It's visible now, so your vouching worked. It seems obvious to me GP is writing about COVID-19. The US CDC lists estimated US deaths from COVID at currently 1,153,910.
But we've had plenty of other examples in living memory, with influenza currently averaging about a million deaths in the US every 30 years.
Stanford represents the intersection of the personal arrogance of Silicon Valley and the class arrogance of wealth and power.
I'm not sure it's actually more evil than any other upper-class institution, but that evil manifests itself uniquely through extremely punchable human beings rather than through massive faceless investment firms. In the grand scheme of things, SBF almost certainly does less harm than a lot of defense contractors do, but SBF did it in a way that makes him, personally, the asshole (rather than just a blob of people following economic incentives).
The idea here is not what words a language has names for, but what words a language considers "primary".
"Azure" is an English color-word, but an English speaker recognizes "azure" as a kind of "blue". But "blue" is not a kind of "green" or a kind of "purple" or a kind of anything else. Hence, "blue" is a basic English color-word.
Typical English dialects have eleven basic color words: white, gray, black, brown, pink, red, orange, yellow, green, blue, and purple. Other color-words in English are considered variants of one of these eleven terms. That wasn't always true ("pink" is the most recent addition, dating to the early 1700s), but it's pretty well-established by modern English speakers. Other languages may make fewer distinctions (e.g. until about the last century Japanese used ao(i) as a basic color word that encompassed both blue and green, so e.g. a traffic light is aoi by tradition even though the modern word for green is midori) or more (e.g. Russian distinguishes light blue goluboi and dark blue sinii similarly to how English distinguishes red and pink). To an old Japanese speaker, blue and green were both shades of ao, and to a modern Russian speaker, goluboi is as distinct from sinii as "red" is from "pink" in English (they are not both "shades of blue" any more than pink and red are "shades of reddish" in English).
Sometimes people use "pink" or "purple" to describe magenta, but (to me) magenta isn't either of those colors. Purple is the color that in technical contexts is known as violet, and pink is absolutely a type of red to me, specifically a desaturated red.
I'm guessing it was more the other way around, based on known etymologies.
The origin is Latin "lapis lazuli", where "lapis" is "stone" (thus not the word of interest here) and "lazuli" is "sky", ultimately from Persian (perhaps "blue stone"). The "laz" part is probably related to Irish "glas" though.
The r/l blur is very common so doesn't help narrow anything down; the Arabic/Persian had "w" anyway.
We can blame French speakers for interpreting it as "l'azuli" with reasonable confidence; I'm vaguely aware that some regional dialects(*) of Spanish do similar but can't find evidence of them preceding French at a glance. Also, France was more dominant than Spain for the relevant periods of history - although Spain did have the direct Arabic connection I guess. It's not like I have good sources here.
* unless they have separate navies, they can't be languages.
Roughly, (t)see-ma-nay or chi-ma-nay. The first sound is an affricate consonant, similar to the sounds spelled ch or j in English (e.g. the final sound of "catch" in General American). The last sound should properly be spelled é, not just e, and is similar to the sound spelled with that letter in French or the sound spelled "ay" in English words like "pray" (also in General American).
It's Tsimane' because the name of the language ends in a glottal stop. Sometimes this is mistranscribed into Tsimané in Spanish but that is incorrect; the stress is on the second to last syllable.
> The last sound should properly be spelled é, not just e
Assuming this is a Japanese word as the other response uses (the article doesn't really make it clear), there's at least two different transliteration styles for that sound, one of which is "é", the other of which is "e". I'd argue over the past decade or two the second one has become more common due to simplicity, direct transliteration of individual hiragana, and IME inputs. Names still seem to use the older style though.
Though here the author did seem to be going for "é", but didn't have a way to type it so they approximated it by adding a ' afterwards.
In katakana it's a combination of "tsu" and a small "i" (ツィ), it exists for loanwords. Part of why I'm unsure this is actually a Japanese word despite the other comments - even if it is actually used in Japanese it's probably an approximation of another language.
the other key to pronouncing japanese as an American, starter pack, is to NOT put stress on syllables the way we do. Japanese green horseradish (like with sushi) is not waSAAbi the way we want to pronounce it, it's something like three equal syllables pronounced distinctly wa. sa. bi. then put them together and pronounce them fast wa.sa.bi.
UK English has the same stress patterns as American English (Shakespeare, iambic pentameter) but I just haven't given any thought to whether my advice would be any different
I said "starter pack" because imho the first step is to stop pronouncing things American. Japanese does have some stress patterns, but you're not going to learn them easily. So just learn to flatten out the American stress and you are 80/20 there.
Because you are so used to American stress, to your ear it will sound like you are saying WAAsabi, which is closer to your goal, but don't do that on purpose, and not long syllables, not waaaa saaaa biiii, clip them short and just flatten them out, wasabi and you'll be fine.
Pure sugar may have peaked, but total calorie intake is still much higher than it was in 1970. Pew[1] has it 23% higher, which corresponds reasonably well to the rate at which weights have been increasing[2] over the past few decades (i.e., at about 3-4%/decade). The data is reasonably consistent with weight increasing ~linearly with calorie intake.
Most calculus students don't need the full formal power of rigorous analysis. Calculus, taken alone and with the elementary properties of the real numbers assumed and a few elementary properties of infinitesimals (0 <<< infinitesimal^2 <<< infinitesimal <<< any positive real), can get you a lot of power for very little formal work.
Absolutely true. However this comes at the cost of having to not think too hard about issues like "what is a function".
You generally don't run into trouble with 1, x, 1/x, sin(x) and the like. But when you push past the analytic functions, you wind up having to unlearn a lot of ideas so that you can learn an entirely different foundation.
Lest you disregard this as completely useless superstructure, note that basically the entirety of the theory of stochastic processes, starting with Brownian motion, is positively infested with continuous everywhere nondifferentiable functions; while the existence of a nonconstant infinitely smooth function with an identically zero Taylor series is what permits the Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless phase transition to exist. So while the weird animals of elementary real analysis are perhaps not the most important thing in the world, they are far from irrelevant to it.
Not sure why this was flagged dead. It's a fact that some birds are sensitive to magnetic fields [1]:
> They do this with the help of the magnetically sensitive proteins in their eyes and the magneto-receptive cells in the vestibular nucleus in their brain.
The compass allows me to track in which direction I'm roughly blown. Not on the scale of seconds, but hours. As soon as I escape the typhoon, I can start going back.
He really does do movies like that, doesn't he? Stuck in the airport in the terminal, stuck on a remote island in castaway, even chasing decaprio in catch me if you can...
Horseshoe orbits come from the most counterintuitive behavior of orbits: if you thrust forward, you go slower. And if you thrust backward, you go faster. (The reason is that thrusting forward puts you in a higher orbit.)
In a horseshoe orbit, when the small body approaches the medium body "from behind" (that is, the small body is moving faster than the medium body), the medium body tugs the small body forward. That is an effective forward thrust for the small body, which rises into a higher orbit and slows down as a result. That means the small body starts to fall behind, losing ground relative to the medium body.
After it loses enough ground, it approaches the medium body from the front (or, if you prefer, the medium body catches up to it from behind). Then the medium body's gravity tugs it backward, dropping it into a lower and faster orbit, and the cycle repeats.
The most exceptional example of this is two of Saturn's moons, Janus and Epimetheus, which share an orbit and periodically trade places in it as a result of these dynamics.
Oh well. Maybe when that happens.