Actually, "man" in this sense ("all humans") is descended from mann, an old english word that didn't specifically indicate male. It evolved to refer to males specifically later, although retaining its old inclusive meaning.
Also interestingly, the "man" in human is not related etymologically to man by itself.
So the author is actually correct, although the usage is a little archaic.
This usage persists in Swedish where “man” means both the human male and a generic subject for a passive tense, similar to how “one” or “you” works in English.
To me “Man” has more of a “each and every” connotation. Compare
“Man must achieve this.”
“Humanity must achieve this.”
The latter is more of a collective emergent thing. And in some cases that leaves you with a diffusion of responsibility kind of passive feeling, while the former is a call to action.
It's more than just your ear. The way we use language to describe individuals versus groups highlights a divide between personal responsibilities and collective rights. All too often individuals use the group as a means to avoid personal responsibility.
You can if you want, but that ignores how one of the accepted definitions of "man" is humanity. If you're just swapping words without understanding their deeper implications, you might miss the point. It's not about the gendered language; it's about the collective achievements and struggles of all people.
So, are we really focusing on inclusion, or are we just playing word games?
In the original text it is "der Mensch" which translates to "man". It could also be translated to humans but it wouldnt be too accurate of a translation. It also doesnt help that the original is a text from 1967:
https://www.hollein.com/ger/Schriften/Texte/Alles-ist-Archit...
I agree, though the historic roots make "man" (for humanity) and "man" (male person) simply homonyms. They "sound" different in my head, the same way "homo" (Latin for male person) and "homo" (Greek for "same") feel very different to me.
In this case though it's likely simply an artifact of translation from the German word Mann.
It's language specific, I believe. I know in our African language we use Humans (niit) or Children of Adam (domu Adama) when referring humans and humanity.
What does the optimization make time for? What is the goal? Maximum accumulation of resources? Health? Happiness? If I save ten minutes by meal prepping, do I have to optimize _those_ ten minutes?
Time is the most finite resource any of us have. If you can create more time in your day, you have more to do literally anything else, including doing absolutely nothing if you so choose.
Hmmm! Bookmark your comment here and come back after a few years, or perhaps a decade. I hope you smile by then, and then spend some time doing nothing.
I figured if you were as crazy as OP about "optimizing" then sitting doing nothing would surely be anathema.
Similar to doing nothing being valuable, sometimes doing something "optimally", just isn't worth it -- how do you enjoy cooking a meal you've never cooked before of You're trying to hyper optimally meal prep for the week?
I would say the goal is up to you. If you have a set list of things you want to accomplish in a week, you’d optimize to ensure those tasks are done, and any leftover time can be spent on leisure. That’s just one model.
I can try. The human existence is a trinity of body, mind, and soul. Mind and body alone without soul withers away, like I see so many people withering away in this age of soullessness. Soul is the mission, the purpose, the reason, the will, the driving force that makes life more than a coincidence. There is a spirit world parallel to ours, and the soul is the component of your being that most intimately interacts with it. You can train it, like a muscle, or you can let it atrophy and pretend it doesn't exist and that you don't need it.
This muscle however is vital in regulating your spiritual microbiome. Without it, evil spirits take control of your being and lure you into self-destruction, their ultimate goal. Artificial consciousness is one of these self-destructive pitfalls. You think you're a superior being and immortality is right around the corner if only you could find the one magical configuration of silicon that would allow you to upload your mind into a computer.
That's the endgame for soullessness. Consciousness that doesn't require soul must surely be transferrable to a machine.
> The Witness understands that huge challenge is completely fine, so long as it's isolated to a specific virtual space, such as a given panel and room
What about all of the puzzles that use the environment? There are all sorts of challenges that use the island/features. Really enjoyed that game. Good sense of progression and learning without teaching.
As I said in another comment, those are not necessary and really for people who feel compelled by them. I personally ignored them. You can’t ignore them in Riven
Technically you can skip to the end of the game in the opening scene, so I guess you can ignore all of it. Very weird credits!
I was trying to find all the answers. Afaik, you had some way of knowing how many puzzles were remaining? Eh, both great games. Myst and Riven definitely have more of the "if you can't solve this you're stuck" vibe, I'd agree.
What a Philippine court ruling means for
transgenic Golden Rice, once hailed as a
dietary breakthrough
My comment was an appeal to just copy the actual link title. Perhaps people who did not click through and see the actual title are downvoting for some strange reason.
The quoted title should be as close to the original as possible, within the HN title size limit, and should certainly copy correctly spelled words.
It's probably because it's a pedantipoint, more than anything else. The more important thing is the title is rewritten badly not just in spelling and grammar (a court can ban the cultivation or growing of something, not its 'growth') but in meaning (court revoked a previously granted license). But either way, if you think the title needs fixing, just email [email protected] and the mods will likely sort it out.
Well, as someone living in the United States, I live with the saddening understanding that our military spending indicates that we're willing to immiserate large swaths of the world's population for increasingly diminishing returns.
It's authoritarian enough that I have no choice but to support our military decisions through the taxes I pay.
I get that it's "just language" but it's a bit annoying. That's all.