tl;dw: Knowing the name of something gives you no knowledge of that thing even if you can name it in every language but it's super useful to know when communicating with others.
All other names are generally considered either common or historic. Common names are regarded as too ambiguous for scientific use, they are generally only mentioned in relevance to collections such as "How do the local people in <area x> having <population y> of <latin name z> (who might help identify where it is growing) refer to the organism?". In a small number of cases local names confer ethnobotanical or cultural semantics.
I am well aware that laypeople don't always distinguish between various similar species of plants and animals, and I probably can't in some cases myself, but I am specifically interested in some of those "common or historic names" along with their "ethnobotanical or cultural semantics", to see how they might compare with words elsewhere.
For old Irish names I would have thought Gallic-Druidic cultural associations might have some sort of currency or influence. Maybe try looking for research with those conceptual frames of reference. Here's an example query to place with your favourite LLM: "make a list of the top 30 plants associated with traditional herbal lore in pre-modern ireland. seek gallic/druidic associations through etymology, lore and written record (if feasible). table format."
There's something really interesting about the constraints given by plain text that you would lose with What You See Is What You Get (or, the ever-unfortunate acronym WYSIWYG) controls. I almost think what you get in that case is an unfortunate mindset-shift towards What You See Is All There Is (or, an incredibly dope acronym, WYSIATI).
they may have been, yes. back in those days, a CPU with multiple cores were meant for the server or enterprise workstation market and priced accordingly.
To the extent that it can be considered an "organization" the IETF is definitely a better Standards Development Organization than the ITU. Most importantly because the IETF is for people, and I'm a person, whereas as a UN Specialized Agency the ITU is for UN Member States and I am not and will never be a UN Member State.
Yeah, I don't see it. I looked at a few cases where there's close overlap in the work and mostly what I see is that the ITU doesn't want me looking at the draft stages of documents, which I guess isn't crucial for your implementation work. I couldn't see any particular higher quality though I suppose if you like PDFs and hate text that might go in the ITU's favour.
reply