You would HATE being a person who could read in the Middle English era. There was no standardized spelling, people used many different conventions/regional spellings, and it was mostly either phonetic spelling or random French bullshit. Also some earlier writers used really conservative spelling to emulate Old English. It was the wild west out there.

For example, here’s a (not comprensive) list of the variant spellings you may see for each second person pronoun:

Singular Nominative 2P:

thou, thoue, thow, thowe, thu, thue, þeu, þeou, thouȝ, thugh, thogh, ðhu; þou, þoue, þow, þowe, þu, þue, þouȝ, þugh, þogh, þo

(after alveolars and in contractions): tou, towe, touȝ, tu, to, te

Singular Objective 2P:

the, thee, thei, thi, thie, thy, ðe, de, þeo, þhe, yhe, ye, þe, þee, þi, þy

(after alveolars and in contractions): te

Singular Genitive, Dative, and Possessive 2P:

(usually before consonants): thi, thy, thei, they, yhi, yi, þhi; þei, þey, þy

(usually before vowels and “h”): thin, thyn, thine, thyne, thien, thyen, thein, theyn, thinne, yin; þin, þyn, þine, þyne, þinne; þines

(female referent): þinre, þire, þinen

(after “t” or “d”): ti, ty, tin, tyn, tine, tines

Plural Nominative 2P:

ye, yee, yeȝ, yhe, yie, iye, iȝe, hye, hie; ȝe, ȝee, ȝhe, ȝie, ȝeo; ge, gie, geo

Plural Objective 2P:

you, yow, youe, yowe, yo, yoe, yogh, yau, yaw, yeu, yew, yhu, yu, yw, yhow, yhou; ȝou, ȝow, ȝouȝ, ȝowȝ, ȝowe, ȝo, ȝu, ȝw, ȝuw, ȝue, ȝiou, ȝeu, ȝew, ȝewe, ȝau, ȝaw, ȝhou, ȝiu, ȝeou, ȝehw, ȝhowe; gou, gu, giu, geu, geau; ou, owe, eou, eow, eow, eo, eu, euwȝ, æu, hou, heou, heu

Plural Genitive & Dative 2P:

your, youre, yowr, yowre, ȝour, ȝoure yowyr, yowur, yor, yur, yure, yeur, yhure, yhour, yhoure; ȝowyr, ȝowur, ȝor, ȝore, ȝur, ȝure, ȝiore, ȝhour, ȝhoure, ȝaure, ȝiure, ȝiwer, ȝeur, ȝeure, ȝeuer, ȝeuwer, ȝewer, ȝewere; gur, gure, giur, giure, giuor, giuer, giuwer, giwer; ihore, ihoire, iure, eour, eoure, eouer, eouwer, eouwere, eower, eowwer, eore, eur, eure, euwer, euwere, eowrum, æure, our, oure, or, ore, ouer, ouwer, ouwere, ower, owur, hour

(early ME): þinen (genitive), þinum (dative), þirum (dative fem.)

Plural Possessive 2P:

youres, yourez, yours, youris, yurs, yowres, yowris, yowrys, yourn, youren; ȝours, ȝoures, ȝouris, ȝourys, ȝowers, ȝores, ȝures, ȝuris, ȝhurs, ȝourn, ȝouren; eowræs

You can find a lot more about Middle English spellings in LALME (A Linguistics Atlas of Late Mediæval English) (electronic version here)

Some of the more innovative spellings come from Northern Middle English/Northumbria (northern England and southern Scotland, though the dialects of the latter would largely split off and develop mostly on its own in the early stages of Middle English and become Scots) and to a lesser extent Midlands Middle English/Mercian, in large part due to significant past influence of North Germanic/Scandinavian languages; i.e., Old Norse, which was somewhat mutually intelligible with Old English and caused/progressed both the loss of inflections and the formation & solidification of Modern English syntax (in particular, Old English syntax shifted to become near-identical to Old Norse syntax; Old English also entirely lost inflection of grammatical gender, grammarical case, etc. and adopted many core vocabulary of Old Norse). Those changes happened primarily to facilitate communication with vikings in the Danelaw, since Anglo-Saxons and Scandinavians were very eager to communicate with each other; things like declensions were very different in the two languages (the 12 different declensions of “the” probably weren’t fun to deal with for Scandinavians), so Old English speakers started omitting or simplifying them, and they mostly died off in (early) Middle English. English also completely lost dual pronouns (pronouns with exactly 2 referents). Word order was primarily SVO in Old Norse, so Old English’s relatively liberal word order (or lack of consistent word order) was simplified/regularized significantly to be more SVO.

Southern Middle English – the dialects of West Saxon and Kent – were significantly more conservative (partly due to having next to no influence from Norse). Those are where many more conservative spellings are from. The West Saxon dialects were the most influential/dominant (especially due to the Kingdom of Wessex’ great power) until the Norman Conquest, when East Midlands English (especially around London) took over that role.

Southern American English & Maritime Canadian English varieties were both primarily based on more southern English varieties – specifically, the time’s London English and West Country English. Appalachian English was also heavily influenced by Scottish English and the English of northern England. Canadian English in general was based on both Southern and Midlands English. Meanwhile, New England’s English was primarily derived from East Midlands dialects. Generally, dialects derived from the time’s West Country English are significantly more conservative and more similar to the general speech of ~15th century England, while more Midlands (of the time) influenced American and Canadian varieties are similar to standard ~17-18th century English. Dialects influenced by the time’s Scottish English and Northern English also generally contain a lot more conservative Anglic constructions – modern Appalachian/Southern American English varieties and modern Scottish/Northern varieties share a large amount of vocabulary and other features which were lost in other dialects.

Standard varieties of Modern British English are comparatively generally significantly more innovative and don’t share many features with Middle & Early Modern English varieties – general British English started diverging greatly from most other English dialects around the mid-to-late 18th century and early 19th century. This is also a reason why Australia and New Zealand English have a lot of features which seem to only partially agree with other English varieties. For example, the trap-bath vowel split, which was partially completed in Australia and is present in certain words, but not all words, and has variation in some words. When Australia was being colonized, Southern English varieties had recently begun undergoing the split, and it was considered a “Cockneyism” until Received Pronunciation was formed in the late 19th century and embraced it; it wasn’t fully progressed until around that time, which is why New Zealand English (which came from immigrants in the mid 19th century) mostly agrees with Southern English on those vowels.

I think he is making a joke that OP is, in fact, the bot

Or maybe he’s just bullying OP for circlejerking so hard and giving himself a pat on the back as a Lemmy user

Yes, the whole meme is read in full, what is the problem?

Istanbul, a place well-known for using Hebrew script

Considering after 15 seconds of looking at your profile, there’s this…

yeah I think it’s pretty obvious

The only ones to concern troll about their targets to the extent you do and complain about everything that doesn’t align with their political views being “too political” are conservatives. You aren’t concerned about the wellbeing of anyone, you want to exterminate the “others” and think you’re smart by using the most basic manipulation tactic of conservatives – feigning concern for the welfare of the people you want to get rid of as a means to make people think your position is acceptable.

Also you support the displacement and genocide of Palestinians by Israel. You seem to be joyful at the thought of Israel’s colonization of Palestine resulting in the destruction of the natives and establishment of a new ethnostate atop their corpses. You are definitely racist as fuck even disregarding the obvious immigration rhetoric and conservative talking points

https://youtu.be/hvk_XylEmLo

I’ve never heard a gen Z unironically use “rizz”

REAL

central europe try not to be fascist challenge [impossible]

Isn’t the context about the overthrow of the Russian Empire by communist revolutionaries? Not modern first-worlders? Am I missing something here? Why would “foreign imperialists” be relevant to modern first-worlders?

That being said, to actually answer your line of questioning, it is the correct solution to change society while ALSO overthrowing and locking up the oppressors. That may involve the elite dying, but those deaths are necessary. Peaceful reformism and strict nonviolence policies never works – unless you consider extremely high amounts of unnecessary suffering for innocents to achieve comparatively minor goals as “success” (cough cough Nelson Mandela). Even Gandhi and MLK (who took most of his influence from Gandhi), although nonviolence advocates, were well aware that violence is often necessary to achieve a better future, and much of the work they did was to the benefit of violent/militant revolutionaries (although of course they’re portrayed a lot more neutered/“deradicalized”, as well as the roles of complete compliance to nonviolence being completely overstated while violent methods are hidden away as if they didn’t exist, not even to be mentioned).

After capture though, death pentalty is not the way to go, but life imprisonment is fine and they may have a chance to be released later, mostly depending on their status/loyalty. I’m sure a lot of “revolutionaries” would disagree with me though, but I’m not an “eye for an eye” believer… I suppose if you’re in a situation where the former imperialist rulers would likely have power to directly cause damage while detained or incarcerated, or they’re likely to escape or be “rescued”, then it would be justified to chop off their heads or put a bullet in their cranium.

The core issue is that these people (the oppressors/ruling class) can not be rehabilitated, and are likely to stir up considerable trouble and disrupt when they have the opportunity, either in a bid to regain their power, or out of a large feeling of loss that makes them go nuts. You can’t always reasonably ensure that they won’t try to fuck shit up in the future.

That’s just my view, but of course there are people other than me who are just bloodthirsty for vengeance (my opinion is that they’re not thinking all too rationally and it’s the same mindset as parents that hit/yell at their kids, they’re convincing themselves it’s for the greater good but in reality it’s just attempting to satisfy their feelings of anger). Either way, I see their lives as considerably less valuable than the lives of the people they oppressed, not because they have an inherently evil soul or something, but because they are already too far gone and only can bring chaos to the world.

Firefox consumes more RAM than chrome on average. Edge uses the least RAM

Also, Floorp is superior to regular Firefox

I’ll keep this short since you already seem extremely unhinged and half the stuff you wrote is basically empty insults.

You losers can’t even prop up Ukraine against Russia, and think you can take on China.

Remind me how long that “10-day special operation” is taking again? Seriously, how can the “2nd best military in the world” falter so hard against their tiny neighbour with 1/4 of the population just because they got weapon donations from other countries? It shouldn’t be that hard to counter right, I mean Russian military technology is allegedly so advanced and totally not stuck in the 80s. I would understand if it were half-way across the globe or something, but they’re LITERALLY ON THEIR DOORSTEP. It’s also concerning that China has repeatedly failed Russia when it comes to Ukraine and has caved into international pressure quite a few times, maybe it’s because China also realizes that the war is completely embarrassing Russia?

The sheer delusion here. Burgerland economy would collapse overnight. Go check where all your shit comes from sometime. 😂

The US navy has a larger airforce than the entire Chinese airforce, and the US has a larger and more advanced air fleet than the next 5 countries (Russia, China, India, SK, Japan) combined, and invests 3x as much as China into the military (and that’s what, 13% of the US’ budget?). The US navy also has over 2x the displacement of the Chinese navy. Spending is DEFINITELY not a problem considering that.

read and weep ignoramus https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4657439-china-doesnt-need-to-invade-to-achieve-taiwanese-unification/

Damn, an opinion piece news article. Guess that destroys the entire American military and truly shows that China numba one.

Latest polling shows that vast majority of people want to maintain the status quo, and very few people want independence, but do go on child https://esc.nccu.edu.tw/PageDoc/Detail?fid=7801&id=6963

I literally said that exact same thing in my original comment, it goes against your point lmao. The status quo is defacto independence and “Taiwan, not China”. Notice how unification is by far the least popular response in what you linked, and has decreased in popularity significantly over decades. And of course, gaining independence eventually has increased in popularity over multiple decades. Is this part of China’s grand plan, to make unification with them less popular over time?

What you’re doing here is called sophistry. Taiwan being part of China is a fact that’s recognized by international law.

Tell me you have no idea how the UN works without explicitly saying so. A majority of countries not recognizing Taiwan doesn’t mean it’s “international law” that Taiwan isn’t independent.

It’s really that simple. The reality is that China could remove US sponsored regime in the rogue province any time they want.

LMAO this is such a cope. Yeah I’m sure the extremely aggressive all-bark-no-bite and constant “you better not do <x diplomacy with Taiwan or military action in Taiwanese strait/South China Sea> again or we’ll do something about it, I swear!” empire is suuuper capable of taking Taiwan. They know if they tried full-out war against the US or its allies (Taiwan), the US navy would cut off their international trade and turn their country upside down – it’s why they’re trying so hard (and failing) to seize full control of the South China Sea.

However, they realize that it’s much better to remove burgerland influence in a peaceful way, and that’s what will happen.

Again, absolute cope. They’ve been at it for over 75 years and haven’t made any progress, considering Taiwanese have developed significantly more national identity and even more people in Taiwan support the country participating in international relations under the name “Taiwan” (80%) and consider themselves primarily Taiwanese (90%), and only 6% consider themselves more Chinese than Taiwanese (more people considered themselves primarily Chinese many decades ago but that has long since dwindled).

It’s incredible how people have trouble grasping such basic things.

It’s incredible how you have trouble grasping the situation and think China is going to “peacefully” absorb Taiwan when Taiwan is farther from China than ever in terms of national identity and international participation.

Several polls have indicated an increase in support of Taiwanese independence in the three decades after 1990. In a Taiwanese Public Opinion Foundation poll conducted in June 2020, 54% of respondents supported de jure independence for Taiwan, 23.4% preferred maintaining the status quo, 12.5% favored unification with China, and 10% did not hold any particular view on the matter. This represented the highest level of support for Taiwanese independence since the survey was first conducted in 1991. A later TPOF poll in 2022 showed similar results.

I’ll say it again: Why would countries risk ruining trade relations with China, one of the three most important trade powers internationally, over unnecessarily pointing out reality and thus contradicting China? And how can you seriously say territory a country doesn’t control in any capacity at all theirs? Why do you think a majority of world powers are independently trading with Taiwan if Taiwan isn’t independent from China?

Don’t you think China would, you know, not be constantly complaining about not having control over Taiwan for the past few decades and making bluffs about invading if Taiwan were already part of China? That’s a pretty obvious sign that “no, China doesn’t own Taiwan in any capacity”.

The US state department doesn’t decide which countries own or control which territory, now does it? How exactly can you say territory you don’t control (neither legally nor militarily) and likely will never control is part of your own country? Furthermore, why would the US risk ruining trade relations with China over unnecessarily pointing out reality, when it doesn’t benefit the US to recognize Taiwanese independence?

Lemmy’s primary demographic is like, developers/engineers who get paid enough to spend most of the day doing shit other than work and still live comfortably. (And Redditors that decided they were too cool for closed-source corporate malware.)

exaggeratingly avoiding eye contact and making a stupid mouth expression is what overly dramatic/narcissistic people do to emphasize the hotness of their take, the sheer disagreeableness they presume their words or actions have

it’s like “sorry not sorry” as an expression. it is pretentiousness incarnate. i think it’s more of an adult pop-culture and person-with-radical-political-beliefs thing than a white person thing, it’s the result of watching way too much american reality tv

glassing middle eastern children is NOT the same as glass-making, believe it or not

In most American dialects and some British dialects, “bore” and “tour” rhyme (called the “pour-poor merger”). But in some dialects it may rhyme with “sewer”/“two-er” or have the same sound as in “blue” or even as in “were”.

Quaternions? Basis of quantum mechanics? Pretty sure that’s not right at all. A lot of games use them for rotations in place of rotation matrices though I suppose.