years.
I'm surprised they got away with the first two paragraphs! The Onion wasn't really founded in 1756, doesn't control the world's shipping lanes, etc.
Later on in the brief they get all self-referential and point out how this brief itself exemplifies parody. But this isn't a parody of a legal brief. It's a real legal brief with arguments and citations that might really sway the court, with some parodic elements.
> I'm surprised they got away with the first two paragraphs!
I'm not. Even if one is entirely unfamiliar with The Onion, the final paragraph of the first section makes it pretty clear what they're about and why the document they're submitting is written the way that it is:
> The Onion files this brief to protect its continued ability to create fiction that may ultimately merge into reality. As the globe’s premier parodists, The Onion’s writers also have a self-serving interest in preventing political authorities from imprisoning humorists. This brief is submitted in the interest of at least mitigating their future punishment.
And, as the titles(?) of Arguments I and III note
> Parody Functions By Tricking People Into Thinking That It Is Real.
> A Reasonable Reader Does Not Need A Disclaimer To Know That Parody Is Parody.
> Yes, but I'm saying the brief isn't parody, it's real.
You're correct, yes.
> Unless I'm the gullible, unreasonable person who was tricked and still doesn't fully get it.
You're -I presume- neither more gullible nor more unreasonable than typical for humans, but no, you still don't get it.
A huge part of the practice of law is persuasion. What better way to persuade someone that the laws and regulations that have protected parody for ages are good, prosocial, and should remain intact than to gently use parody as part of one's document of persuasion?
If your position is that parody is strictly prohibited in a legal document, then what's next on the chopping block? Metaphor? Simile? Colloquialisms?
The Anglican church (to which virtually all of the Victorian elite belonged) had phased out Latin since the 17th century. Likewise Victorian scientists, eg Darwin, wrote in English. (If they needed to correspond with their peers abroad, they might use Latin, but many would learn French, German, Russian...)
Its use in the Catholic church probably helped Latin survive as long as it did, but by the 19th century it was already an impractical relic whose prestige in English schools came partly from the fact that it had no actual application.
reply