Even if you operate only by the given definition, it directly states one is a subset of the other.
Given that you're just selectively nitpicking by now, I don't think you're really trying to engage in a meaningful conversation, so I'm done. Thanks anyway, you've prompted me to reflect upon many topics and verbalize some things that usually stay internal.
Oh, man, taking a win when the opponent concedes ground is no fun at all, right?
> So you are in fact claiming you were joking?
Never claimed so. The first message was making fun of the title (which should be obvious even to those struggling with nuance comprehension). It's, BTW, not exactly the same thing as joking. Everything posted further was pretty serious.
> instead of arguing about English
"Arguing about English" paints my part in the discussion in an overly aggressive light. I was mostly answering direct questions and disproving points that were aimed at me or my arguments.
> For multiple messages in a row, there’s no indication you were making fun.
It wasn't the theme of the discussion, reread it and look at what we were actually talking about. If you didn't parse my original message as playful, then, surely, the the fault is mine. I'll work on my eloquence. But I'd rather make a poor attempt at humour and let it fail than keep on repeating "this wasn't serious!" in every subsequent message.
> Because transplants for autism isn’t ambiguous to native speakers
Firstly, this is overgeneralization that you can't possibly posit as a fact, unless you're a linguist that happens to have the stats on hand.
Secondly, the crowd here is rather diverse, and I bet non-natives are not a negligible minority. At least for some of them the awkwardness of the condensed form chosen for the title is pretty obvious, as it was for me.
The bottom line here is the comprehension (including native) is never deterministic, but is context-driven. Temporary alternative parses (even if it converges to a specific interpretation with later context) is an established phenomenon which, to my taste, is a great source of fun. Though I admit this wasn't nearly my best attempt.
> I didn’t mean to be condescending
Then I don't believe you've succeeded. The problem is that you're arguing against a stronger claim than I’m making, whilst being just a bit too assertive, degrading the debate to lifestyle advice, etc.
---
Regarding your multilingual examples, you're most likely not native to a Romance language, because you're missing the distinction between, for example, "por" and "para" which do not translate directly to English "for", so your examples aren't as effective as you probably hoped. "Ir al medico por dolor" translates better to "to go to the doctor because of pain", not "for pain". Same with "wegen", it's literally "because of", not "for".
> I only meant to contradict your apparent insistence that ‘transplants for autism’ is easily misunderstood, because it’s not.
Never said "easily". However, you seem to be adamant on dismissing the two main points I repeatedly tried to get across and which are the reason I made fun of the title in the first place:
1. "Transplant" is a procedure or the result of thereof, it does not lexically encode remediation to the same extent "treatment" or "medication" do. You can transplant a third arm to a human, this won't be considering a health-improving procedure. To rephrase, "transplant" is not inherently therapeutic but is always an intrusive procedure.
2. Again, not everyone conceptualizes an "Autism" of an unknown severity as a condition in need of a treatment involving body-intrusive procedures!
These two facts make the "X for Z" not reliably triggering the "ibuprofen for headache" reading. Unfortunately, this doesn't happen for you so you just dismiss this fact and keep on pushing, instead of admitting there can be ambiguity. You'll surely agree, that it's the medicalized context doing the disambiguation for the concise form, not the syntax itself!
Consider a parallel linguistic construct: "implant for mind control". Would you still argue it's unambiguously "for countering mind control"?
Never claimed I did. My first message, however, literally says the title is hilarious or outrageous, depending on your personality, all due to the ambiguity. I tried to make fun of it, which landed obviously flat. Well, what a shame.
You're really trying a bit too hard to prove a point, being just slightly condescending in the process, giving strangers life advice all while missing to address the specific argumentative points where you happened do be factually mistaken.
Mayhaps it's your idea of fun, then happy to entertain you.
> in English and many other languages as well - pretty much all Germanic languages
Absolutely not. In German itself it's "gegen" - "against". In French and Spanish you definitely wouldn't just omit "treatment" from "traitement de/pour"/"tratamiento de/por" and expect the meaning to not change, and both sometimes would use "contra", though less likely.
> You seem to be failing to grasp that someone who says something is “for” a problem
See above, the special-case medical reading of the construction triggers when the object is unequivocally considered a problem.
If someone's fighting anything, it's you, who fail to grasp that the title could actually read ambiguously, depending on your disposition towards Autism and conceptualization of a transplantation procedure.
Lear to embrace ambiguity as a source of humour and have fun, instead of trying to tell people they use a language wrong.
A retina transplant is for vision, not for blindness.
And you'd lose the bet, in my case that would be a word that dual-serves as a directional preposition meaning "away"/"from" and depending on the situation it's an opposite of "for", but not exactly "against", closer to "for dealing with smth"/"for solving smth.".
If you think more about it, perhaps the stumble is understandable, if you conceptualize Autism not simply a disorder requiring treatment, but a type of neurodiversity. Then the intuition of interpreting the "for" as the "X for Y" conventional medical syntax does not trigger and the title reads awkward.
This is cute, but the UI is uncannily not there (I think there were multiple attempts of designing the XP for web already which looked more authentic).
But my biggest gripe is, why represent it as a file system with WordPad displaying HTML? I get the idea for media, but not for the articles.
It's pretty obvious that Wikipedia should be a single CHM file. That would be nice and much more immersive.
Considering its ubiquitous and regular consumption in general population, doesn't alcohol shift the balance in favour of ibuprofen?
Also, possible blood clotting or stomach issues sound scary, but Aspirin has similar (opposite) issues. Pharmacists regularly push its combinations with Acetominophen (which has, of course, synergetic bonuses, but is not the reason) under multitude of brands with a hefty premium when people ask for either one. So in many situations you need to consider the added risks from Aspirin too.
Ideally, I'd like to have an optimized strategies of using all three of the aforementioned substances for common situations. Like, is rotating ibuprofen/acetominophen during the day safer than consuming just one?
I'm all for Win32, but those odd-shapes and custom skins were the precursors and the normalizing precedent for the current default mentality of "visual identity = branding" that's been killing desktop computing experience for years and is one of the reasons we have to endure reacts, electrons and multitude of half-baked widget libraries that consist of things looking like no particular control but all feature blurry text rendering, flaky accessibility, negative information density and their own special sets of bugs.
Unless you're building a Blender or an Ardour or, I don't know, a trading platform or a game, an individualized GUI should be the last of your priorities.
Yeah, I don't generally live in MC to the same extent I do in DC when I'm on Windows.
I rarely do anything besides the basics (F5/F6) when managing files in MC, and for advanced stuff, like using rsync/rclone for moving files, I mostly use the usermenu.
If I could code with a piece of music playing in the background and not lose focus means it's not worth listening at all.
Very rarely I use custom-filtered (brownish) noise to help with isolation. Perhaps some kind of Ambient or New Age would work too in such situations, but things I like in those genres require attention and not paying it would be absolutely disrespectful.
I listen to all kinds of music at my dayjob but only during specific activities that do not require much contemplation and I can mostly flow with the music and do the work in the background.
Though, I'm a musician and sound engineer, so my relationships with music in general might be a bit special.
For a layperson it's clear that it's either "Writings" and "Talks", or "Readings" and "'Listenings", but CPP profeciency is in an inverse relation with being apt in taxonomy, it looks like.
Given that you're just selectively nitpicking by now, I don't think you're really trying to engage in a meaningful conversation, so I'm done. Thanks anyway, you've prompted me to reflect upon many topics and verbalize some things that usually stay internal.