As someone who’s done a fair bit of translation on Twitter’s crowdsourced translation dealio (https://translate.twitter.com/), I can say that Twitter’s deliberately ambiguous use of language (for various reasons, e.g., as here, avoiding any explicit specification of tense, as well as of gender, number, &c.) can be very difficult to parse in a precise and accurate manner, especially without enough context.
I was wondering ... what exactly motivated you to dedicate time and effort towards improving the service of a $US10 billion valuated company for free? I'm not trying to be sparky or anything, it just baffles me. Is there any reward structure in place or interactions with other translators?
Well, mine’s the case of a minority language (Irish) where, even on the off chance that some professional outfit were paid to do the translation, it’d more than likely be of very low quality. Basically either (a) it wouldn’t get done or (b) it’d be really bad, so in the end I’d rather just do it myself, even for free.
Translation is one of those things where crowdsourcing makes sense - there's not always a 'right' way to translate a particular phrase, so a consensus between multiple people helps.
Although this seems like a good example of why, when crowdsourcing translations, you want to get multiple people doing the same language so you can compare their results.
One man's immature is another man's hilarious. In this case I side with you, but I'm pretty sure if they'd come up with something wittier than "All Koreans are stupid" I could find myself laughing at it.
I think that, regardless of what they write, intentionally defacing someone else's site, especially in a way that they're unlikely to be able to easily detect, is rather immature.
Wait... they crowdsourced the translation of their Terms and Conditions? That seems like, I don't know, a bad idea. For user content or interfaces sure, but T&Cs are essentially a legal document.
Metric is taught and used in school (middle, high, university) in the US for any sort of math or science, leastways anywhere I’ve ever been… If I were using any kind of tools to measure things and make calculations, I’d use metric, but in daily life, viz. in speech, it’s easier for me to just use the familiar imperial—especially if I want to make myself easily understood to normal people.
If such an innate (genetic) tendency towards fairness existed in humans, it would likely have quite a spectrum of phenotypic expressions. I.e., even if everyone had a sense of fairness, odds are that such a sense would not be exactly the same for each individual.
yes, but I believe we are using different interpretations fairness. as someone already pointed out, for fairness to be innate to humans it would need to be a better genetic trait compared to unfairness. so we are not arguing about how and if it is a good behavioural strategy, as it needs to be a better gene to have vs 'the-unfairness-gene'. so you might be genetically unfair and act fair as long as it is a valid behavioural strategy and revert to your genetic inclination when the situation requires you to (in case of serious danger for example). based on that it would be also possible to say that people are genetically fair and act unfair when in need, but that would not be fairness in my opinion.
But we do live in societies that are fair (compared to other animals). In fact the most fair (liberal, democratic, law abiding, accountable) societies fare the best the past 500 years at least.
as I said to dasil003, it's not really about behaviour, it's about genes. to reply to your post: we have a better understanding of the world compared to the other animals so maybe it simply happened that at a given time we understood that cooperation allows you to gain an unfair advantage vs single individuals and so on (in some way you need to keep that cooperation going).
my point is that it seems to me that exploitation of weaknesses is the central theme of evolution and it doesn't mix well with fairness. then again, I don't study biology so take my words with a grain of salt.
Not really the best analogy: telegraph/phone lines sit there passively and pose no apparent immediate danger, while the aforementioned UAVs would present an active threat to wrongdoers’ wrongdoing and thus become targets...
