It is. Did they just rotate the page after rendering?

There are a lot of top-to-bottom languages in Asia. Some chinese languages for example are traditionally written top to bottom.

Bidirectional text only really occurs when mixing languages, like in the example above where RTL Hebrew is mixed with LTR English (or in this case specifically LTR file paths that have originally been created in the context of an LTR language and thus are LTR).

If there was actual TTB language support in Windows Explorer, and you had a file path incorporating both TTB file names and LTR file endings and drive letters, then you’d also have the same issue with mixing LTR and RTL, only that you are now mixing writing directions in two dimensions.

But I’m guessing even though Unicode’s stated goal is to encode all writing, TTB is probably where they drew the line.

Makes sense. Can’t imagine a lot of software supports top-to-bottom.

Does Unicode even support that?

Crazy… Btw, how does this work for top-to-bottom languages?

I worked in a startup that was expanding to the US. For that purpose we hired two sales people with really good connections to the largest potential customer company in the US.

We had this product on our price list. It was a small and relatively inexpensive product (in the order of a few €100, while most of our other products had four to six figure prices). This product was stuck in development hell. We had a half-functioning prototype with the wrong chip in there, and it would need a full rework. It was a terrible product and far from usable.

So that new sales guy calls up my boss, the CEO, who’s a notorious lier and proud of that fact and asks him if that device is ready to be sold. The sales guy says they don’t have any customers asking for this and it’s totally ok if it’s not ready to be sold, he just wants to know whether it’s ready.

With no need and no pressure at all, the CEO says “Oh, it’s completely finished. You can sell that with no issues at all.”

The sales guy believes it, and tries to sell this to that one biggest potential customer. The customer likes the idea and asks for a demo. Of course, we cannot provide one.

That was it. That customer blacklisted us and never bought anything at all from us. It burned the two sales people, they never managed to get any of our products sold in worthwhile quantities and a year later we shut down the US division.

Easy solution: Add a large margin for uncertainty.

Seriously… Some people…

Contrarian’s gotta contraire. Get lost kiddo.

Oh great, a contrarian. “Every time someone replies to me, it necessarily must be an attack that I need to squash with full force.”

An awesome character trait.

The original point you were answering to was: A coin has 3 sides, because there are 3 potential areas where a coin can land.

Your point was: Only that it can land on an area doesn’t mean that that point is a side (as in a side that counts as a result).

I said: Yes, even on a die there are areas where the die can stand that are not counted as sides.

Now the question to you, mister contrarian: How was that a flaw to your argument? Please tell me, how a thinking human being that can read can seriously interpret that as me pointing out a flaw to your argument?

I hate small ego contrarians who feel the need to constantly find attacks from all sides and if they don’t find them, they make them up.

It’s the online equivalent of a teenager going “What are you looking at?”

And I was argueing in your favour and you downvoted me for it.

This is correct. It’s a d4 that’s just as cleanly a d4 as a regular d4 with rounded corners. Both have parts that don’t belong to the sides, since there’s no defined outcome where the dice comes to rest on one of the rounded non-side parts.

A die can land and stand on a corner if you do it precisely enough.

Yeah, they could just as easily pivot to “Well, sure, autism was around before that, but it didn’t happen nearly as often.”

In fact, that was their actual argument. This is what Trump said:

First, effective immediately, the FDA will be notifying physicians that the use of, well, let’s see how we say that. Acetaminophen. Acetaminophen. Is that okay? Which is basically, commonly known as Tylenol. Can be associated with a very increased risk of autism. So taking Tylenol is not good. I’ll say it, it’s not good.

Within the rest of the rest of the speech you can clearly see where Trump goes off script and does his regular monkey-in-a-suit act, and he says stupid shit as always, but that up there is the core claim: “Can be associated with a very increased level of autism.”

That’s a claim that’s totally not affected by the “but autism existed before Tylenol” argument.

The whole argument is a strawman, nothing else. And that’s really infuriating because there are ample real arguments for this point. It’s not hard to argue that Tylenol has no link to Autism. But making up a strawman argument and butchering to even tear that strawman down is ridiculous.

Edit: It makes me think that this meme wasn’t actually created by anyone who is against Trump. It feels so incredibly dumb and easy to disprove that it probably was created by a magat to make fun of everyone who doesn’t worship Trump.

People died already 10 000 years ago.

The Ford Model T was released in 1908.

Anyone trying to tell you that being run over by a car kills people is entirely full of crap.

There’s real arguments that can be used. No need to publish weak crap that’s easily refuted.

Adding to that what @Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works said: “links to” doesn’t mean “is exclusively caused by”.

That gotcha would only work if that was the claim.

So the argument reads a little like “People died before the Ford Model T entered the market, so obviously deaths aren’t caused by cars running over pedestrians.”

Adding to that: “links to” doesn’t mean “is exclusively caused by”.

That gotcha would only work if that was the claim.

So the argument reads a little like “People died before the Ford Model T entered the market, so obviously deaths aren’t caused by cars running over pedestrians.”

Am I doing this right?

I guess we can.

@meowmeowbeanz@sopuli.xyz is totally right. The meme is based on a wrong premise.

It claims that Autism was a known thing in 1911 (true), and that Tylenol was created in 1955 (misleading since the active ingredient, Paracetamol was created in 1878 and was in wide use before the brand Tylenol was created). Then it implies that the argument is that Tylenol is the only cause of Autism and then poses that as a contradiction.

Logically, that’s like claiming that some People died in 1700, and that the Ford Model T was only created in 1908 and then claiming that thus it’s nonsense that cars can kill people.

On the one hand it ignores that the active ingredient of the medication was in use far earlier than that one random brand showing up, and on the other hand it claims that the argument with Tylenol and Autism is that every single case of Autism happens due to Tylenol, which pretty much nobody is claiming.

So the meme is just wrong on many levels.

So instead of making up and disproving a lie, why not use actual science? There’s overwhelming scientific evidence that Paracetamol has no effect on Autism.

One might say that this doesn’t really sway those who choose to ignore science in favour of their own gut feelings, but on the other hand, does a fallacious lie sway them?

How on earth is that a thing? Do Americans just read the first two letters of a name and then give up?

I mean, as an Austrian I get the confusion between Austria and AustrALia (emphasis added so that Americans can also see it), but SwEDEN vs SwISS is just wild.