AI tools can certainly fail to fix bugs, but if you’re consistently finding them of minimal use for debugging, I’d say that you’re either working in a fairly niche domain or that you’re maybe not fully exploiting the capabilities of the tool.
They can spell/pronounce things differently than we do and it's all cool either way. It's very common for animals to have different spellings, pronunciations, or even completely different names between languages. If you add time and regional axes, the same variances can be true even when keeping with the same language!
I'm just explaining why it's written 'x' and pronounced [ʃ]. If it pleases people to knowingly mispronounce Nahuatl loan words, they can do so, but it seems rather silly given that [ʃ] is also in the phonemic inventory of English. What next? Are you going say 'fowks pass' for faux pas?
Where I disagree is the premise it's supposed to be mispronunciation to say/spell a word differently than where it came from, doubly so when we change the spellings/pronunciations of our own words!
I think the disconnect here is that I actually wasn't aware that 'axolotl' existed as an established word in English. If you're looking at it just as a Nahuatl word written using Nahuatl orthographic conventions, then it's weird for someone to suggest that it should be written with a 'sh' because that's how it's pronounced.
What I meant is that it would be weird for an English speaker to have views on how Nahuatl words should be written using Nahuatl orthography, since different languages obviously have different orthographic conventions and associate different symbols with different sounds.
Oh, got ya - I thought they were talking about how English writes/pronounces its version of the word rather than how Nahuatl should do so! I agree fully in that case, it wouldn't make any sense at all for how foreign languages do something to dictate how another does - or to even expect them to be the same.
That's because in English we get it via Spanish, which doesn't have ʃ (although interestingly, it was just in the process of losing that sound in the early 17th century). If we're going from Nahuatl direct to English, and the Nahuatl sound also exists in English, then you may as well just use the correct sound. Otherwise, what are you going to do with Xochimilco?
The misconception is that words enter "a language" and not individual people's minds. Most English speakers have never heard the word "axolotl" spoken in its original pronunciation, nor are they familiar with the orthography that spells a "sh" with X.
>Spanish, which doesn't have ʃ (although interestingly, it was just in the process of losing that sound in the early 17th century).
I don't know about 17th century, but some dialects of Spanish certainly do have that sound now.
>Otherwise, what are you going to do with Xochimilco?
In English, X at the start of a word is typically pronounced like a Z, as in "Xanadu", "Xanax", and "xylophone". I don't think anyone would bat an eye if you read it as "Zochimilco".
It’s not a misconception that the English word ‘chocolate’ exists and that there’s a particular history of how that came to be the case. I think, reading the thread again, I didn’t make it clear that the sentence you quoted was talking about the history of ‘chocolate’ and not ‘axolotl’.
If pronouncing Xochimilco according to English orthographic conventions is important to you as a matter of principle, then of course you can do it. But it’s a Mexican place name that has a canonical pronunciation that is not difficult for English speakers to approximate, so I can’t really see the point.
(And yes, ʃ does exist in some modern dialects of Spanish, but those aren’t the dialects that would influence the pronunciation of Spanish to English loan words in most cases. The interesting thing is that this was much less obviously the case in the early 1600s. Apparently the exact origin of ‘chocolate’ in Spanish is a bit of a complex historical linguistic puzzle.)
>If pronouncing Xochimilco according to English orthographic conventions is important to you as a matter of principle
No, not to me. I speak Spanish natively, but even I don't know how to say that. My first guess would be "Jochimilco", but I'd have to look it up (I'm not going to). I'm just saying that having Xs in weird places would not stop an English speaker from inventing a "wrong" pronunciation on the spot.
>But it’s a Mexican place name that has a canonical pronunciation that is not difficult for English speakers to approximate, so I can’t really see the point.
"Mexico" itself is also not difficult for English speakers to approximate, yet they don't. Clearly approximating the local pronunciation is not how foreign speakers decide how to pay toponyms, and that's fine. That's how languages are shaped.
My point is just that it makes no sense to get hung up on speakers not pronouncing loanwords "correctly". If we're going down this path, we should also complain that Spanish speakers write "fútbol" instead of "football", and that tea is called "tea" instead of "cha" and spelled "荼". We should demand that words be crystallized in their pronunciation and orthography when they cross language barriers.
There aren’t any hard and fast rules about how to pronounce loan words. I agree on that point. In your original post, though, you seemed to be entirely dismissing the option of pronouncing the word according to an English approximation of its native pronunciation, which is an approach that’s equally valid (and is what English speakers often do for quite a few words).
>In your original post, though, you seemed to be entirely dismissing the option of pronouncing the word according to an English approximation of its native pronunciation,
When a pronunciation is already widespread, yes. "Axolotl" is not some new word; lots of people know the animal and call it "aksolotl". If we were talking about, say, some obscure Chinese village that suddenly became very relevant in the English-speaking world, I would not insist to pronounce the pinyin spelling of its name as if it was an English word.
The 'sh' pronunciation is pretty well-known, in the UK at least, due to exposure to it in Catalan (particularly with CaixaBank) and Portuguese. I suspect that most people here would guess that Spanish still pronounces it that way too, thanks to México and Xérès / Sherry.
And there's Xitter, of course, which is a fairly common way of referring to the social network formerly known as Twitter.
>I suspect that most people here would guess that Spanish still pronounces it that way too, thanks to México and Xérès / Sherry.
Sorry, what? First, is the word "Xérès" well-known among English-speakers? Second, "México" isn't pronounced "méshico", so how is it a supporting argument at all?
I don't think there's anything peculiarly British about that usage. It's easy to find examples of Americans doing the same thing, e.g.:
>The report, in an op-ed from commentator David Ignatius, cites a senior US official as saying that “the framework is agreed” and the parties are now “negotiating details of how it will be implemented.”
A quick Google search suggests that Brazil and the UK have similar levels of smoking in the adult population. So the UK's already succeeded in reducing smoking consumption. The aim of this legislation is to eventually eliminate it.
The Neo's targetting a different market. The MacBook was a premium ultraportable product. If you were buying it, you were willing to make all kinds of sacrifices for a thin and light laptop. The Neo is a general purpose consumer laptop that just happens to be fairly small.
Why would Apple writing some Linux drivers wipe billions from its share price? You can already install Linux on a Mac if you really want to. Back in the day, you used to be able to install Windows on an (Intel) Mac, and that didn’t seem to have any such effect.
No, but I think it’s unlikely that Apple actually has this information in a format that it could easily publicly release. They aren’t going to make any special effort to make Linux on Mac easier, but they also aren’t actively blocking it.
Well, I was more talking about the fact that you can still install Windows 11 on an Intel Mac right now; the drivers are still there for those few Intel macs still supported.
As for Windows on ARM, I'd bet that if Microsoft had managed to figure out their own product, Apple might have been tempted to support it. I mean why go through all the trouble of developing the most advanced firmware on the planet to support a fully secure macOS next to an unsecured OS if you do nothing with it?
The middlemen are giving your book some (still probably rather small) chance of being bought in significant numbers. If you just want a big stack of books and don't care if anyone buys them, they're not especially expensive to produce.
> And, the combination of wide-angle-view and super-high-aperture would literally require light to pass through the metal of the camera in order to reach the sensor:
This isn’t necessarily true when using a retrofocus wideangle design (as most modern ultrawide lenses do).
To be honest, if that's not the part where physics fail, it's going to be the actual production of the lenses... Either way, there's no such lens available to the market.
It’s only the focal length and f-stop that affect depth of field. Sensor size affects it only indirectly, because you need a different focal length to get the same angle of view.
From an optical point of view, light does not bend differently just because you put a differently-sized rectangle somewhere in its path. Or to put it another way, if you cut the edges off your sensor, that won’t alter the image on the remaining area of the sensor.
Yeah I guess you're right but there are limits on how shallow your DOF can get on smaller sensors. So when it comes to practical irl results you kinda need a larger sensor to get extremely shallow DOF.
> there are limits on how shallow your DOF can get on smaller sensors.
Only in the sense that you generally use a smaller sensor because you want your camera to be small.
If you take a full frame SLR and attach a 100mm f1.8 lens to it, you’ll get a shallow depth of field. Now crop that image down to an area of the sensor corresponding to the size of a phone sensor, and the cropped image will have the exact same depth of field.
> Now, here's the kicker: the bigger the focusing lens is, the larger the cone of light rays is, meaning the the out of focus parts of the image will be more out of focus
From the page [0] it takes the depth of focus image from:
> [Depth of focus] differs from depth of field because it describes the distance over which light is focused at the camera's sensor, as opposed to the subject
The first quote is clearly talking about depth of field, not depth of focus. See also what I quoted in my original comment.
Depth of focus isn’t really relevant to the rendering of an image (except insofar as you want your camera to be built to sufficient tolerances that a sharp image can be obtained when desired).
I assumed you were using “depth of focus” to mean “depth of field”. If you really meant “depth of focus”, then I would say you are mistaken in thinking that the author’s goal is to obtain a narrow depth of focus.
The first quote is definitely talking about depth of focus; the linked image talks about depth of focus and how it compares to depth of field. As I understand it, depth of focus has a similar effect to depth of field. If your rays diverge more quickly on the side of your sensor, you will have a blurrier image for the same distance from the focal plane. Otherwise, how do you think depth of focus presents itself in the final image?
Depth of focus doesn’t present itself in the final image. It’s generally irrelevant to practical photography from the point of vide of the photographer (as opposed to the camera designer or lens manufacturer). The first quote is talking about depth of field (i.e. how quickly focus falls off from the plane of perfect focus).
FWIW, here is what Claude has to say:
>> Is depth of focus, as opposed to depth of field, generally relevant to practical photography?
> Not really, no. Depth of focus and depth of field are related but distinct concepts, and for practical photography, depth of field is what matters almost all the time.
> Depth of field refers to the zone in front of the camera where subjects appear acceptably sharp. This is what photographers think about constantly: choosing apertures to blur backgrounds in portraits, stopping down for landscapes to keep everything sharp, figuring out hyperfocal distance, etc.
> Depth of focus refers to the tolerance zone behind the lens, at the image plane (the sensor or film), within which the image remains acceptably sharp. It tells you how precisely the sensor needs to be positioned relative to the lens for focus to be maintained.
> For the overwhelming majority of photographers, depth of focus is invisible because it's a manufacturing and engineering concern, not a shooting concern. Camera makers deal with it when designing bodies and ensuring sensor flatness, lens mount tolerances, and autofocus calibration. You encounter it indirectly if you ever need to calibrate autofocus micro-adjustments, shim a lens, or diagnose back/front focus issues, but you don't actively manipulate it while composing a shot.
reply