Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | retrac's comments login

Just to be clear, this is not a vaccine. It is an antiviral drug delivered by a long-lasting subdermal delivery implant. It has been known that antiviral drugs effectively prevent HIV infection for some time now (about 20 years). Recent work has been on better-tolerated and longer-lasting formulations.

Treatment of HIV+ people also reduces their infectiousness, and good treatment reduces the risk of passing the infection on nearly to zero. Providing sufficient HIV antivirals and medical care to everyone in the population, both HIV+ and at risk for HIV, in theory, could be enough to halt the pandemic. Some wealthy countries with sensible policies have seen remarkable gains. The UK is reasonably effective at getting drugs to both the HIV+ and to at-risk populations, and the number of new HIV infections there, has been reduced by approximately half in the last decade.

> It is an antiviral drug delivered by a long-lasting subdermal delivery implant.

I don't see anything to indicate it's an implant - the prescribing information [1] says it's a subQ injection, and the trial information [2] seems consistent with that.

[1]: https://www.gilead.com/-/media/files/pdfs/medicines/hiv/sunl...

[2]: https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04994509

You're right. I blithely assumed any drug with such a long half-life must have some sort of delayed dose mechanism. But it seems it's just extraordinarily stable and is very, very slowly absorbed. Remarkable.

It’s not a vaccine, but it’s close to one at twice a year.

Even if we can consider HIV “cured” in the developed world (where PrEP is available to anyone who wants it) there’s no way we eradicate HIV from impoverished countries with limited healthcare access until we either have 1) a vaccine, or 2) a shot (or something) that prevents HIV for a really freaking long time.

Not sure if 6 months will quite cut it, but it’s great to see progress in the right direction. More advancement is needed.

I assume you’re referring to things like the flu vaccine. Many vaccines can last 10, 20 years or more which this doesn’t come close to.

That’s not to say it’s not a great improvement, I happily await the day we can nearly eliminate some of these infectious diseases that plague humanity.

Some pesticides are short-lasting agents, which are acutely toxic, to the target pest, and also humans. But they dissipate or break down fairly quickly. Even just pure nitrogen or carbon dioxide gas can be used for pest control, and a minute of venting makes it safe after. Come to think, fully automated warehouses handling food, could be kept under an oxygen-free atmosphere. Probably impractical but it'd substantially reduce spoilage and it'd stop any rats or cockroaches pretty quick.

(Of course, the history of pesticides is full of pesticides that don't actually dissipate, or break down, as much as claimed.)

Latency and bandwidth are often in tension. (And guaranteeing low latency can eat up a big chunk of theoretically available bandwidth, due to overhead.)

The canonical example is probably a dial-up modem or other slow link between two locations. The latency is under 1 second to send one byte over the modem. But it's probably faster to just ship a hard disk if you want to send 100 gigabytes from one location to the other, even though the latency might be hours or even days, until the first byte arrives.

In practice, you can send lots of tiny little packets with lots of overhead (but low latency) or you can send lots of big heavily buffered packets with low overhead (but with high latency).

This is why multiplayer game protocols often consist of a constant stream of tiny UDP packets containing events like "character moved 40 nits east at game time ..." or "character fired weapon at game time ...." Even a 10 kilobyte bulk state update is going to cost at least a few milliseconds, more probably tens or even hundreds of milliseconds over some wireless connection. And that's a very noticeable lag.

Another good example is the memory in your computer. DDR is much lower latency, and GDDR is much higher bandwidth.

The reason for L is probably because of the rhythm of the usual way the song goes. l, m, n... are rushed together because "elemenopee" is easy and fun to say quickly.

  ... a 
  b c d
  e f g
  h / i
  j / k
  l m n o p
  q / r / s 
  t / u / v
  w / x
  y and z
I don't even need the song for the first couple lines these days!

Probably also for memorization. If the song were linear, letters would all cuddle together in the little children’s mind.

It’s quite funny that, as a French native, we are all taught exactly the same song! Same pace, same tone, same elemenopy, but later in life, somehow y’all just smash tough/thorough/through/trough letters together, and we go on with our hon/hen/heim.

> same elemenopy

Why? The song actually works with French names of letters!

  a b c d e f g /
  h i j k l m n /
  o p q r s t u /
  v www x y-y z
with doublé-vey sung with a swing rhythm (♪. 𝅘𝅥𝅯 ♩)

I've been able to start at A, E, L, or T, and your explanation makes sense.

I usually know a letter is near one of those four, but not if it is before or after, so if I am looking for P for example, I'll start with T for a bit, realize I've gone too far, and start over at L in hopes of finding it.

So did "twinkle twinkle little star", or the alphabet song come first

Because the Bantu languages (most prominently: Swahili) and Japanese have similar sound systems. Finnish is also oddly similar-sounding, or Hawaiian. None of them are actually related.

It's because the syllable is restricted in the number of possible forms, in a similar way. (And they all have approximately five vowels. And a pitch accent.) In Hawaiian, nothing but consonant + vowel syllables are possible. Swahili and Japanese allow an optional final n sound. Finnish is a little more flexible, and syllables can end with an n, r, l or t. No consonant clusters, in any of the languages. No syllables ending with consonants outside the restricted set (if any), in any of the languages.

This results in a lot of syllables of the form: i, a, ne, na, ka, ta, po, to... "Pokatokaino". I just made that up and it's probably not a Swahili, Finnish, Hawaiian, or Japanese word -- but it could be.

This basic pattern (consonant + vowel + maybe limited option for final consonant) is very common; it's the most common arrangement among the worlds languages. Far more common than languages like English which allow monstrosities like "strengths" (which is 6 consonants and one vowel).

Nit: pokatokaino is unlikely to be Japanese, since word-initial p has morphed into h during the centuries. But it works if you turn it into, say, t.

Anyway, I think there's another factor: the common alphabet we transliterate these languages to is quite limited. I suspect the similarities become less obvious if you use something like the IPA, which has better universal correspondence between sounds and letters (i.e. doesn't reduce every sound to the same ~26 symbols).

Japanese does allow for word initial P in loan words, like Pokémon, so the sound isn’t impossible in Japanese. And pachinko is a Japanese word.

There are also many native Japanese onomatopoeiae using an initial p sound. Interestingly enough, if we're at Pokémon, Pikachu's name is influenced by the onomatopoeia /pikapika/ which means to shine, sparkle or flash. But if we look at the original pronounciation of the Japanese verb 光る/hikaru ("to shine"), it would have been pronounced /pikaru/ in Old Japanese, so it looks like the onomatopoeia has re-established itself.

The same is probably true for the Japanese word for flag, 旗/hata - it would have been pronounced /pata/ which is suspiciously reminiscent of the onomatopoeia /patapata/, often used for thin pieces of material flapping in the wind.

The Pikachu name is also partly derived from the pika, a small rabbit-like mammal native to Asia and North America.

The pika is an obscure (yet barely interesting...) rabbit thing with no cultural salience, whose most noted features are its alarm call and lack of visible tail, nor are its names pronounced much like the pika in Pikachu in the languages Japanese has much exchange with. Pikachu is explicitly a rodent (a "mouse" with some squirrel inspirations) designed in the early 90s with none of those features.

This claim seems profoundly unlikely.

To be fair, Pokémon is abbreviated English, while pachinko is recent from pachin, the onomatopoeia of the loud sound made by the metal balls.

I believe the change into “h” sounds is more applied to words that were traditionally initiated in “p” but morphed over time, in turn also making words starting on “p” an oddity.

This is an interesting phenomenon in language change. There is the question of what sounds are legal in the language (or what sound combinations, and in what contexts), and there's the separate question of which of those possibilities actually exist. For example, syllable-initial "th" is never followed by L in English, but the sound sequence generally doesn't pose difficulties to English speakers, who are already familiar with words like e.g. "three", "shrink", and "sleep".

For a sound to occur in a language, there are two requirements:

The obvious one is that it has to be possible.

But the less-obvious one is that its precursor in the ancestral language must have been possible there. This is what causes strange gaps where it looks like a sound should be possible, and yet it never occurs.

Fair; though I didn't say it's impossible, just unlikely :)

Japanese words starting with "p" still exist, but they tend to be loanwords (pokemon = pocket + monster) or onomatopoeia (pachinko = pachin + ko). Thinking of it now, pokapoka is also a word, but again, an onomatopoeia.

I thought of Pocky, but turns out this is an onomatopoeia too

> It was named after the Japanese onomatopoeic word pokkiri (ポッキリ), which is supposed to resemble the sound of the snack being cracked.


What about パクリ? and ぽっかり?

Those belong to the "onomatopoeic" stratum; you can form e.g. ぱくり・ぱっくり・ぱくぱく・ぱくっと.


those are imported words.

There are other subtle rules that language may follow in word formation.

For example, in Japanese, a word like tokatokaino may mutate into tokadokaino due to a phonological effect called Rendaku (it depends on details like if "tokadokaino" is a compound word made of "toka"+"toka"+"ino")

Is this the reason that we call Toyoda's company by the name Toyota?

So Toyota has a company folklore explanation to do with the number of strokes when written in hiragana being a lucky number, but Japanese linguists were skeptical when the BBC did a piece on it and think it was just a preference for the unvoiced version when the town in which it was founded changed its name to match the company: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8534294.stm

That's a good point. Latin letters map to a big number of IPA sounds. I think this is specially true with consonants. Vowels, however, might be the same. For example, Spanish has five vowels (a, e, i, o, u in IPA). Japanese also has five IPA vowels and only the "u" is different in IPA

As a speaker of Scandinavian languages, literally none of the vowels in English map correctly to how we pronounce the same vowels. Several of the English vowels are diphthongs, which we spell out with double vowels. Like eng. "i" is our "ai", eng. "a" is our "ei" - "a bridge" is translated to "ei bro", where the articles are pronounced exactly the same. Or the Scottish word for home, "hame", is pronounced exactly like we say the same word, "heim".

When learning German it was a revelation that languages could pronounce the same letters in the same way in every word, and therefore you could accurately predict the pronunciation of a word from the spelling.

English does not do this; every word has its own pronunciation, only loosely related to how it is spelled. I think every native English speaker has had the experience of learning a word from reading it, and subsequently mis-pronouncing it because we had to guess at the pronunciation. E.g. I suffered acute embarrassment from mis-pronouncing "Hermione" when talking to a friend about the Potter books. I grew up in the UK but had never met the name before and my guess at pronunciation was entirely reasonable but entirely wrong.

Though I lived for a while in Ireland, and they have it worse. My friend Mebd laughed at me a lot.

Yes, this is also part of the reason why spelling bees are a uniquely American thing - in most other languages it is trivial to predict pronounciation from spelling, so a competition makes no sense.

It's not possible to predict pronunciation from spelling in Russian and there are no spelling bees in russia

Scotland and Ireland were known to recieve social visits from scandinavians. So there could be a reason behind that.

To add to the confusion, in English people might pronounce the article "a" as "ei" (like when reciting "ABC") or "uh" (like the start of "under"). I think most Americans do the latter. I do, at least.

English vowels are weird compared to most continental European languages, to be fair.

I'm a native Greek speaker and to my ears all European languages' vowels are weird with the exception of Spanish, which is completely normal. All those airy sounds: caaat dooog, haaaaouse, taaaaime, etc like a little fish trying to eat a much bigger fish. Let me not start with French, or Italian. Conversely, when I hear myself or another Greek speaker speak English it's like there's a little guillotine in the back of the neck that snaps shut just when a vowel is starting to form: c't, d'g, ta'm, etc.

I don't know IPA, but Japanese e and Spanish e are also different. Spanish e is like English A in "ace", Japanese e is closer to English "eh".

That's the difference between [e] and [ɛ] in IPA (in IPA, with "narrow" phonetic transcription, you enclose the sounds in brackets). In American English, "ace" is [eɪs] and "mess" is [mɛs]. But I don't think that's right; I'm pretty sure both the Japanese e and Spanish e sound exactly the same.

And if you pronounced [e] and [ɛ] to native speakers of either Spanish or Japanese, they most likely wouldn't be able to differentiate the two sounds consistently without having had training. I know that in Spanish, realization of e can be either vowel depending on the speaker and context; they might pronounce "tierra" as [tjɛra] and "mesa" as [mesa].

> And if you pronounced [e] and [ɛ] to native speakers of either Spanish or Japanese, they most likely wouldn't be able to differentiate the two sounds consistently without having had training.

I am a Spanish guy living in Japan, so I can confirm it. I didn't have any idea that the two sounds are supposed to be different because to me they sound exactly the same.

Fun fact: Japanese people are surprised that we have the same five vowels (although the U is a bit different), and that we can get the correct pronunciation very easily.

>they most likely wouldn't be able to differentiate the two sounds consistently without having had training

I learn English since I was pretty young, I believe I'm quite fluent (I mostly use English for work, I lived for two years in an English speaking country, I read books in English, etc), and I still have problems distinguishing some English vowels. I think sound acquisition is one of the hardest things to learn for a non-native speaker.

Japanese e would only ever be [ɛ]. The constructs to produce an [e] sound would be transliterated as "ei" (the quoted are just letters, not meant to be IPA).

So, while I disagree that they sound "exactly the same", I do agree that in most cases the differences between [e] and [ɛ] wouldn't be enough to cause confusion between speakers of either language.

>Japanese e would only ever be [ɛ]

What's your source for this? Wikipedia says "/e, o/ are mid [e̞, o̞]" [1]

>The mid front unrounded vowel is a type of vowel sound that is used in some spoken languages. There is no dedicated symbol in the International Phonetic Alphabet that represents the exact mid front unrounded vowel between close-mid [e] and open-mid [ɛ], but it is normally written ⟨e⟩.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_phonology?wprov=sfla1

Japanese vowels not only don't seem to be consistent across diferent mora, they actually seem to be some sort of combination of vowel + pitch.

Something amusing about Japanese vs Xhosa (a Bantu language) is that their words for yes and no are reversed:

Japanese Hai = yes, Xhosa - Hai is a no

Japanese eeye = no, Xhosa - ewe is yes

The "n" sound denoting negative seems deeply ingrained in English (and also in this native English speaker). So Finnish "niin" for affirmative took a very long time to get used to, and to actually begin using. It just felt wrong.

It goes even deeper than just English. No descends from the Indo-European negation phoneme *ne. You see similar 'n' sound negative words in pretty much every IE language group.


Amusing as long as you don't agree to something stupid I guess ..

Are they pronounced very similar?

I have seen something similar with Korean and Dutch

Korean: Ne = yes

Dutch: Nee = no

Speaking of similar sound system of Finnish and Japenese, I think we should highlight the discredited language family claim of Uralic-Altaic, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ural-Altaic_languages You can still find tons of other theories of "what else could be related to Uralic"... So far, no African languages were included in these theories. But that's probably just a question of time and politics (and definitely not linguistic research...)

>the discredited language family claim of Uralic-Altaic

I'd substitute "doubtful" for "discredited".

The article you link says nothing more damning than "It is now generally agreed [wrt Ural-Altaic] that even the Altaic languages [themselves] do not share a common descent: the similarities between Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic are better explained by diffusion and borrowing", but that wiki comment is a paraphrasal of a source that says "a pattern [that] is easily explainable by borrowing and diffusion rather than common descent", i.e. not "better", just weakening that alternate claim.

Also, the Altaic article says that there is still a small group of scholars who adhere to an "Altaic" grouping.

And I would add, the lack of existence of an "Altaic" common ancestor to Mongolic, Turkic, Tungusic, and Koreanic says nothing about potential connections between Uralic and any of those 4 independent languages.

I'm not expert enough to advocate any position, but I'm interested and it's irritating when I pursue researching my interest to discover people slightly misquoting others or ignoring additional possiblities to make their own pov stronger.

I’d say the situation is worse than “doubtful”—-There was never any really good evidence for Ural-Altaic.

Altaic is a little more complicated, but whatever it is, it doesn’t seem to be a linguistic family tree in the same way that Indo-European is.

> This basic pattern (consonant + vowel + maybe limited option for final consonant) is very common; it's the most common arrangement among the worlds languages. Far more common than languages like English which allow monstrosities like "strengths" (which is 6 consonants and one vowel).

It's a fun spectrum!

Italian is often given as an example of this, but Italian does allow more complex consonant clusters at the beginning of a syllable than Hawaiian or Japanese (e.g. gra-do, glo-bo, pneu-ma-ti-co). You see echoes of the Italian proclivity towards final vowels in English-language stereotypes of Italian accents, where a schwa (an 'uh' sound) is added after word final consonants ("I want-uh" etc.).

Czech, on the other end of the spectrum, happily allows for things like zmrz-li-na and - famously - strč prst skrz krk (yes, that spelling is phonetic - the rs are syllabic). Interestingly though, Czech evolved out of late Proto-Slavic, and PS had a rule that no syllable end with a consonant (the law of open syllables). This made late Proto-Slavic look more like modern Italian. So, e.g. prst in Czech was prĭ-stŭ in Old Church Slavonic, and krk was krŭ-kŭ.

> Pokatokaino

According to Google Translate, that would be "shortcuts" in Maori. (Reverse, "Pokatata".) Nice!

I believe Hawaiian and Maori are somewhat related (Eastern Polynesian family)?

Maori is also another language that has the same vowel sounds as Japanese.

Google is being generous in interpreting a nonsense word there though, Pokatata (as you saw when reversing the translation) is the correct spelling.

If you know Japanese go to Google maps and scroll around New Zealand and see how many Maori place names actually make sense in Japanese.

There's quite a few fun ones that do. Paraparaumu, matamata, tearai etc. Plenty more.

> Google is being generous in interpreting a nonsense word

My prudential 'would' (not to mention the safety reverse check) saved me again... ;)

Your general gist is correct: languages with CV (consonant-vowel) phonotactics[1] with a simple vowel systems tend to develop similar features, possibly through convergent evolution:

- agglutinative syntax (i.e. combining long sequences of words and suffixes to form complex meanings) - vowel harmony (seems to exist in the earliest attested forms of Old Japanese, but not anymore) - palatalization before front vowels (i, e) - further simplification of the vowel system

My only nitpick is that Bantu languages are not relevant here. The author is explicitly focusing on Nigerian languages (although he titled that "Japanese words and name sound African"... Africa is a big continent with just as much language diversity as Asia, if not more). While there are some Bantu languages in Nigeria, they aren't as prominent there as they are in East, Central and South Africa. The author mentions Yoruba, Igbo, Fula, Hausa, Edo and several others - none of them is a Bantu language, although some are related. Even though you can put all of the languages above (except for Hausa) into the hypothetical Niger-Congo macro-family, together with the Bantu languages, they are quite far away by this point.

The other issue is that Bantu languages are probably not the best example for "Japanese-sounding" languages. They feature very frequent use of prenasalized consonants. While prenasalization almost certainly existed in Old Japanese[2] and is still retained in some northeastern dialects, this is not something people would identify with "Japanese-sounding" nowadays. Not to mention southern Bantu languages like Zulu and Xhosa that feature heavy usage of click consonants - these are completely alien to Japanese phonology.

But this doesn't detract at all from your argument. Languages with similar structure, will often sound similar. I think the other anecdote the author mentions (Plateau State languages sounding Sino-Tiban) also checks out. I am not familiar with any of these languages, but it seems many of them are tonal and based around heavy use of complex monosyllabic morphemes with complex combinations of initial consonant + medial glides(?) + diphthongs + final consonants. This is exactly what so strongly distinguishes the phonology and phonotactics of Sino-Tibetan languages.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonotactics

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendaku#Origin

Pokatokaino is indeed not a Finnish word, but contains multiple: Pokat - slang for sunglasses, Kato - slang version of katso (look), Toka - slang version of toinen (ordinal second), Kaino - timid/coy.

Finnish has umlauts though, so quite a lot of words don’t sound like the mentioned languages so much.

>Pokat - slang for sunglasses, Kato - slang version of katso (look), Toka - slang version of toinen (ordinal second), Kaino - timid/coy

sounds like if you give it a shy 2nd look through these glasses, in the dim light it works as a word!

Yep it's just the coincidence of a simple sound system and finding patterns where none exist. For example saying ba means horse in Japanese isn't exactly correct, horse is uma, ba is just the closest sound that exists which allows Japanese people to pronounce Chinese words like 馬力 circa whenever that word was added to the language, if they took it today it would be ma.

It's the equivalent of Latin or Greek words and affixes in English.

Regarding the similarities between Hawaiian and Japanese: There are theories among linguists that there is a connection between Austronesian languages and Japanese. These theories don’t seem to be infeasible, but are currently lacking sufficient supporting evidence.

That's interesting.

From an English perspective katakana (a system for writing words foreign to Japan, which can't write English very well) seems broken, but I guess from what you say that it's probably effective for most languages

It may be "broken" in the sense that it's not accurate to the original language in orthography or pronunciation, but it's great because it's internally consistent for speakers of Japanese. I can look at any foreign word in katakana and instantly know how to pronounce it in a way that is intelligible to other people in the language I'm speaking: Japanese.

Even with the way English does it for other languages that use the same alphabet, while the orthography may be similar, the pronunciation is generally just left to luck and the speaker's/listener's perception of the word's original language.

Fair - English's orthography is definitely worse.

> Finnish is also oddly similar-sounding

For a long time I ignorantly assumed that Marimekko was a Japanese brand.

Not to mention Nokia.

Just curious: what path lead you to know this stuff?

I thought Japanese was unpitched

Current LLMs are not aware of the letters in text. It's too expensive computationally to assign a token to each letter. They operate at the level of tokens, which tend to be word-level: each morph-em-e is broke-n down in-to seg-ment-s and assign-ed an int-e-ger.

The result is that LLMs are quite oblivious to spelling and such. There are some exceptions working at the letter level, but mostly, yeah. This applies to ChatGPT etc.

Most LLMs can't even talk about the tokenization they use which I think indicates that they don't have the right knowledge to do wordplay at the letter level.

Tangential, but one thing I recently learned about telegraphy was that it was one of the final tools, for establishing an accurate global map. Taking your longitude requires knowing what time it is. An hour's error is 15 degrees of rotation or more than a thousand kilometres. Just one second error is several hundred metres.

Before the telegraph there was no standard time, not as we use it today, where it's the same second in New York and London. And synchronizing clocks used to be very difficult. In the 1850s, just before the cable, the US Coast and Geodetic Survey, would routinely ship chronometers between London and Boston every few weeks, to keep the American time standard synced with London, so that American ships could use the London-centric longitude definitions. And of course, this was back when clocks weren't terribly accurate, and a quality chronometer might lose or gain a few seconds a month.

In the 1840s, American surveyors started using long-distance telegraph links to make longitude measurements in different locations at the same time. The distance between the coasts was established within a few hundred metres by the late 19th century.

Some more reading: https://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1897AJ.....18...25S "The telegraphic longitude net of the United State and its connection with that of Europe, as developed by the Coast and Geodetic Survey between 1866 and 1896"

> In the 1850s, just before the cable, the US Coast and Geodetic Survey, would routinely ship chronometers between London and Boston every few weeks, to keep the American time standard synced with London

It is absolutely mind boggling how far technology has progressed in less than 2 centuries.

There's people alive today, that when they were born, horses were more common than cars.

True. But it is pretty darn closely correlated: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/human-development-index-v...

With historical childhood mortality rates, they started coming down before modern vaccination or antibiotics were invented. In the USA and UK, the great majority of the advance was actually made from about 1900 - 1930. Here in a wealthy part of Canada, to lose a child in infancy was already a relatively rare tragedy when my grandmother was born. Here's maternal and infant mortality rates for the UK 1900 - 1980 [1]. And estimates for the USA [2]. From about 25% in the late 19th century to about 5% in 1940.

There are many reasons, but germ theory, and modern understanding of nutrition, probably accounts for much, maybe most of it. I would probably poison myself in the kitchen every time I cooked, if I wasn't working with germ theory implicitly baked into my entire mental framework. And of course having the technology (clean tap water, refrigeration, airtight seals, heat on demand) to apply it efficiently.

[1] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Infant-and-maternal-mort...

[2] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/US-infant-mortality-rate...

Resistors with worse tolerances may be made out of cheaper, less refined wire, which will vary resistance more by temperature. The tolerance and resistance is good over a temperature range. For more reading looking up "constantan".

Most resistors don't use wire, but some film of carbon (cheaper, usually the E12 / 5% tolerance parts) or metal (E24, or 1% and tighter tolerances) onto a non-conducting body. Wires mean winding into a coil, which means increased inductance.

I suspect in most cases the tolerances are a direct result from the fabrication process. That is: process X, within such & such parameters, produces parts with Y tolerance. But there could be some trimming involved (like a laser burning off material until component has correct value). Or the parts are measured & then binned / marked accordingly.

Actual wire is used for power resistors, like rated for 5W+ dissipation. Inductance rarely matters for their applications.

Accuracy depends on the technology used. Carbon comp tends have less accuracy then carbon film. And it's not true that higher accuracy is always better.

Some accurate resisters are essentially wound coils and have high inductance and will also induce and pick up magnetic interference. Stuff like that matters often a lot.

Thanks, always good to remember that the tolerance of a resistor is not just a manufacturing number but also defined over the specified temperature range.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact