Oh right, I didn’t know that! I still don’t imagine that’s what is happening in this case; there are just plenty more feminine nouns in Nynorsk and similar dialects.
I don’t think it’s anything to do with case, just that the gender of the word is different between the dialects. ‘en’ or ‘a’ is just a suffix meaning ‘the’.
I don’t think it’s a ridiculous point, especially taken with the other elements mentioned. There wouldn’t be that much to the artists you mentioned if their lyrics were also banal, and they were deemed artificial or derivative. It’s a good idea to rely on a constraint of simplicity in some aspects, it’s just a problem when applied to everything at once.
Annoyingly, they were also unwilling to refund me when I wasn’t able to even start to download a game I’d bought for over a week, due to a faulty console update patch. After over a week of back and forth emails (pointing out that I hadn’t yet lost my right of refund), they fixed the issue.
You certainly find this kind of thing in numerous beginner books, but I’m skeptical that it’d be of much use for complex scores, or for someone with mastery of sight-reading. We don’t tend to do the same for text, after all. That said, it is easy enough to miss a dynamic marking and plough through a section at the wrong volume. That one might be worthwhile!
Not really. 2 crucial differences: first, it’s the degree of the scale (I, ii, III…) that’s given a colour rather than the note name (C, D, E…), meaning the colouring is independent of the key (or octave) it is written in or transposed into. Secondly, the colours used are designed to be similar where their harmonic ‘meaning’ is similar (according to traditional Western music) and vice versa.
Statistically, you would expect them to score higher if that was the case, because it would no longer allow them to be worse than the worst song to qualify.
The effects of partisanship are hugely outweighed by the fact that each country gives points to 10 others, not just one. An extreme case of both the 10 and 12 points going to non-deserving neighbours still leaves 36 points to go elsewhere.
It's a number of things: some of which the article explains. I think the two most important reasons are that there's a culture that often mistakes aggressive debate for good philosophy. Not that white men tend to have these traits, but the people with these traits tend to be white men. Secondly, your perception of how relevant, or how alien and detached current philosophical thought seems to be, is going to depend on where you sit yourself; someone with a privileged upbringing is going to be much more comfortable sitting through a course that treats injustice, for example, as an abstract concept.
Not necessarily, but for a field that concerns itself with drawing conclusions about the human condition, often relying on experiential evidence, something has certainly gone very wrong if so few women are part of it.
Well if it's not racism, then what explains it? And what explains why the ratio of women to men gets significantly lower past Bachelor's level degrees in philosophy? I really don't think it's contentious to say that that there's a severe cultural exclusion within philosophy and the way it tends to be taught.
Also google "somatic hypermutation". That multiplication process for B cells is inexact, and introduces mutations into the DNA (and therefore structure) of its children. There's a process which indicates whether any of these new antibodies binds better than the original one, which becomes a new candidate for multiplying.
There's fairly recent technology to sequence these antibodies en masse, which gives you a whole load (~10^6) of these antibody DNA sequences. It's a fascinating and frustrating exercise to try and reconstruct the mutation history and families of related cells from this data.