• 0 Posts
  • 12 Comments
Joined 3 months ago
cake
Cake day: August 26th, 2025

help-circle
  • It’s not that loanwords are a thing in all languages, it’s that they are everything. A non-loanword would be a word without a historical etymology. There are some in physics, and everyone is laughing at them “quarks”

    Some languages or populations may be stricter with their grammars, but I guarantee you they stole that grammar. A few things changed over time of course, but it’s going to be very similar to how they talked before, mixed with how other people around them talked. You can’t just make up new grammar and hope people will understand it (see attached Lojban)









  • Qwel@sopuli.xyzto196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneframework doesn't rule
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    Maybe I’m being a bit too nervous, but companies like Fairphone or Framework rely on goodwill from technical people who are ready to pay more for less stuff to encourage their politics. If poeple categorize them as non-rule, they are not going to pay the premium. I think, for a lemmy user, that would set the odds of buying at near-0. again, maybe i’m being too dramatic

    I agree that putting pressure this way is a good thing, but the pressure needs to be conditional. If you just mark them as dead before giving them a chance to correct course, they are better off reaching all the way for the customer base of “apolitical” users. The ebassi screen has a parodic tone that reduces the certainty and definitiveness (people will just put FW into question rather than fully discard it. i think), and avoids citing the name directly, limiting the damage to people who already have some understanding of the situation

    anyways at this point I think there is enough threat to elicit a reaction on their part, and that we should wait for them before burning everything down. and I hope they can just have a quick fact check and everything will be fine and they will actually have money to donate because they won’t if they keep up the vibe of the first response

    I’m being way overinvested ok byeee




  • Hey so, is this a normal thing in meta analyses ?

    We identified 46 studies for inclusion in our analysis. Of these, 27 studies reported positive associations (significant links to NDDs), 9 showed null associations (no significant link), and 4 indicated negative associations (protective effects).

    27+9+4 is 40 I think ? What happened to the 6 other papers ? I’m always confused by the whole “we ignored half of the studies and we won’t tell you why”, if they can also ignore some of the 46 studies they selected, what does the 46 number mean ?