The Lounge is rated Safe For Work. If you're about to post something inappropriate for a shared office environment, then don't post it. No ads, no abuse, and no programming questions. Trolling, (political, climate, religious or whatever) will result in your account being removed.
For starters, because you all have an incorrect view of the US
Well, we certainly seem to have a different view of the US. But that's the thing; the view of pretty much anything is different from inside when compared to the view from outside. But that does not make either view "incorrect"; just "different".
And you say that you have higher values than the US but are OK with kids running around naked
I don't think he did say he had "higher" values. Again, the values are different, not higher or lower. When it comes to morals, there is no such thing as absolutes; you can only ever judge by comparing to your own morals, and virtually by definition no-one is going to have higher morals than oneself.
But this is a common (in my experience) thing with Americans; whereas pretty much everyone else can acknowledge that whilst there may be differences between cultures, they are just that; Americans tend to judge those differences and/or discard different views as being inconsequential. There is an absolute self-centredness that marginalises or dismisses as inferior everything non-American. (Oh, and if you read "self-centredness" and thought I'd made a spelling mistake, that is proof of my assertion! )
"Culturized" - are you using that as a synonym to "Americanized"?
Someone (I don't remember who) referred to USA as the only society that went directly from barbarism to decadence without passing through the culture stage. I am not one who fully support that statement, yet I can easily recognize the grounds for making it.
We might respect the US of A for many different reasons. "Culture" is not prominent among those. Maybe in a few very narrow, restricted areas, but not in the general sense. In some areas, the US of A has commercialized a lot of culture that originated outside the US of A.
There is some original American culture, but a major part of that is definitely not in any way WASP-based. Historically, it is the culture of e.g. the slaves, the "afro-american" culture. Or the Latin culture from the south that will now the stopped by a 1000+ miles long wall. One major music style is genuinely American: CW (that is, both of them, both Country and Western), but USAnians would probably be surprised by how inessential original American CW is in the rest of the world. It may have given inspiration to artist all over, but they have often created their own style that might be far away from the sources of inspiration.
It is not that the WASP USA is completely void of culture. But the outside world never considers WASP USA to be any sort of "cultural beacon" - except in the sense of the culture of commercialism. If marketing of coke and McDonalds hamburgers is culture: Sure enough. It makes the world adopt "The American Way". Anthropologists may refer to it as a cultural artifact, but few cultural workers consider coke and hamburgers to be Culture, in the capital C way.
Artist from outside the US of A come to the US of A to make money. And to meet other artists from all over the world, and pick up inspiration from them. Not because they represent any sort of US WASP culture, but because of their original, non-US culture, and to some degree their US but non-WASP culture.
Culturally speaking, WASP USA is just another country, and a rather significant one. If you look at WASP culture, keeping afroamerican and latin culture to the side, the result is really not very impressing, considering that the nation has 330 million inhabitants. In terms of dollars: Of course. In terms of real cultural value: Not quite that much.
Honestly: Even if I strive for education and culturization, it is not in the Superman sense of "Peace, Justice and The American Way".
"...What do you expect when even their own president hardly knows any other country than Mexico, Russia and China. One of them being more or less OK, the other two ones obvious enemies."
And which one that is OK is subject to change (and does) at any time and only with notice from Twitter. Lol
I have found parts of europe like Belgium, Netherlands, even Denmark sometimes use English better than many Americans. Though I suppose that is more due to the proximity to the UK than any US influence.
I was working with a Norwegian lady who had for thirty years been working in France for a high prestige US company. The team also included a guy who had a Scottish mother, and had spent most of his childhood vacations in an English speaking environment.
Robert once commented that you could easily hear that Ellen is not a native English speaker: Her language is perfect. Flawless. It is rehearsed - she never make those "natural" mistake that a native speaker easily makes - call it out of sloppiness, if you like. Noone speaks their mothers tounge perfectly correct, after having grown up in a society with children who haven't yet learned, dialect speaker that do not respect the official norm, etc. This will affect your own speech. To consistently speak/write a lanugage perfectly, you cannot build on such disturbing elements but must learn the language tabula rasa.
Strange how a guy who developed real estate all over the world would not know more than 3 countries and even told you so.
He hired people to know them for him. And hired local people at target country to do that for him.
I am not saying he doesn't know, but he doesn't necessarily have to know them to have that empire.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
Yet, at system level, MS has been way ahead of the major competitors with regard to internationalization, all since Windows 1.0: If you accept to call Win 1.0 an "OS" (it was more so than DOS, even in version one!), it probably was the first OS to use as their core OS character set one that coveres the majority of the European languages: ISO 8859-1. MS was also very early to provide alternatives using other 8859-? variants outside Europe/America, with high quality translations of the user interface components.
Surely, in 16-bit Windows, i.e. up to Win98, system components were not language flexible. If my memory is correct, Charles Petzold (The Windows programming tutor!) provided detail instructions on how to dynamically link DLLs into your application according to the user's language preference. I never programmed Win1.x myself, but I did program multi-language application under Win 2.11. Since then, fully internationalized applications have been readily available. The programming methods described are in every serious textbook on Windows programming. No application developer is forced to provide DLLs for Sami and Greek, but it all depends on the developer - the required mechanisms have been available for thirty years.
Handling everything from simple 26-letter English to many-thousand ideographs Asian languages in a single application requires Win32, using UTF16 as its native character set. Win NT is 26 years old. Which other OSes had core support for UTF16 at at that time? When MS started shipping an Arial Unicode TrueType font with their OS, it certainly didn't include all characters, but all those required for plain text in the majority of the languages of the world. How many years did it take for the competiors to follow?
Oldboys remember the document format wars between ODF (Open Document Format) and MS' OOXML about fifteen years ago. One serious critisism of OOXML was that it was too complex: Certainly, a share of its features had no value for Western languages, they were tailored to Asaian ideogram based languages. Strong voices in the "open" world fiercely opposed such complexity, as it would raise the required resources for implementing full format support, which would be in disfavor of that "everyone can make his own free and open implementation" idea.
Essentially, MS has been a strong supporter for full internationalization, providing basic mechanisms and programming guidance at a significantly higher level than most of their competitors. The failures are on the application developers.
MS has its share of application developers. Some MS application projects certainly take internationalization seriously, such as the MS Office guys. But, as Sanders tell: Others, not so much.
If that OAuth solution were provided by some third party vendor, we would have shrugged: Well, find another package, then! (If this had been a *nix system, we would know that even shrugging would be a waste of energy.)
For third party vendors, you definitely cannot expect that they have prepared for Japanese and Korean and Thai languages. For open source software, you can't even expect support for Western cultures - a free TrueType font rarely includes æøå, ñ, õ etc. Lots of UI software can't handle non-US mail address formats, or phone number formats. They insist on AM/PM times, month-date-year dates, full stop as decimal separator, and a set definition of e.g. the first day of the week. Windows does provide information about user preferences and generalized data formats that can be adapted at presentation time, but developers find it too resource demanding to use these facilites.
Of course application developers employed by MS should always spend any resources required to fulfill absolutely all internationalization ideals. Ideally, VS 2019 should have a menu option to switch the entire user interface into Mandarin, using ideographs both in menus, error messages and help information, including guidance on how to get back to something that makes sense to you Unfortunately, it seems as if not every MS project has been alotted the resource to do so.
In Sander's case, I tend to agree with him: The project should have provided better internationalization support. If he had found that package on GitHub, I would have said: Well, that's what OpenSource is for - implement it yourself and give it back to the community!
We expect more from MS than from others. Maybe it is right to expect more. But if you make a checklist for evaluating internationalization provisions by different alternatives, and the MS score is significantly poorer than for the alternatives, then I know that I see a score card tailor made for overlooking the provisions of Windows, and excessively promoting rather insignificant details of the alternative. If I, as an application developer, really want to provide full international support, I know very well that my task is a lot easier under Windows than on several other common platforms.
But if I really don't care, then I also know that my ignorance is far more accepted on several other common platforms. On Windows, you are to a much higher degree, expected to provide internationalization than on alternate platforms. Honestly: I am happy with that!
Had seen an application (long back, Win 95/98 days), when localization / internationalization was still new.
It was an MFC application, where String Resources were used, which were switched based on the locale (English and Japanese). Except that for the message boxes, the Japanese strings were empty (in Version 1). So, whenever a message box popped up in Japanese locale, there would be no message, just OK and Cancel buttons. The user would not know what he was doing
Of course, this was later rectified, but it was fun to see empty message boxes in the first version.
How old are you. That sentiment has been around for longer than I have and I am going on 60.
"Program testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but never to show their absence." - Edsger Dijkstra
"I have never been lost, but I will admit to being confused for several weeks. " - Daniel Boone
...I'm so excited I can barely put on my ski mask!
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant Anonymous - The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine Winston Churchill, 1944 - Never argue with a fool. Onlookers may not be able to tell the difference. Mark Twain