> I would write comments in a supposedly anonymous survey like “He ist like…” to camouflage myself as german

Do actual Germans ever make that kind of mistake though?

I’ve only ever seen “ist” used “wrongly” in that particular way by English speakers, for example in a blog post title that they want to remain completely legible to other English speakers while also trying to make it look like something German as a reference or a joke.

The only situation I could imagine where a German would accidentally put “ist” instead of “is”, is if they were typing on their phone and accidentally or unknowingly had language set to German and their phone autocorrected it.

Sometimes you get weird small things like that on some phones where the phone has “learned” to add most English words to the dictionary or is trying to intelligently recognise that the language being written is not matching the chosen language, but it still autocorrects some words to something else from the chosen language.

But I assume that when people fill out forms for work, they are typing on the work computer and not from their phone.

What is gmp?

    The question of hairy black holes is intimately connected to the greatest puzzle in modern physics: How can general relativity be merged with quantum theory?
    
    Consider the situation where an object crosses a black hole’s point of no return, called the event horizon. According to general relativity, all outsiders will see is how the swallowed object contributes to the two numbers that describe the black hole: how much mass the object adds, and how much faster or slower it makes the black hole rotate.

The idea that anything within the event horizon should be treated as an opaque black box -- could it be reinterpreted as saying that any property which has dependence on spatial or temporal distribution within becomes an unknowable quantity? If so, can it be tied somehow to Quantum Mechanic’s idea of the removal of degrees of freedom by observation, since now certain quantities are not unobserved but rather unobservable in principle? I am asking this from a naive laymen’s point of view, so I may be conflating entirely unrelated ideas.

If stablecoins are supposed to be usable as currency, maintain a fixed value relative to a government-backed standard, and also accumulate interest...

... then shouldn't banks just be able to deal in them?