This is an amusing question. I was thoroughly confused by what this meant.
In my country, I keep my socks in a completely different room from my shoes. So when I put on clothes, I first have to put on socks, then leave the room, and then put on the shoes. I've observed the same in Germany, France, Austria, Poland, and Spain (off the top of my head).
As a separate issue, the habit of walking in shoes within your house is still utterly baffling to me. I've seen people not walk in shoes even at the office (because it's uncomfortable). Can't imagine the smell of feet after walking in shoes the whole day.
You could put one sock on, then go to the other room and put a shoe on, return to the first room for the other sock, and then go back and put the second shoe on.
It'd be like applying a bubble sort to getting dressed.
Pretty sure it's an American thing to constantly wear shoes, which is weird considering how little walking they appear to do (compared to driving).
Granted, all 3 of those homes were varying levels of filthy to me.
The most pleasant footwear for me is Birkenstock Arizonas with socks, at home or office or when driving or running errands. This is the classic model with two straps over your foot and no back strap. I only switch to shoes when I will be walking some distance.
With the Birkenstocks, most of your foot is ventilated even while standing or sitting, and every time you take a step the bottom of your foot gets some air.
Don't over-tighten the straps. You should be able to slip your feet in and out of them without reaching down. Have at least two pair on hand, so you can easily slip out of one pair and into another.
In the summer I may leave off the socks to stay cooler, so it is especially nice to switch to another pair of sandals to let them dry out. With socks in cool weather, I'm comfortable wearing the same pair all day.
If you get these, be sure to get the "soft footbed" version. They are much more comfortable than the originals. And I like the suede version for the softer straps.
You may look geeky wearing them, but face it, you're already a geek!
There are slippers for walking around in the house if you want them (and every family has "guest slippers" for when somebody comes to visit). Not taking off your shoes when you come to someone is very rude.
From Latvia here, more or less the same.
Then again, i really like wearing woolen socks everywhere, especially when it's cold outside, so they're on my legs most of the time anyways. Though i do have to change them often, or sometimes just put one pair on a radiator and wear another one, so that once i need to switch the new pair is warm.
It's actually really comfortable.
You put the dirt inside your sock instead though.
(I still put the socks first, but alternating isn't completely unreasonable.)
I think it's mostly climate + walking culture thing. If you live in a muddy/snowy climate and people walk a lot - wearing shoes in your house is simply a no-go. You'd have to clean up constantly.
Only "old man" ones. I want cool looking slippers that don't make me look like I belong in a retirement home.
Online, 'cool' slippers are all of a very low quality, and mostly only available in kids sizes.
I do sock shoe sock shoe because the sequence takes less time overall that way.
I've always pronounced it like "hazel", but many of my colleagues rhyme it with "dazzle".
The Bazel website even has an FAQ entry about it, but they managed to completely confuse the issue:
> How do you pronounce “Bazel”?
> The same way as “basil” (the herb) in US English: “BAY-zel”. It rhymes with “hazel”. IPA: /ˈbeɪzˌəl/
Little problem here... Basil, the herb, can be pronounced either like hazel or like dazzle. Or even rhymed with hassle!
So naturally I opened a PR attempting to clarify this. It led to an interesting discussion, and in the end I wrote a bad poem acknowledging both pronunciations:
A petty or paltry poet; a writer of poor or trashy verse; a rimester.
 Oxford English Dictionary, 1989. No link; it's a handy 20 volume set.
You may have been making a veiled reference to the fact that the Swiss pronounce it three different ways themselves, but just in case you weren't:
>The locals say without any doubt "Basel" with a long "a". So do the germans.
>So, in american it is something like "Baahsel"
>Some english folks pronounce it "Baahl", so do the french, who write it "Bâle".
>In italian, by the way, it is "Basilea".
I always find “long ‘a’” very unclear. Is it long like “ate” or long like “art”?
Don’t even get me started on the fourteen incorrect ways to say Omicron…
So do you pronounce the "Aah" like the "o" in "otter", or like the "a" in "apple"?
Isn't it fun trying to describe pronunciation with contrived spelling? :-)
I think I've ipa'd this right: http://ipa-reader.xyz/?text=%2F%C3%A6%CA%92%C9%9C%C9%9Cr%2F
(It sounds correct anyway)
I've noticed consistently that more British people are familiar with IPA, even passingly or badly, than Americans. I've never quite known why -- unless you do a language degree here you're never taught it formally, but it's usually in the dictionaries (e.g. the Oxford English dictionary) by every word, often with multiple forms for different geographic regions. I've never actually seen a real physical en-us dictionary -- does Marriam Webster (sic) do the same?
Amusingly, I don't ever remember a proper IPA pronuncation table in almost anything I used to learn English.
> does Marriam Webster (sic) do the same?
Looks like it 
(Honest question, I'm confused myself. An authoritative source would be awesome.)
Aah-zhur to the west, uh-Zhur to the east.
But then it wouldn't be an anagram for "Blaze" any more. (That's Google's internal build system that Bazel is derived from.)
Even though I say BAY-zuhl, my inner mind reads Bazelisk as BAZZ-uh-lisk. No doubt because I knew the reference to Roko's Basilisk, which I'd always pronounced BASS-ihl-isk. Again in my inner mind, because I don't think I've ever heard that word pronounced either.
So I might say "We run BAY-zuhl using BAZZ-uh-lisk." And my mind doesn't put a red flag on the inconsistency, it seems perfectly natural.
Just like I eat sea bass and listen to bass guitar!
This is indefensible.
A Star Wars fan will tell you there are, at most, four good Star Wars movies. A Star Trek fan will tell you there are 6-7 good Star Trek movies, depending on whether you count Galaxy Quest. This might leave us with some room for debate about whether the cultural impact of Star Wars episodes 4 and 5 outweigh Star Trek's larger amount of quality material.
Except that Star Trek is a TV show.
For the movie franchise to not even be the better movie franchise is just... there's... it's not even a question.
Even if both of them started in almost the same period, it seems to be that Star Trek was more active (in the sense of promoting it) early (11 movies launched before 2010, only 2 launched after) so it probably has a fan base older.
Also somehow Star Wars seems more modern, in the sense that watching Star Wars seems more 2020 than watching Star Trek even if both of them launches movies (2 Star Trek and 3 Star Wars) in the last 10 years or so (2010-2020).
I know a lot of young people who saw Star Wars, but not many that watched Star Trek.
I am not saying Star Trek is better, but I am saying that maybe a lot of the fan base is not active or does not care enough to vote or contribute to this debate :)
Also even if I am a big fan of Star Trek I also really enjoy Star Wars. Both of them brings me different things like for example: Star Trek is exploring more what humans can become while Star Wars explores more the effects of human flaws on politics, culture and societies.
I think both of them explore current events or are influenced by current geo-political events or cultural shifts.
I also think that Star Trek should try to be back to its visionary origin and not try to compete with Star Wars on apocalyptical events.
Trek has its moments, but it's just more boring. A lot of talky talky and slow and/or repetitive sequences. Even if it's more intellectually interesting as a whole, story-wise.
Even Star Wars was kind of slow by modern standards but the audiovisual design was just monumental.
• Gritty vs clean
• Thieves and scoundrels vs naval officers
• Genuine clothing vs color coded uniforms
• Misfits save the world from pervasive evil vs bold leaders discovering some weird new thing
• Magic vs Science
• Jumping into a gun turret and swinging it around at your enemy vs “Mr. Worf, target their ships!”
• Swordfights and maulings vs redshirts getting blown up.
I think each of them has its own milieu that it speaks to more, but the internet is for sure gonna pick Star Wars over Star Trek if they just are asked “X or Y?”. Star Wars still has a cool factor while Star Trek still has a dorky factor.
And a lot of that factor comes back to the fact that Trek is better known as syndicated TV. The constraint is that the episodes may be shown in random order, and so every episode or every two episodes, the state of the crew and the ships needs to be returned back to the baseline. The dorkiness comes in part from that aspect where the system gets returned back to where it was.
That's not all of it because Deadliest Catch also has the same aspect where every Deadliest Catch episode is basically the same thing, hah. Firefly kind of can be viewed as the attempt to take Star Wars’ grittiness and somehow make it syndicatable, “we finish the job and you see us a month later seeking out the next job.”
Star Wars is pop culture, knights-in-space, high-octane, good vs evil. Of course it wins a popularity contest. To be clear: I'm not dissing Star Wars. It was just made to appeal to the masses and sell action figurines. It targets broader audiences. Star Trek has always been niche.
Despite the better and more coherent world of star trek, the original show is preachy. Its too preachy. Almost every episode was to be an allegory to a real world issue at that time and its slow, and awkward. Die hards appreciate it more so for the “bold exploration” than what actually happened!
Later on the themes began self referencing and evolving into their own lore, while largely retaining a self-contained episodic format.
The movie are just fan service or the dream conflict.
But remember the human in the audience. They dont want to be preached to, they dont want the origin story of a particular character to be anything more than scifi, instead of the plot piece for now contrived bigotry.
Star Wars provides this desired entertainment. A heros tale, over and over again. The classic formula for the acceptance of the masses. Star Wars is not a satisfactory chronicle when completed, but the world building in all of its other shows and actual tv series is more engaging.
The original lore in star wars is fantasy and audiences want that.
The original lore in star trek is allegories to a real world social issue, and audiences dont always want that.
I'm a diehard fan of BOTH Star Wars and Star Trek. And I can say Star Trek has better influence, especially to the fandom who understand accurately what its messages are.
Star Trek 2 and 4 are really good though. Especially the whales in 4.
A category in which it loses handily to Babylon 5, the best sci-fi show, nay, the best show in general, ever to have been made.
Last I checked, there were several feature films with the title of Star Trek. Do I live in a fantasy world where this isn't true for you?
Maybe I think the best sci-fi series is one with only two movies and no notable TV presence, but they're two outstanding movies. I don't think there's anything wrong with an opinion like that.
I'd be surprised if my process is common though.
Is a slipper a shoe?
The only situation I’ll put socks on is when I’m going outside in closed shoes, and in that case I’ll bring a pair of socks to the front door because why bother removing the sandal, putting on the sock, putting the sandal back on, walking to the front door, removing the sandal, putting on the shoe? Instead I’ll usually go “foot at a time” so remove sandal, put on sock, put on shoe, repeat for next foot.
This one does actually have a definitive answer!
Evolutionary, there has to be an ancestor to the chicken that is not a chicken itself. It doesn't even matter where exactly you draw the line - it just has to exist.
At some point in time, a genetic mutation occurred during fertilization, resulting in the very first chicken ever. Which of course started out as an egg.
So there you have it - the very first chicken of all time started as an egg, laid by an animal that was not a chicken.
Thus the egg came first.
No it didn't.
It started out as a fertilized egg cell, or ovum, but that is different from an "egg," which is the vessel containing the zygote. See 
This egg vessel -- yolk, albumen and shell -- was created entirely by the mother (i.e. unlike the fertilized ovum, it is not a result of fertilization by two parents, and contains no mutations which could make it a new species).
So a chicken was once in an egg. The question is whether this egg, created entirely by the non-chicken mother, counts as a "chicken egg" or not.
If the egg IS a chicken, then the question "the chicken OR the egg" does not make much sense, does it? You can't chose "the egg" for an answer as that still would be the chicken (just inside a shell).
Given that the question is ancient, as well as the fact that the question has been used to further philosophical debate about first cause, infinite regression and cause & effect, it seems pretty unlikely that - within the context of the question - "chicken" is meant to refer to the entire animal species including the ovum.
It seems way more likely to me, that "chicken" is originally meant to refer to the adult animal, as in:
ovum -> egg -> chick -> chicken
Thus the argument that the chicken came first, because of the ovum (also known as "egg cell") - does not just misinterpret the premise that the question is built on - it kinda breaks the question, because basically it turns it into "What came first? The chicken or the chicken?"
Of course the evolutionary answer does defy the purpose of the question as well - finding an answer was never the purpose - but at least it sticks with the meanings of "chicken egg" and "adult chicken", that are kinda implied in the question.
The question treats the egg as NOT being a chicken. And thus by extension the ovum should not be treated as a chicken as well.
It's of the species chicken of course - but it's not an adult chicken - which is the meaning of "chicken" used in the question.
The "egg" per Wikipedia, is the vessel that contains the developing chick. In that regard, it's analogous to the uterus.
Indeed, assuming we take "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" to mean "...or the chicken egg" (otherwise it's just a silly question, as dinosaurs had eggs), then we can make the analogy to "which came first, the human or the human uterus?"
That should clearly be trivial to answer: the first organism that we could call a "human" must have started developing before her uterus did. So the human came before the human uterus.
I'm saying that this is equivalent for a chicken egg. Since the "egg" is created 100% by the mother, albumen, yolk, shell and all, I'm saying it "belongs" to the mother, in the same way that a uterus belongs to a mammal mother. It's all her own cells.
Therefore, the first "chicken egg" had to be the one laid by the first chicken. So it comes after the chicken.
In that case you need to start to argue about what makes an egg an egg, as the fertilization happens while the rest of the egg is forming(or so I just read). So depending on your egg definition, there might be a brief period where there is a chicken which will become an egg and then becomes a chicken again.
While the question seems to strongly imply that "chicken" is meant to refer to the hatched animal (which is also the most commonly accepted interpretation) - it does not spell that out. Thus it's not perfectly clear which interpretations may be used.
Now, if we do allow alternate interpretations of the premise, then the egg still came first. Because dinosaurs laid eggs - and that was a long time before the first chicken ovum ever got fertilized.
But if we disallow alternate interpretations and clarify that within the context of this question "chicken" has to refer to the hatched animal - then your answer is simply no longer valid.
Well, let's ignore all that. Let's define our premise such, that:
A) fertilized ovums ARE chickens
B) fertilized ovums are NOT eggs
and answer the question based on those assumptions.
The first problem with your argument is, that it's impossible to find a logical, internally consistent definition of "chicken", that does INCLUDE the fertilized ovum, while at the same time EXCLUDING the egg.
There's no way, the ovum is a chicken - stops being a chicken while an egg - and becomes a chicken again. Every definition that does include the fertilized ovum will also include the egg.
So, based on our assumptions A) and B), we can deduce:
C) eggs ARE chickens
But if eggs are chickens, then the question "the egg OR the chicken" no longer makes any sense - and no correct answer can exist.
Therefore, your provided answer cannot possibly be correct either.
Thus, within this set of assumptions A) and B) - the question becomes meaningless, and can't be answered either way.
P.S.: you are aware, that the "ovum" is more commonly called "egg cell"? ;)
But we can all have preferences, and in some small way be part of the process of pushing English in one direction or another. So here's my pitch for the hard g:
Ambiguous letters are very annoying. I'm teaching my kids to read and it's very frustrating. C is sometimes like sometimes like k (except when k is followed by n) and sometimes like s (except when s is followed by h), unless c is followed by h in which case...you get the idea. We have more sounds than letters, so some ambiguity is required by a sort of pigeonhole principle. It's weird, then, that we have multiple letters for the same sound. A misuse of resources.
But at least C the rules are relatively clean. G is the worst of them, because you really can't tell. Gimble but giant, etc.
So we ought to try to minimize the degree to which this happens because it makes English more approachable for everyone. If you coin a word starting with a "k" sound, start it with a k. And if you want something to start with "j" use a j. (If you want a hard g, you have to use a g, so that's settled already). Then, on the margins, English is slightly more consistent.
With words where there's no consensus, you probably can't change the spelling (and with gif you surely can't) but the same logic applies: pick in the direction of less ambiguity. Since we already have a "j" sound, we should, where possible, make "g" hard.
So say gif with a hard g for humanity.
OK, I'm pronouncing GIF as 'throatwobbler mangrove', then.
When I was young I never understood the French idea of 'the death of the author'. I found the idea of ignoring the author's intentions in writing a novel, and of ignoring their clarifications regarding the novel, quite absurd. In time, I have found myself more on the side of this idea.
An author can create something, but this does not give them dictates over how it is interpreted by the rest of us. Creation need not imply authority over understanding, nor later insights inspired from a work.
I'm not sure the pronunciation of an acronym for an image format quite fits into the concept of literary criticism, but I can't say that I'll ever be too bothered that the original author has had the misfortune of pronouncing their own format incorrectly.
The problem is people aren't going to look up the "correct" pronunciation. They're just going to say it how ever it seems like it would be said by reading it in their native language. Once enough people do it it's too late to fix.
An interesting related thing is how people pronounce initials. For example NOP ("No" "Awp" or "Nawp" or "Nope" I had a colleague that pronounced RTS as "ritz". What I find interesting with "ritz" is why the "i". Why not "rats" or "ruts" or "rets" or "rots".
In my domain, graphics, there's GLSL which some people say "Glisle" and "WGSL" which some call "Wigsle". But why not "Glasle" or "Glashal" and "Wagsle"/"Washal". Why did they choose "i". "a" makes more sense given that the letters stand for and if you're going to abandon what the letters stand for, still, why "i" and not some other vowel?
This has an explanation! If a short vowel is inserted as a transition between two consonants, there is a strong tendency for the inserted sound to be a more ‘neutral’ vowel, such as the schwa /ə/. But in many English dialects, there has been a merger  between the schwa /ə/ and the short ‘i’ sound /ɪ/ — the two sounds are no longer distinguishable by native speakers of those dialects. Thus, what might be pronounced as [ɹəts] sounds very much like ‘ritz’, and ‘GLSL’ becomes [ɡləzl̩], sounding like ‘Glisle’.
Imagine if someone said “well actually the inventor of the paper clip pronounces it with a soft ‘c’ so it sounds like ‘paper slip’”
This seems so clearly absurd that I don’t even really know how to argue against it.
Graphics Interchange Format
Try to say Graphics with a soft G.
That's not exactly difficult to do, though it would be spelled "draphics".
It's difficult to see what this is supposed to be relevant to; acronyms are never given pronunciations taken from their hidden constituent words. Try to say "stimulated" with a /z/ (as in "LASER").
Yup, and there are plenty of others too:
SCUBA - U as in uh-nderwater
SIM / VIN - I as in I-dentification
YOLO - second O as in wuh-nce
CAPTCHA - first A as in aw-tomated
AWOL - soft a-bsent
ICE - ih-mmigration and Customs Enforcement
NATO - soft A-tlantic
OCONUS - ow-tside
OSHA - ah-ccupational
SCOTUS / POTUS - uh-f
AIDS - a-cquired
It's really a long list if you look. I vote for GIF with a J sound.
Here's a soft G word making a hard G acronym, and a hard G word making a soft G acronyn:
GAD - Generalized Anxiety Disorder
GEMA - Gas and Electric Markets Authority
PAL - Phase Alternating Line
PAWS - Phased Array Warning System
SWF - ShockWave Flash
Here's a wonderful video on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmqy-Sp0txY
Is this true? Basically a lot of people in europe will jump to soft g. Will latin america pronounce "gi" as the aspirated H?. Don't know anything about the countries in africa, I hear nigeria is pretty big and there's a lot of tech coming out of there. India (big elephant, pun intended) I suppose is hard g, but what about china -- I have no clue? Japan (120M, almost half the population of US, mind you) is exclusively soft g -- likely because hard g collides with the name of a prefecture (province). Korea I think is hard g (50 m, almost all very tech-savvy). Indonesia?
I don't say this out of disrespect; language is a sort of chaotic dynamic group-level system, and what happens initially is only one small input.
Edit: I think a lot of people thought I was serious. Just joking around.
so "ghoti" can be pronounced the same as "fish"
We never discus image formats tho. I’ll have to ask them about GIF next time.
Don't get me started on Stuyvesant! ;-)
/s in case it's not obvious
You wouldn't think "the breathing apparatus of a fish" before "the unit of measure"? When was the last time you saw something measured in gills?
A whole 51% the internet currently appears to agree. Phew.
Those mutations happen at/inside the egg. At some point… little by little, two animals have an offspring that isn’t exactly like them.
The chicken egg came before the chicken that laid it. Some other animal laid it. And likewise the egg existed before the chicken inside it developed.
In no scenario that I can steelman does the chicken ever come first.
And that's the best I can do. But it's silly, because that interpretation of the question has an extremely obvious answer, which implies that this is _not_ the intended meaning of the question -- if the structure of the question contains the required answer, then you wouldn't bother asking that question at all.
So we're right back at of course the bloody egg came first.
Anyone else want to take a shot?
Another way to put it is that a chicken was once an egg, so even if "the chicken came first," that chicken was once an egg.
A chicken was once a fertilized egg cell, but an "egg" is the vessel that contains the zygote , and was created entirely by the mother (i.e. it is not a result of fertilization). So a chicken was once in an egg.
Consider the context before trying to correct people. You’re just being pedantic for no reason.
Many people in this thread are using the word "egg" in the same way as a female mammal releases an "egg" in estrus, i.e. the cell which will become an organism once fertilized. Hence the discussion elsewhere of how the mutation has already happened in this cell.
For instance, besides this thread, another person said "resulting in the very first chicken ever. Which of course started out as an egg.
I'm saying that a bird "egg", from the Wikipedia link, is not the gamete cell but rather simply the container, created by the mother.
So statements such as "[the chicken] started out as an egg" or "a chicken was once an egg" (your statement) are simply incorrect, just as saying "a human baby was once a uterus" is wrong.
It's not pedantic "for no reason" (at least any more than the rest of this by-definition pedantic discussion is).
> If you define a chicken egg as an egg that was laid by a chicken
Species are assumed to produce eggs of the same species. Like many convenient turns of phrase, this isn't strictly true. What the egg contains (unless the egg casing is a relevant attribute) is how it is characterized.
A mutation exists in the developing embryo, so a non-chicken had a chicken-containing egg. This is a chicken egg, which necessarily came first. Looking at any given xenopregnancy (a hybrid Liger, or panda fetus in a cat, et al). The carrying species does not make the result of that species. eg If there was a non-chicken species (say, a turkey) which produced eggs that were genetically and practically identical to chicken-containing eggs, they would be called chicken eggs.
Viewed this way, what actually caused chickens to happen was the migration, not the genetics. It was the part where the two red junglefowl groups came out of genetic contact and started to diverge. On the assumption that these red junglefowl were adults (which is obvious if it was a migration, but merely likely if it was forced by humans), this means that a population of non-chickens was divided into two subpopulations, one of which was chickens, one of which wasn't.
So even agreeing that we should categorize the egg by the creature it produced immediately after hatching, you still get by this argument that a nonchicken egg hatched into a nonchicken which by circumstance became a chicken... Chickens came first, and then their chicken eggs.
You could still debate if a non-chicken egg with chicken DNA is a chicken egg. Its shell and yolk, all contents, were produced by a non-chicken - imagine the eggshell was blue, not white, and the final allele change to become “chicken” switched the “egg color laid once grown” to white.
If all this eggs contents were produced by a genetically non-chicken - the egg is blue - is it really a “chicken egg”?
Imagine you took a chicken egg, and modified the DNA so that an elephant would hatch. Is this a “chicken egg (with elephant DNA)” or an “elephant egg (with shell, white, and yolk produced by a chicken)”?
Viewed your way, a chicken actually gave birth to a nonchicken who gave birth to a nonchicken who gave birth to a chicken who gave birth to a nonchicken who gave birth to a chicken that was finally the mother of an unbroken line of hens that survives to this day, some of whom had nonchicken fathers.
The problem is that the variation of the breeding population is much larger than the distance from the originals to the final result.
Obviously "the egg that the chicken hatched from" came first, no one's debating that. But that's all you've said.
If the question is "which came first, the chicken or the chicken egg", then it depends on whether the chicken egg is one that houses the chicken, or the one that is laid by a chicken.
Would you really argue that those eggs hatching into mules are not mule eggs?
I could see an argument that those eggs, coming out of canaries, could count as canary eggs, but not in a way that stops them from being mule eggs. "mule eggs" definitely needs to include the eggs that hatch into mules.
To expand to dinosaurs, chickens, and Bronteroc's.
Assuming there's just chickens, and we're talking just about chicken eggs, then the chicken came first. Chickens need a mother to hatch the egg, to create the egg in it's womb, etc. An egg cannot exist without a mother to birth it.
I'm assuming that evolution would happen slowly over time, the creature that ended up becoming the chicken would have had to already been laying eggs. The egg laying feature would need to already be present for it to be our modern day preciously defined chicken.
The egg had to have come first
I don't think the question is about a fantasy world that only has chickens, and the chickens came from ????.
Just treat it as "chicken" vs. "chicken egg".
- GIF /dʒɪf/: Graphics Interchange Format
- gif /ɡɪf/: short looping silent video
The fact that GIF videos are considered an image is really just a quirk of evolution of the image format to support videos and browsers supporting these videos in an <img> tag (and nowhere else).
I get that people want to be lazy but pronouncing acronyms/contractions has always been fraught with disagreement. Same goes for things like SQL (which somehow gets pronounced as "sequel") while people leave PDF alone.
Sounds like you meant it was originally "Structured English QUEry Language"?
Not the most inspiring way to form an acronym.
Uh, literally anyone who works with graphics?
I went to that restuarant a few days later and it was horrible food, but similar to the other cuisine experiences possible in that town, region.
So, now I understand. Maybe their pineapple on pizza experience has been bad because of the way it was prepared.
Pineapple with cashews & onions on a pizza is da bomb
Language is constantly evolving.
I assume they just don’t notice the difference, like with marry/merry/Mary.
Wikipedia agrees that this is common: "In North America it is often pronounced with a short vowel sound /krɛɡ/, as in "egg"" 
Not the same thing at all. This is more like someone following different pronunciation rules insisting that your name as spelled is pronounce "Kee-lay"; and if you actually want "Kaa-il", you should spell it K-A-I-L instead. It kind of makes sense that way too, as long as the rules are somewhat consistent in their version.
If the creator wanted to name it after Jif, the extension and name should have both been JIF. Putting in a G instead of a J is begging to create confusion about the pronunciation.
Are you from Wales?
You're implying that there should be a logical correspondence between how English words sound and how they're spelled. I'm not convinced that is true.
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=gist%2Cjist&ye... makes me wonder just what happened around 1840. I suspect https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Why_the_Little_Frenchman_Wear... (uses jist regularly as a misspelling of just) may have something to do with it.
Both patterns exist in the language.
These are both words pronounced really differently, though. Give is a hard 'g' short 'i', jive is a 'j' and a long 'i'.
I'd like to add 'Gaol' or 'Jail'? Debra vs Zebra (These are pronounced differently in the US).
Yes that is my point.
So many people come up with so many fake rules for why it should have a hard G, but there are only two real rules for names, and, yes, GIF is a name (of a format). 1) If the named thing can't speak for itself, the people who named it dictate how the name is pronounced. 2) If it can speak for itself, it dictates. Nobody who isn't the named thing or its namer(s) gets to say how its name is pronounced regardless of what they think of the spelling.
Consider the changes of people's names as they migrated around the world. In NZ, we pronounce Craig as "Crayg", in the US they pronounce it "Creg", which I struggle to make sense of, but that doesn't make it wrong. There are better examples than Craig but that was the first one that came to mind.
I agree with everything you said except that bit, it’s megawrong
I feel like it doesn't make sense, because then Greg should be spelled Graig, but that's the whole point, language evolves in an inconsistent way, and the only defining point of correct pronunciation is really "how do the majority of people say it", and that is often only a regional thing too.
Either way, the assertion that because something is a name it cannot evolve in pronunciation is easily disproved.
That's obvious anyway; gift is one word (well, also give) swamped in a sea of other gi- words.
And gift is a very strange one. What is it, a loan from Norse? You'd think, if it were a native word, that it would have turned into something more like "yift", the way we see in e.g. day, I, or yard.
 This one's not Norse.
...you are aware that "gibbon" isn't pronounced with /dʒ/?