What you're asking is a counter factual. There is no way to answer this question either way. The thing with revolutions is that people suspect it is coming at some point but are still surprised when it happens. The recent fall of Assad in Syria - we'd all forgotten about that mess. East Germany celebrated its 40th anniversary with socialist pomp and circumstance and crumbled a month or so later. The French Revolution was not just about abandoning feudalist structures. It ran in parallel with famine due to terrible weather, a looming bankruptcy of the crown, inefficient leadership from the king, a new way of leadership expected by his subjects, (invented) scandals that were spread by what would become mass media, and the changes in thinking in the age of enlightenment with people engaged in virtuous one-up-manship. That's after France had lent a helping hand to the American Revolution, not so much out of commitment to the cause but to point the finger at the neighbors across the Channel. You needed all of this in the blender to get to a point where enough people were radicalized enough to start chopping heads off. So even if they had found a negotiated solution to address the class problem, the revolution might still have happened, maybe a bit different, maybe not at all. Nobody knows.
FriendOfDeSoto
Hoisted by my own methtard.
Hmm sound like something a meth dealer would say
I assure you. I'm not a meth dealer. Really. I don't know what else to tell you!
Thanks for answering my question.
If I were a breaking bad meth dealer and had all my buyers as contacts on that phone and all my incriminating chats, I wouldn't use biometrics to unlock it. But I'm not a meth dealer (and I'm not just saying that because that's what a meth dealer would say).
There is a spectrum of convenience vs. security. It depends on where you sit. I'm okay with the fingerprint, wouldn't go for the face.
Doesn't Android have the panic/cop switch where you force password over biometrics unlocking? It's not a 100% failsafe but it is a start.
Technically, they don't have to be. They could elect a venerable whippersnapper cardinal - Dan Brown wrote a book about that. And that tells you how likely that is if he wrote the story. But it is possible.
It would be rare because it takes seniority to get into the position. And politics to be well liked enough to be put forward and then elected. By mostly old people. Some of whom would like the job themselves.
This is already location-dependent. I think Iceland has the most restrictive legislation with a prescribed list to choose from. Other countries have a layer of "is this really a name?" checking as part of the registration process after birth and parents can be sent back to square one.
I think there is a balance to be had where you can't get away with xc1>df or whatever but you could name your kid after a GoT character that tragically turned evil in the last season. My suggestion would be to include a second given name that is more established than Khalisi or Dumbledore, e.g. Kelly and David. If Khalisi Kelly's last name is Knox obvs I wouldn't insist on the alliteration. My point is then your child has a plan B when they get mocked for being called Hobbit in school. They can just go by Henry or whatever other boring name made the cut. That way you don't need to get into a complicated legal situation where a minor would have to override the wish of their parents.
After reaching adulthood legally, virtually anybody can try to change their name. Although the process may involve having to prove harm to get it approved in some places. I think there is a correlation between a laissez-faire attitude to naming and ease of getting a name change. In countries that are stricter to begin with, the hurdles are much higher and can be much costlier.
I don't think you need AI for that but it certainly helps. It's good ol' flooding the zone. The strategy is old. To me, it's a lesson of the Soviet Union. If you continuously barrage people with a manicured version of the truth, one that includes Orwellian changes, you get them to unplug. It's getting to be too much work to stay on top of important stuff. So people become pliable subjects for their leadership. One could argue that Putin is running Russia on this basis. Running for a party he's not a member of. Cozying up to the left, then to the right, to the church, and back to the start. He's everything and nothing to all sides. It's a strategy that 47 wished he could run the US with.
The problem with him is that he won't shut up. You'd recognize that stream of consc.... of something anywhere. Hypothetically, if consent was given you'd have to surgically remove his tongue as well.
Respect it as art and entertainment people like. Personally, could not care less.
First of all, all languages do this to an extent. Singling out America or English seems pointless to me.
Geographical names are a nonsensical construct of traditions, conventions, and misunderstandings. Why shouldn't a language come up with names that suit their tongue? Why shouldn't they go with whatever becomes consensus in their language? Being correct is overall less important than being understood. And that's being understood by your peers, not the people on the other end of the world.
With place names it's often old conflicts and historical differences that prevent adoption of modern place names. English is one of the few languages that made the change from Peking to Beijing, others didn't want to be told "by the commies" what to call the city. People who were fighting Napoleon 200+ years ago still call Nice in France by its Italian name Nizza, the name of the city in circulation prior to the French takeover. Out of principle. Europe, where the spoken common language variety is greater than in North America, is more used to this and people just know Brussels can also be Brussel, Brüssel, or Bruxelles. It's like the imperial system of measurements: it makes no effing sense but it works.
If you argue respect you're going to hit a massive wall with some languages. Mandarin Chinese is fresh in my mind that has very colorful names for all the places of the world that often have little or nothing in common with what the locals call it. Meiguo for America? Is that disrespectful? No, when you learn that this sort of means beautiful country. And it would take ages to get English speakers onto the same page calling China Zhongguo. And I'm quite sure the locals of Zhongguo would not understand the average American Joe saying it. So what would be gained by making that switch?
Turkey wanted to change its English name because they don't like the association with the eponymous bird. If the bird was commonly referred to as something else, and English wasn't the lingua franca of the world, this would not have come up. Other languages have stuck with their version of Türkiye. And for the English speaking world I see an uphill battle for this to catch on. People only switched to Kyiv out of spite for Russian bombs. People are still going to say Turkey and not mean the bird. Same is true for recent gulf name changes.
English is half filled with loanwords. Dejavu maybe just stands out to you. Parliament, pork, and necessary maybe not so much. I think all can be traced back via Norman French or later. All languages borrow words. Many of them change meaning and/or spelling after being borrowed. This is normal.
All of the things you complained about seem perfectly alright to me. You're looking for a fight with a windmill.
I'm going to say yes and no to that one. At the time they establish forevermore what is left-wing and what is right-wing, we're past the estates general being called and I think also past the tennis court oath. For me, that's already revolutionary times, they just haven't cut Louie's head off yet.
Before that, I don't think there was much exchange between the second and the third estate. I am sure there were nobles who were willing to change things around. But it also wasn't a case where the second and the third estate, and maybe even the king, could agree on something and that would've been the end of that. France was riddled by internal fiefdoms with their own dumb trumpian tariffs. Any relief for the third would have had to involve rationalizing the economy and there were powerful lobbies (like the farmer general) who wouldn't like that. Plus, people were hungry and hungry people don't think straight. And Louie would've preferred to stick his head in the sand anyway and other than maybe Necker none of his ministers satisfied the requirements of "forward looking."