Blaming Google for going anti-RSS is like blaming the rack when stepping on it. What did people expect to happen?
If you're looking someone to blame, blame the ones who evangelised Chrome and Google Reader when better alternatives existed. Back in the day we had Opera (the classic version) with amazing performance and built-in RSS reader. However, at the time, industry influencers promoted Chrome instead, a zero-feature browser with horrible performance (unless you had a relatively high-end PC with a multicore CPU, which was not the majority of users).
Many people (devs in particular, who should know better) use Chrome to this day.
Oh well, the browser market is as democratic as they come, people vote with their usage. The conclusion is that people just don't care.
> People with English as their mother tongue have some advantages - we actually recognise a huge variety of vowel sounds because various English accents contain them
Not so sure about that. For example, I noticed it takes a bit of effort to get native English speakers to pronounce the ы sound, or to get them to hear how the ь letter affects pronunciation.
> We also know pronunciation and writing are completely disjoint: anyone coming from a language where you say what you read has a big disadvantage.
I don't quite agree. I come from a language where the spelling is almost phonetic (so, not totally disjoint from pronunciation), and it's very easy for children to learn reading and writing, which means they quickly move on to more important things.
Meanwhile, children learning English as a first language are stuck memorising spelling and obscure rules and exceptions just to be able to write correctly.
And conversely, when they hear a new word (or name) they need to look up how to spell it.
I don't see an advantage, it's just a waste of energy.
It was relatively easy for me to learn the spelling of English words because I already knew a reasonable amount of French, so it was quite intuitive to spell "restaurant" or "renaissance". But for someone with English as a first language, I suspect it would have involved a lot of memorising.
> I noticed it takes a bit of effort to get native English speakers to pronounce the ы sound, or to get them to hear how the ь letter affects pronunciation.
But you are saying English speakers can learn it? How do Romance language speakers do? I'm just making a generalisation, which is not universal and there are plenty of vowel and consonant sounds English speakers really struggle to learn.
> children learning English as a first language are stuck memorising spelling and obscure rules and exceptions just to be able to write correctly.
Absolutely: it is a serious downside of English and plenty of adults never learn to spell well. I have seen the advantages of saying it like it is spelled in Spanish. But that isn't relevant to my point that English speakers have a natural understanding that spelling is disjoint from pronunciation. It maybe doesn't help much - hearing English speakers saying words they have learnt from books is painful!
Secondly, many English speakers often try to pronounce foreign names correctly - another habit that teaches us pronunciation (a little!)
That's an outrageously false statement. If it were true, you'd rarely need plugins.
> I wonder what you'd consider an IDE nowadays.
The definition of an IDE hasn't changed in at least 20 years. INTEGRATED development environment.
If I install a C++ IDE, I have everything I need out of the box, and the experience is (usually) consistent across all features.
If I want to do C++ in Vim, I need to install about 10 plugins (to begin with) [1], which will result in a disjointed experience (each plugin has different authors with different visions) where things break randomly and I don't know why. Speaking from experience, unfortunately.
Yes, you can make it work and you can get used to it, but it's just a text editor that you try to coax into doing what you want by using plugins.
Whereas the IDE will give you a language-specific tool out of the box, without any significant effort or inconvenience on your part. And the overall experience is better because the IDE "just works" most of the time.
Not sure if you’re joking, but in a way this feels very true to me. After a decade or so of doing OOP, I started doing a lot of 6502 assembly (for a home brew computer) and not applying OOP principles felt dirty at first. Same as not having 100% (or any for that matter) test coverage. I felt like I was cheating by doing things a simpler way. But then I started to really enjoy it and it felt liberating.
Slightly related. Netflix is that company that doesn't provide English subtitles in Australia (unless the movie/show's original language is not English), and possibly other native English countries as well.
They do provide closed captions however, so that we get helpful captions such as "loud urinating sounds".
Is that really so problematic, though? It's the same as ABC iView and SBS OnDemand, from what I can tell... Perhaps this is just to comply with local law, then?
It is very problematic because modern actors mumble to the point you can't understand much unless the volume is high enough for your entire neighbourhood to hear. Having closed captions instead of subtitles harms immersion.
Netflix can provide both English subtitles and closed captions (as seen in some Korean shows).
They simply choose not to offer them for most English-language titles.
Yes, that is annoying. I live somewhere that isn't natively English speaking and so I mostly only have the option to get subtitles in that language even though I read English much better than the local language. I can follow subtitles in a second language, but it's a fair bit more effort (and many people who live here can't do that at all.)
Possibly unrelated but similar idea at least: in Japan a lot of the Japanese TV shows I watch don't have English subtitles available, but in the US the same shows on Netflix do have English subtitles. I don't fully understand the reasoning for this on Netflix's side.
They may not have the license for English subtitles in Japan similar to how outside of Japan you can't get Japanese subtitles on Japanese TV shows because of licensing.
What's really annoying is when you turn on the CC subtitles and someone speaks a foreign language. The on screen subtitle gets covered with an unhelpful "[speaking Japanese]"
That's an artistic choice: the POV character in that scene doesn't speak Japanese, so viewers receive information limited to their perception.
Languages are handled differently in truly multi-lingual media. Watch _Invasion_ for a good example (the first season is amazing, but we didn't care for the second). There, the audience gets subtitles for everything, so viewers often know more than the characters do. There's a beautiful sequence in the desert where two men, unable to understand each other's language, pour out their hearts to each other, and - unwittingly, and across a cultural chasm - share the same hopes and fears.
There's a third way of handling language, which I hardly ever see: the characters on-screen understand each other, but the audience doesn't. The _Star Wars_ by-play between R2-D2 and C3PO is the most accessible example. This is engaging because viewers have to fill in the blanks to infer what one or more of the characters have said.
You might prefer that everything be of the second type, but keep an open mind! The creators probably had a reason for making the choice that they did.
I don't disagree with anything you said, but I'm afraid you badly misunderstood the comment you replied to.
They aren't complaining about closed captions failing to translate foreign speech.
They're complaining about the specific instance where the show/movie has English subtitles for that foreign speech already built in and showing on the screen, and when the closed captions show "[speaking Japanese]" it overlays the translation that the filmmakers intended the viewers to receive, preventing them from experiencing the filmmaker's artistic choice.
The POV character might not speak Japanese, but some viewers without hearing difficulties might, so Japanese-speaking viewers using CC shouldn't be discriminated against. Or the Japanese phrase might be "konnichiwa", which most people would understand. Or it might be a commonly used term, like "Cinco de Mayo". The subtitles shouldn't cop out with [speaking foreign language], but instead put the foreign phrase in the subtitles if it isn't meant to be translated.
I'd argue that if the director decided that the characters should not understand what's being said, then its better if the audience doesn't know either.
For a particular example, it is my understanding that the movie "The Thing" is thoroughly spoiled right at the beginning if you speak Norwegian.
"Subtitles assume the viewer can hear but cannot understand the language or accent, or the speech is not entirely clear, so they transcribe only dialogue and some on-screen text.
Captions aim to describe to the deaf and hard of hearing all significant audio content—spoken dialogue and non-speech information such as the identity of speakers and, occasionally, their manner of speaking—along with any significant music or sound effects using words or symbols."
Closed captions also provide hints as to non-dialog audio; song lyrics, musical tones, important noises in the background etc.
Personally I always use subtitles, and closed captions if it's available; there are quite a lot of audio clues that I wouldn't otherwise know are even interesting, that get highlighted - mostly extra detail rather than plot important, but it does key you up to things happening or about to happen in the background.
Nothing really particular to Australia, the same happens in many other places.