I'm interested in learning more about this! As a Finn I love Poland and have been there multiple times (most recently just two weeks ago). I don't know the language, but details like honorifics reveal interesting tidbits of the culture and society. I guess I should prompt an LLM about it.
If you are a Fin in Poland and a lot into nerd stuff, in Polish language some words are spelled with letters "h" and some with "ch" - where both have the same pronouciation now, but supposedly 150 years ago there was a difference.
Supposedly in Finish language you retained this difference and it can be heard in some words e.g. "raha" ("money" in Finish?).
Personally I never "heard" it - sounded as a regular "h" sound for me.
>> Poland has honorifics that are probably on par to those in Japan
> I'm interested in learning more about this!
It's very simple, actually.
For strangers, you use the third person and the title « Pan » or « Pani » (Sir or Lady). You avoid pronouns, « The Lady has forgotten the Lady's purse on the table ».
For friends, you use the t-form ("ty", thou), and use a diminutive rather than the full name. « Johny, you've forgotten your bag on the table ».
For work colleagues, you traditionally use « Pan » or « Pani » with the full form of the first name. « Mister John, the mister's bag is on the table ». This is perceived as old-fashioned, and is increasingly being replaced by the t-form.
The v-form has fallen into disuse, as it was promoted by the Communist regime.
(The old-fashioned honorifics still exist, but they are only used in administrative correspondence: the only time when you're "the respectable gentleman" is when you need to pay taxes.)
Calling someone Sir or Madam also exists in English and is nothing special.
You left out most of the interesting things.
For example the vocative case is partially dissapearing. Someone from Finland can actually understand this topic, since Finnish has multiple cases - more than in Polish language (meanwhile English has one case and if we try very hard we can squeeze something similar to a case - so let's say it has two).
> English has one case and if we try very hard we can squeeze something similar to a case - so let's say it has two
This isn't a correct way to describe English grammar. You can either say it has no cases or four cases with no inflections (because it definitely has subjects, objects, indirect objects, and possessives).
Presumably your native language doesn't inflect in the nominative or something like that and your English teacher once gave you your statement as a convenience fact, but the vast majority of native English speakers have never heard of grammatical case (ones who have, have typically studied inflected foreign languages). In Linguistics, it might be used to describe English and other uninflected languages (it depends).
> You left out most of the interesting things. For example the vocative case is partially dissapearing.
The grammar is changing in many ways (for example, the inanimate masculine is being replaced with the animated, kroić kotleta), but this was about honorifics.
It's possible in Polish to use "pan" in vocative "panie" form with strong vocal emphasis not followed by name or last name, to give it more rude sounding - but it won't be an insult.
Yes, true, I've heard that, it's like putting emphasis on the fact that you want someone to pay attention or something like that. A bit like the guy saying 'Sir!' in the Blues Brothers restaurant scene but not quite the same.
There's nothing more humiliating than a Warsaw taxi driver who looks at you as you try to work out how to operate the door handle and says "Panie!" with a left-bank accent.
Yeah, as someone who started with Costco rice and slowly moved up the quality chain, there is a clear difference in taste between even average Japanese rice and most Costco rice. It would be interesting to see a price/quality comparison between the U.S. and Japanese Costcos though.
This is one of these case where cross-country comparison might bring little relevant information.
Another example could be wine sold at US Cosco vs French Costco. It would be an indicator of something, but I'd personally be lost if I had to interpret it in regards to wine trends in France in general.
Snobs will tell you yes, but Kokuho Rose is a California grown sushi rice that's good enough to be served over imported Japanese rice at Japanese restaurants. Really disappointing that the farm
is closing up shop.
Speculating from online comments around it and from looking at bags of Calrose rice, they seem to be few decades behind in cultivation techniques and selective breeding improvements. The grains look smaller, less shiny and more yellowy. but technically they should be of the same strain.
Calrose, the primary rice grown in California is a Japonica, its just Japanese rice grown in America. Tamanishiki, which is one of the high grade sushi rices is grown in the US and Japan
Surprising, because while its widely available in California it seems to be a tiny minority of available rice. A search I did says it is 80% of California's crop, so presumably a lot of it is exported?
It doesn't serve every culinary purpose and most California grocery shoppers are not Japanese. You wouldn't make Moros y Cristianos with it. You wouldn't make Hoppin' John with it. It's no good for your Indian menu. It isn't really what you'd serve beside fried chicken.
There is no "best rice" any more than there is "best pants".
Jasmine rice can NOT be used for sushi! It's not sticky enough to hold together. The fact that it's not sticky makes it good for fried rice, not for sushi.
In my experience it's just barely sticky enough for sushi provided you don't wash it but I don't think the texture is right for that usage. I prefer it for most things though.
might be confusing mushy with sticky - the individual grains of sushi rice is intact and whole. Mushy rice is a grain that has too absorbed too much water, and is burst.
At least some of the anti-nuclear movement back then was directed against old and unsafe nuclear plants, and for good reason. These activists achieved their goal, as modern plants are very safe.
AFAICT, modern day anti-nuclear movement is a bit different to that.
Finland tried teaching maths to children using Group Theory in the 70s [1], but the results weren't that good; it proved to be too abstract for young kids.
Ultimately, I believe basic algebra and geometry are the most important takeaways from math classes for most people.
I am no expert in pedagogy of mathematics, and I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong, but I think there was/is a Russian academic program in which students were/are basically only taught algebra in an iteratively increasing manner.
As it was explained to me, one wouldn't take a "Calculus I" class as a prerequisite for say an entry-level engineering course. One typically had such a strong foundation of algebra, that when encountering a problem that required calculus, the student would just learn the necessary calculus at that point in time. In other words, with such a strong algebraic background, other aspects of math, within reason, were much easier to grok.
> the results weren't that good; it proved to be too abstract for young kids
You cannot make that conclusion as a result of the evidence. Yes, the evidence might support that conclusion, but there are many others that also could. For example, they could have just been really bad at teaching. This even seems like a likely one as it is difficult to perform such a reformulation and to do so broadly and quickly.
The other reason I'm willing to accept alternative conclusions is that France and the USSR had far more success than Finland (or even America). Their success contradicts a claim that "[it is] too abstract for young kids". You'd need to constrain it to something like "[it is] too abstract for Finish kids" which I think both of us would doubt such a claim.
It's about the separation of powers. Law-making, adjudication, and execution should be separate branches so that no one branch gets too much power, as that will lead to dictatorship. When Trump and Musk are ignoring judges' orders and going ahead with their sledgehammering, it sets a dangerous precedent for what the POTUS can get away with.
Ofc there's more to this story than just DOGE too.
It depends on what you want to build. If you want to build impressive B2C software, this sounds like a recipe for disaster. I've worked with many backend engineers masquerading as full stack engineers who couldn't carbon copy a simple mockup design into a working UI if their life depended on it. Yet they never seem to notice how bad their implementation is, sometimes not even if you point it out to them even if the end users would notice; I think these engs are so enamored with their work they're in some kind of denial about the shortcomings. And that's just the visual parts. There's also skill required to take accessibility and conformance with web standards into account (HTML/CSS/JS stack is devious in that it lets you do things in ways that are "wrong"), which you can't easily fix later on by tweaking a bit here and there. So without this understanding, you end up with a crappy UI that's overengineered for what it is. Of course that all won't be an issue if you're building software you can sell even if the UI makes its users depressed.
Not saying your typical frontend engineer is flawless either. It's probably true that they're, on average, not as skilled sw architects as backend engineers, simply because a lot of their work focuses on details instead of architecting, and, again, the HTML/CSS/JS stack is incredibly flexible, in good and bad.
It's fair to point out that there is real skill involved in that kind of work. However, I don't trust the average "frontend developer" to do pixel perfect implementations either. Many of them don't even seem to know CSS anymore. And not to discount your experience, but being able to implement a design is something that is easily testable when evaluating candidates. Because I come from the multimedia agency world, most of the candidates I've hired were actually for that kind of role. Accidentally hiring people who can't do the work points to a competency issue with management. As I've pointed out elsewhere, I have the awards to speak authoritatively on this. But perhaps me focusing on average skill is just an unfair way to look it, since I'm never really looking for average anyways.
