|
LP97S posted:Yeah, god forbid you look up what a dialect means. Peanut President posted:[Your ethnicity] is so cute, thinking anyone cares about their dumb opinions. I admit, I just hate your freedom. 1) It was a joke, I am sure that American English has varieties that count as dialects according to most definitions. 2) This doesn't mean that American English isn't very homogeneous considering its size, which I personally consider to be a good thing. I wouldn't mind if all the dialects in my country died out tomorrow, on the contrary.
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 15:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 23:03 |
|
|
foobardog posted:I think is nice and weird is how using "might could" is valid to me, but apparently wrong to other Americans. Fun fact: 'might could' is perfectly good English. "Can" used to be a full verb that could conjugate in every tense, but in most varieties of English it's degenerated into only the present and preterite tenses. In Dutch and Afrikaans (and I think German?) it is still used that way. You can also say things in those languages like "I shall can" (I shall be able to), "I try to can" (I try to be able to), etc vv His dialect is English. I didn't say it was perfectly good Received Pronunciation or SAE or whatever. I was just mentioning that his dialect retained an English construction that is no longer possible in most others. I didn't mean to imply that his grammar is "more right" than others because as you pointed out, there is no such thing 
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:51 on Oct 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 16:57
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Fun fact: 'might could' is perfectly good English. No it isn't, if people don't consider it so. You mean it was once (and still is in that dude's dialect, sure).
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 17:06
|
|
|
I kind of want this to be a Paradox grand strategy game. It reminds me of the Holy Roman Empire! My borders!!  Map of US Congressional Districts, 113th US Congress 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 19:12
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:I kind of want this to be a Paradox grand strategy game. It reminds me of the Holy Roman Empire! My borders!! That doesn't look nearly as bad as I thought it would
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 19:40
|
|
|
Peruser posted:That doesn't look nearly as bad as I thought it would Well other than NC and PA...
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 19:41
|
|
|
Dr. Tough posted:Well other than NC and PA... Seriously, look at the purple district in North Carolina. I refuse to believe they got those borders without either crazy gerrymandering acrobatics or just scribbling on the map.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 19:43
|
|
|
  Countries with Universal Health Care
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 19:47
|
|
|
univbee posted:
Good job, Poland.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 19:49
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Good job, Poland. I'd like to see the criteria. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Poland
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 19:50
|
|
|
Peruser posted:That doesn't look nearly as bad as I thought it would A lot of the really egregious gerrymandering is probably on a level too small to show up on that scale, anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 19:54
|
|
|
univbee posted:
Yugoslavia  Also:    
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 20:04
|
|
|
Rincewind posted:A lot of the really egregious gerrymandering is probably on a level too small to show up on that scale, anyway. Yep. Fun fact: Democratic candidates for the House won something like 1.5 million more votes than than House Republican candidates in the 2012 elections. Because of this map, Republicans, especially far right Republicans, still dominate the House of Representatives anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 20:10
|
|
|
Rincewind posted:A lot of the really egregious gerrymandering is probably on a level too small to show up on that scale, anyway. The worst gerrymandering generally takes place in densely populated areas which obviously show up as geographically smaller and harder to see. That map also lacks a certain level of detail that makes some areas look better than they are. Utah is a good example, because a quick glance at those districts makes it appear fairly reasonable, but if you looked at a map that showed the location of Salt Lake City you would see what they did. SLC is located at that tiny point where all four UT districts meet, split up into pieces so that Democratic votes can be safely neutralized by rural and suburban conservatives. It doesn't quite work, as Utah has a Democratic Rep. (Jim Matheson), but it's kind of an odd case because he's in an R+14 district and holds the seat by being one of the most conservative Democratic politicians in the country. At any rate, if Utah was like my state (Iowa) and had districts drawn by commission, they would probably have four deep red districts in the hinterlands plus a mildly blue one around SLC.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 20:11
|
|
|
A little late for languagechat but oh well.System Metternich posted:Romance languages of Europe. Keep in mind that this is still somewhat simplified, as the langues d'oil could still be separated into numerous other dialects/languages. I'm counting 16 (e.g. Walloon, Gallo or Picard) for this group alone. You could probably do this with other dialect groups depicted here as well. I was in the hospital recently and the guy I shared a room with spoke Gallo. Outside of protests, cultural events and such he's literally the only native Gallo speaker I've ever met  More Later posted:In France you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone speaking occitan outside of occitan schools... What's interesting though is that there are slight variants of proper French that incorporates words from the dialects of old; t'y as vu, pitchounet? Referring back to the previous "chocolatine" thing, it comes from the word "chicolatina" in Occitan. There are more Occitan speakers than you might think. Most studies put the numbers at anywhere between 200k and 700k, although I think the lower you go the more accurate it's likely to be. It's not a major language but it's not quite at the point of being entirely extinct. I've had quite a few people try to tell me that there is nobody here in Rennes who speaks Breton, but actually there are about 15,000 of us. But since we don't go around yelling in Breton 24/7 or have some sort of visual marker or something I guess people think we don't exist. A map of languges/dialects (wherever you draw the line) in France.  A kinda dumb map of this guy's vision of a future federal Europe. I imagine a similar map could be made in Victoria 2 by just going to every major country in Europe and hitting the "release nation" button until you can't anymore. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 20:16
|
|
|
Emanuel Collective posted:Yep. It also depends where those votes took place (as in, state). If there was a higher margin in North Carolina, sure that's an issue. If most of that higher margin was due to people in California, not as much.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 20:18
|
|
|
Interesting that he chose Corti to be the capital of Corsica, it was the capital when Corsica was independent but Aiacciu or Bastia would make more sense nowadays. Edit: Kosovo doesn't get to be independent? Kurtofan fucked around with this message at 20:26 on Oct 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 20:22
|
|
|
Is Ireland the only existing country to actually gain territory on that map?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 20:32
|
|
|
Rincewind posted:Is Ireland the only existing country to actually gain territory on that map? E: Hungary might have gained a few bits as well, though they're less obvious than Tirol. A Buttery Pastry fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Oct 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 20:35
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Austria gains a bit as well. And Lithuania I think.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
Croatia also gets a sliver from Bosnia, I think.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 20:38
|
|
|
No more Vatican City, though, unless we assume that the central Italian rump nation is actually the Papal States. The Isle of Man gets to be independent but the Channel Islands don't. A united Cyprus, a united Ireland, but an independent Cornwall. At least the Basques get something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:Edit: Kosovo doesn't get to be independent? Vojvodina does but not Kosovo. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 20:43
|
|
|
EDIT: Nevermind, I guess I'm blind
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 20:45
|
|
|
Peanut President posted:Vojvodina does but not Kosovo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 20:45
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It also depends where those votes took place (as in, state). If there was a higher margin in North Carolina, sure that's an issue. If most of that higher margin was due to people in California, not as much. Why? Congressional seats are assigned to states so the populations in congressional districts are roughly uniform nationwide. A district in urban California has roughly as many people as a district in rural North Carolina.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 20:46
|
|
|
AlexG posted:No more Vatican City, though, unless we assume that the central Italian rump nation is actually the Papal States. I'm sure that wouldn't lead to bad things at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 20:48
|
|
|
Serbia and Croatia gain their majority parts of Bosnia & Herzegovina. Albania gains all of Kosovo apparently. I can't tell whether Western Outlands have been repatriated to Bulgaria though it would still be at a net loss with all of dat Pirin Macedonia going to Macedonia which massively gains land (including the Greek Macedonia, it ends up being something like 2x its current size) while losing nothing of its ethnically Albanian west. Hungary gains land with the chunk of Northern Vojvodina and the Szekely land. Does Austria also get Trentino in that map? This map is really poorly researched, in the Balkans at least. Oh, and the Aromanian islands all over Greece, Albania and Macedonia.  How does this person expect this political entity to work?
SaltyJesus fucked around with this message at 20:52 on Oct 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 20:48
|
|
|
Lycus posted:I don't think Vojvodina is independent. I may be wrong but bolded italics seems to indicate newly independent countries and unbolded italics is just major divisions or autonomous regions. It's marked as "Emergent Nation", like Bavaria and Cornwall. At least to my eye. Srpska is written as an autonomous region with gray letters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 20:50
|
|
|
univbee posted:
Sheesh. America is beaten by freaking Botswana and Mongolia, for Christ's sake!
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
lonelywurm posted:Not just a united Cyprus, a united Cyprus as part of Greece. poo poo, you're right. Greece also gets Gökçeada/Imbros from Turkey. And Moldova is now part of Romania. On the other side of the map, it looks like Ceuta and Melilla are no longer Spanish, and Gibraltar has been returned to Spain / independent Andalucia. Meanwhile, the ~~fantastical inclusive diversity~~ of Europe doesn't include Ukraine, Belarus, Turkey or Russia.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 20:52
|
|
|
AlexG posted:And Moldova is now part of Romania. Hahaha, is that discoloration on the far east of Moldova/Romania his attempt at depicting Transnistria? I don't see it mentioned in the table of contents on the right.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 20:57
|
|
|
SaltyJesus posted:Hahaha, is that discoloration on the far east of Moldova/Romania his attempt at depicting Transnistria? I don't see it mentioned in the table of contents on the right. No, apparently it's Gagauzia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gagauz_Yeri Edit: I see there's also an unamed territory that is probably Transnistria. Kurtofan fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Oct 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 20:58
|
|
|
Soviet Commubot posted:A kinda dumb map of this guy's vision of a future federal Europe. I imagine a similar map could be made in Victoria 2 by just going to every major country in Europe and hitting the "release nation" button until you can't anymore. That actually seems like a fun way to enjoy a round of Victoria 2, thanks for the idea.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 20:59
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:No, apparently it's Gagauzia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gagauz_Yeri Gagauzia is dark orange and further south than what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the slightly yellowish strip east of the Dniester, it corresponds to the dotted-line segment on this map: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Gagauzia_map.svg E:  SaltyJesus fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Oct 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 21:03
|
|
|
I can't tell if Russia still owns
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 21:06
|
|
|
SaltyJesus posted:Gagauzia is dark orange and further south than what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the slightly yellowish strip east of the Dniester, it corresponds to the dotted-line segment on this map: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Gagauzia_map.svg That would be Transnistria.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 21:12
|
|
|
frankenfreak posted:That would be Transnistria. Yes.  SaltyJesus posted:Hahaha, is that discoloration on the far east of Moldova/Romania his attempt at depicting Transnistria? I don't see it mentioned in the table of contents on the right. I wonder why he didn't bother labeling it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 21:14
|
|
|
Emanuel Collective posted:Why? Congressional seats are assigned to states so the populations in congressional districts are roughly uniform nationwide. A district in urban California has roughly as many people as a district in rural North Carolina. Mostly, though there are edge cases due to every state's number of representatives being an integer. Big states regress toward the mean of around 700,000 people per representative, small states can have districts ranging from 350,000 to just short of a million, and this can skew numbers one way or the other. Beyond even that, having a small number makes the skew easier. A state with 2 or 3 representatives, districts drawn by blindly neutral population map, and 2/3 of its voters going to one party might have all of its representatives go that direction: if you wanted that not to happen you might have to deliberately gerrymander to make sure the minority party gets a chance at representation at all. And if it has 2 representatives and a 1/1 split, the majority party is now under-represented: you can't really win. A state with 30 representatives and the other factors all the same makes that a whole lot less likely, and makes proportional representation easier either deliberately or by accident. Mostly it's that gerrymandering for political gain by whoever is drawing the maps is a genuine thing, but states and especially small states are hard to get proportionate representation to due to rounding errors. Given a good number of relatively small red states, it wouldn't be terribly surprising if this explains some.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 21:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 23:03 |
|
|
Killer robot posted:Mostly, though there are edge cases due to every state's number of representatives being an integer. Big states regress toward the mean of around 700,000 people per representative, small states can have districts ranging from 350,000 to just short of a million, and this can skew numbers one way or the other. Beyond even that, having a small number makes the skew easier. A state with 2 or 3 representatives, districts drawn by blindly neutral population map, and 2/3 of its voters going to one party might have all of its representatives go that direction: if you wanted that not to happen you might have to deliberately gerrymander to make sure the minority party gets a chance at representation at all. And if it has 2 representatives and a 1/1 split, the majority party is now under-represented: you can't really win. A state with 30 representatives and the other factors all the same makes that a whole lot less likely, and makes proportional representation easier either deliberately or by accident. The solution to this is clearly weighting the votes of various representatives. A representative of a district with 700,000 people could have exactly twice the voting power as one of a district of only 350,000 people!
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 21:42
|
|