>[...] but quietly so they don't have to admit it's a change of course.
Where exactly does this come from? Sweden has no need to save face. We've been transparent and had open discussion from the beginning with the spoken assumption that we may, in fact, not be doing the right thing and that we may have to alter course as the situation changes.
The ones who need to save face are the ones which are committing to full lockdown right now. They're the ones who are making a big sacrifice and need to motivate it with the fact that "it's a necessity", seeing Sweden succeed otherwise would be a big blow to their egos and their personal sacrifices.
I will also say that voluntary compliance is still occurring here, which is notable both in what private companies are doing in adapting to the situation, and how the average person has changed their behaviour. This doesn't mean 100% compliance for everyone, which is unfortunate.
> The ones who need to save face are the ones which are committing to full lockdown right now.
That's quite the assertion. The very word quarantine comes to us from when there was a Republic of Venice. The notion of shutting things down in times of plague is an old one.
Yes, it's a very blunt instrument, and you'd hope we could do better these days - and some places like South Korea and Taiwan appear to be managing that - but locking things down works.
I'm not saying that because the lockdown has been a failure you need to save face. Is there something unclear in my reasoning from the rest of my comment that you'd like me to re-word?
Saving face refers to trying to recover from screwing something up. Perhaps it's possible that something will come to light showing that lockdowns were not the best way of handling things, but they're a very good default when you don't really know what's going on, but can't afford to wait for data. I would have used a different phrase.
Just like abortion or guns, Republicans vs Democrats, there are 2 chunks of people on opposite sides that have staked out their bunkers. They are now at war.
It is absolutely not the same, since Sweden may change their position because they are not inherently opposed by some inherent moral absolutism to do so.
Mutual intelligibility for the sake of information exchange is good, but we can have both. Most Europeans already have both. In the EU (the organization) it's Euro English.
The person above you has not said that mutual intelligibility is bad.
You want people to share their culture with you, yet you are fine with them throwing away something which acts as one of the backbones of their cultural history for the sake of an imagined increase in cooperation.
And also, why does everything have to be useful? The useless things in life are often the best. Like ice cream, poetry, wasting an afternoon away, or hacking. In fact that's why I work, to enjoy the useless things in life.
Not everything has to be useful: you used the same technique there you implicitly criticised me using ;o)
Communication, is for communication. Yes, it's good to have localised codes, domain languages, private communications; quirky ways to make crypto-poetry, or to create artistic expressions.
But we, IMO, should be very wary of placing those above or ability to communicate effectively with as many people as we're able.
In Welsh counties of the UK school children are forced to learn Cymraeg, a language that doesn't help them access any other cultures, not communicate with any other people they can't already (except literally one or two pre-schoolers).
Cymraeg is very interesting and holds together part of the story of UK, my home country, but for communication it's a bad choice.
I've no problem with people choosing to learn languages for purposes other than communication; but forcing schoolchildren to learn a second language that's near useless [compared to global modern languages] as a communication tool, that's awful.
Yes to historic languages; no to forcibly separating peoples through choosing purposeful separation via language.
1. They can do both, learning a separate script that's as simple as the Latin one is not a huge investment.
2. You're talking about people who immigrate to an English speaking country, correct? Good advice for people living in Mongolia surely is available in Mongolian.
Mongolians today learn English, at least the guy who went to Sweden to work as a chef that I talked to a couple of years ago did.
Within the last 50 years, the language of the place where my grandparents and parents came from lost pretty much all of its economic significance, and that place has 100 million+ people. As the child of an immigrant in the US who was taught the alphabet and characters and raised completely in the US, I am more literate in the native language than the children who grew up there!
All of their parents sent them to English schools, and all business is done in English. You use the native language to talk to old or poor people, but nothing that can make you a living.
So in my experience, all that time I spent learning that native language more than what I needed to for casual conversation was a waste of time.
I don't see what's "human" or not about the different rate of return of different languages. If it tickles your fancy, go for it. But language is a tool, one that is almost useless if you have no one to use it with. So I have a tool which I basically can't use anymore.
I'm not blaming my elders or anything, I'm sure they were most well intentioned and they don't know the future, but I think my time could have been better spent. And I know there's many things I've wasted my time on, but I am simply stating my belief the future utility of some languages is not worth the cost of keeping them alive.
What is not human is measuring the "rate of return" of what you learn exclusively in economic terms. Culture is a thing, although not always a very profitable one. There are people (particulars, governments, and even the UN) spending money to conserve languages. Also, I find quite extreme that you consider being able to talk with old and poor people a "waste of time", just because it won't help you to make a living.
A language is a tool, but it is also much more. In particular, it is much more than a tool to make money.
I don't know you, maybe you are a wonderful person. Maybe you could have done better things with your time than learning that language (I do not know how much time you invested or your possibilities to use it), but reading your comment made me feel bad.
>Also, I find quite extreme that you consider being able to talk with old and poor people a "waste of time", just because it won't help you to make a living.
I didn't mean to imply that language is only worthwhile if you make money from it. But time is a finite resource, and unless you really like learning different alphabets or something, there is no utility gained for 99.9% of people in learning one that no one else is going to use.
Learning how to speak a language is orders less time intensive than a reading and writing an alphabet. I'm glad I speak it fluently, and can converse with elders and poor people. But reading and writing it will never come into use for me.
I've never seen a computer scientist put a lot of effort into syntax. The POPL people are more interested in type systems and semantics than they are in syntax.
If you consider arrow keys as 2D, and the Vim's edit/control mode as a 3rd dimension, EMACS is already up to... 12 dimensions? Good enough! Ship it! :)
I have no issue with that decision at all and find it akin to Go forcing users to adhere to gofmt, and I don't use Zig. A good error message would be nice (EDIT: A zigfmt would be even better).
How many developers who try out new languages are even using Windows? I'd imagine most are on a UNIX-like.
Regardless, I don't think it's a big deal either way. You could always make a merge request with a fix if you feel so strongly about it.
Just read the standard, it's quite clear from the semantics that it's a stack machine: https://webassembly.github.io/spec/core/exec/runtime.html#st... https://webassembly.github.io/spec/core/exec/instructions.ht...