Great idea, although it is quite inconvenient that you have to tap/swipe to show the modern version (at least on mobile). Makes it difficult to compare.
As others have stated, there is no point in a "reveal". Simply show the comparison upfront. User interaction should not be necessary as it only needs to be a plain old html document. You didn't need to write any script. When I got through a bit of it, I wasn't sure if I accidentally skipped something or missed a nuance.
Maybe `ArrowLeft`/`ArrowRight` or `j`/`k` to flip through all of card pairs? Or just allow us to scroll through all the pairs. In either case, both old and new should be visible.
Yes, one thumb on each side works great in landscape mode. Eventually I'll have to add some UI feedback to this mode when toggling it on or off, which shouldn't be too hard to do with a little CSS since the trackpad and button are just div elements overlaid on top of the canvas.
I don’t know if multi-tap functions are already spoken for, I’ve only played with this a little so far (great job btw!). I think being able to toggle Trackpad Mode with a three-finger tap would be a nice _touch_.
>In German you need to have that noun info upfront, otherwise you might not get the grammar correct!
In reality, (1) people rarely change their mind about what noun they're going to use such that the gender is different, and (2) when it needs to be done, speakers of German either ignore it or just go back and repair what they said, changing the forms of the determiner and adjective. Germans speak with no more planning than English speakers.
One might say the same thing about certain English grammatical phenomena. When asking a question, you have to consider whether the subject is going to be singular or plural: Is/are the dog/dogs hungry? This isn't needed in languages without subject-verb agreement, such as Swedish. But it makes very little difference to native speakers.
I agree. Is Spanish, chair vs stool is a better example because some objects are in between and you may change your classification on the fly.
People will ignore the error most of the time unles you make too many of them. In that case they will assume you are a foreigner and ignore the errors anyway.
It's not so much about changing your mind, but rather more that as a learner of German, you have to do a bit more upfront thinking, and be more considerate of the thing you're talking about.
For example, "can you pass me the X" is straightforward in English, but requires a bit more thinking / planning in German where you have to consider "what gender is X, and what case is it in?".
Of course for a native speaker this is for the most part automatic. For someone learning though, it emphasises objects in a way that you didn't have to before. All of a sudden every item is distinct, has an additional attribute and must be used in a specific way.
It is possible to emulate this in Emacs Lisp. I've created a package to that extent, see http://ankarstrom.se/~john/etc/emacs/scroll-without-point.el. (I've made a few changes to it the last couple of weeks that I have yet to upload, though.) I should probably publish it somewhere else eventually, but I've always felt it to be a bit of a hack. Still, I use it and it works well 99% of the time.
Chiming in from theoretical linguistics: it is impossible for natural languages to "count", i.e. make reference to numbers other than 0, 1 or infinity.
As an example, there are languages where prenominal genitives are impossible (0).
Then, there are languages, such as German, where only one prenominal genitive is possible (1):
> Annas Haus
> *Annas Hunds Haus
Finally, there are languages, such as English, where an infinite number of prenominal genitives are possible (infinity).
> Anna's house
> Anna's dog's house
> Anna's mother's dog's house
> Anna's mother's sister's ... dog's house
But there are no languages where only two or three prenominal genitives are possible.
This property is taken to be part of Universal Grammar, i.e. the genetic/biological/mental system that makes human language possible.
As a German speaker, the claim "more than one prenominal genitive is impossible" seems interesting but perhaps not entirely accurate. As a non-linguist I probably misunderstand the meaning of prenominal genitive and might be missing your argument's point. For the overarching discussion we should note though the great variety of refering to "more than one element" in German.
> Anna's mother's sister's dog's house
> Das Haus des Hundes der Schwester der Mutter von Anna.
It's difficult to parse though. We only get to know about Anna at the end of the sentence. Consequently, we avoid such sentences or use workarounds.
> Von Annas Mutters Schwester dem Hund sein Haus.
If you ever use such a construction German speakers will correct your bad language but they will perfectly understand the sentence's meaning.
I agree. But if you remove the "so", there is no contradiction. It is possible the author used "so" not to mean "in other words", but simply as a relatively meaningless discourse marker.
The comma differentiates. The comma indicates a short pause and a certain intonation in speech (the period means a longer pause and a different intonation). If you say that sentence with and without a pause/comma, you'll see (hear) that the sentence is correct. Reading unambiguously is also hard.
The problem with that is that writers are not consistent with comma usage either, particularly when it comes to informal writing, where prescriptive rules are out the window anyway. And I would argue that it would be a bit of a norm violation even in informal writing to introduce this new point at the end of a paragraph rather than starting a new one, which makes me think that that was not the author's intent.
My own. It's not in a suitable state for others at the moment - it makes assumptions about e.g. running in a tiling window manager with support scripts tuned for it, and a few other things specific to my environment. I intent to clean that up at some point, but it's just not been a priority.
That only speaks for the 1800s, though. There were a lot of incorrect beliefs among scientists during that time that weren't commonplace before; race biology comes to mind.
Soap has been around for a long time, and thousand-year-old religions have rules about cleaning oneself. My impression was that doctors actually stopped believing in disinfection during the rise of modern science, as they began see these beliefs as unscientific superstitions. I don't currently have a source for this, though.
