Here's the charity responsible for this bridge and several others in London: https://www.citybridgefoundation.org.uk/about/history Founded in 1122, which is quite something!
Readit NewsI'm really sad at how much Latin I've managed to lose since my school days. It's really an incredible language and this stack exchange post shows some of that versatility.
Because the words in Latin contain dense grammatical information in their spelling, you can be much more flexible with word order.
This gives classical poets the ability to do crazy things with word ordering to create "word pictures" where the structuring ordering of the words conveys some additional meaning. This can be done in English too, but classical Latin is almost made for it.
For example, Catulus 85:
"Ōdī et amō. Quārē id faciam fortasse requīris.
Nesciŏ, sed fierī sentiō et excrucior."
The translation Wikipedia gives is: "I hate and I love. Why I do this, perhaps you ask.
I know not, but I feel it happening and I am tortured."
But there is so much brilliance in the structure of the poem that translation cannot really encapsulate. The last word "excrucior" (I am crucified) references a relationship between the structure of the first and second line. Each verb on the first line has a "mate" on the second. For example: odi (I hate)<->excrucior (I am tortured), requires (you ask) <-> nescio (I know). If you draw lines connecting these mates to each other, they form a number of crosses - referencing the "crux" in "excrucior". The poem literally depicts the torture instrument that is Catulus' love.
Even more remarkably, this poem follows a strict metrical standard dictating the order of long and short syllables: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elegiac_couplet and it achieves this meter in part due to the use of elision in the opening of the poem, where two vowel sounds get merged due to the ordering of words. "Odi et Amo" is read as "Odet Amo" as the the love and hate crush together and evoke that sense of pressure and torment that underlies the couplet.
Classical Latin had so much capacity for structural complexity that is really remarkable. It's not just that you can say more stuff with less words, but that the allocation of information in the grammar allows for entirely different expressions than you could make if word order dictated meaning.
Great comment! For anyone looking to learn a bit more about this, the "crossing" technique described above is called "chiasmus": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiasmus
Another famous example is "Vivāmus, mea Lesbia, atque amemus" from Catullus 5 (there are several instances of it in this poem, in fact).
bshimmin commented on This time, it feels different nadh.in/blog/this-time-it... · Posted by u/mad2021
Are "gig" workers considered independent enterprises themselves? Do they need to pay self-employment taxes?
They are considered to be self-employed. If they're earning more than £1000 a year, then they need to file a self-assessment tax return with HMRC, and if they're earning more than a certain amount, perhaps £12500 a year, they will need to pay income tax on those earnings (plus national insurance).
Do most gig workers actually do these things? I have no idea.
N.B. https://code.kx.com/q/ref/dotz/ is doing the heavy lifting here.
This is such a helpful comment - what looks, to the uninitiated, like line noise actually starts to make some sense now!
I'm slightly surprised no one has commented on the custom infix operators. I think if I encountered the example in the wild, I'd understand it was a clamp function based purely on the names, but if it were used for anything else I'd have to spend quite a lot of time puzzling over it. Perhaps they make more sense to Haskell people, though!
No 'm' either:
(def phrase "Fjord zoologists quip jovially, waxing lyrical about xanthic lutrines")
(require '[clojure.string :as str])
(-> phrase str/lower-case distinct sort)
;; => (\space \, \a \b \c \d \e \f \g \h \i \j \l \n \o \p \q \r \s \t \u \v \w \x \y \z)
You are right, I did - sorry. I wrote something similar in Ruby to check!
A word of warning: a few years ago, the related page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-place_artifact took me down one of the worst Wikipedia procrastination rabbit holes I've ever lost myself in.
Villeneuve's dune is an enjoyable film, it conforms to expectations, and easily lauded. As such it is somewhat anodyne and flat. It is only rich where it borrows from Lynch. The scale feels small like tilt-shift does.
(For context, I read and enjoyed the Dune books as a child, I've seen the Lynch film several times and find it broadly comical, I love Twin Peaks, and I think Villeneuve is arguably one of the best mainstream directors working right now.)