Was it the Navajos whose language doesn't have nouns, only verbs? A noun is a kind of illusion of eternal identity. A chair is only chair-ing for the moment as a configuration of matter that was doing something else before, and will fall apart and transform into doing something else in the future.
IIRC Navajo has a pretty robust noun-verb distinction. However there definitely are other languages where nouns and verbs behave very similarly, e.g. most famously Salishan languages. That said, there don’t seem to be any natural languages in which nouns and verbs are completely indistinguishable — there’s always some minor difference in how they behave.
I don't think noun as a grammatical class is an issue, all the more if we take for granted that grammar themselves are mere inferences modeling what's happening on average when producing some utterance, or at least a very simplified representation of a leaned version of the utterance.
It might become more problematic when using a term such as substantive which can connotate some ontological beliefs about the nature of the word or what it refers to, or their relationship.
English is already very generous with conversion of word type without morphological impact in general. I heard Mandarin don't have even that kind of string lexical typology bound to every item in the vocabulary, but I didn't check the details to be transparent.
Thanks anyway for the hints on the other languages
"Journalism" has to compete with the likes of TikTok these days in terms of information availability, and TikTok (and it's infinite scrolling ilk) are not subject to the same principles that traditional journalism has been.
It makes perfect sense that the modern press has devolved to a 24-hour rumor mill; if they hadn't, they'd be even more irrelevant.
That’s only 25-30% of the energy environmental disaster in sector 137 resulting from the Bitcoin cluster inevitably forming a black hole from the plank scale space-filling compute problem.
> Physical presence is not a hard requirement for value.
Physical presence is a requirement for stuff. Stuff has value because of the balance between supply and demand. Information that has been digitally encoded has literally infinite supply. Information only has any value in the context of imaginary property laws that impose artificial scarcity.
AI companies downloading information is not subsidizing AI companies. Imposing imaginary property law is stealing from the public domain. Everyone's public domain.
Your premise is false, exceeding is not the limit, because the limit is at the behest of any of the judges; given a judge exceeds their rational, then they exceed their rational ability to limit the executive branches power
And if the judgement is in error, it will be appealed and overruled by a higher court. This is how our system works. We're only seeing it as a "problem" lately because the past few administrations have leaned increasingly heavily on unilateral executive action rather than legislation as the constitution designs, and as we'd been doing successfully for the previous 200 years.
I'm not sure it's true that recent presidents have relied more on EOs---at least the numbers suggest that recent presidents have actually relied less on EOs than many of their predecessors (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1125024/us-presidents-ex...). Now, it may be the case that the scope of EOs has grown, so that they implement bigger policy initiatives. I'd be curious if anyone has done that analysis. It might also be that rising partisanship has led to more exaggerated reactions to EOs by the opposition, making it seem like a bigger problem than it actually is.
What penalty is there for continuous “errors”. Let’s say a judge was known to always apply an injunction for a certain party, can they be penalized or removed?
If I become biased or incompetent at my job I’m eventually get fired but do judges ever?
Yeah but can they be sued for rulings they made in their capacity as a judge?
Could we throw in jail Supreme court justices for making the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision if they were still alive?
And yet what's going on is an exercise of the law as it exists, because Congress abrogated its responsibility.
Each Executive administration since W has reached further and further. Congress has ceded more and more, because while it is their responsibility to choose, doing so comes at a political cost they don't want to pay. So they hand it over to the Executive.
Time for some garbage collection in the law code. If you want a limited Executive, vote for a Congress that will take its power back. The Constitution gave tariff power to Congress, for example, and a few decades ago, they gave it over to the President. IIRC, the same goes for border policy and deportation rules. We keep assuming when we install all of this machinery in the Oval Office that no... no he wouldn't push that button, it would be indecent. Every President pushes more of the buttons at their disposal (with the possible exception of Joe, as it was his staff running things and not him), and this one is no exception.
Yup. The ostensible pretense is a decorative, comfortable narrative for the masses masking the hypocrisy, corruption, and concentration of power and privilege.
