Recent comments in /f/todayilearned

Mnemonics19 t1_j9q7ft3 wrote

Written words and spelling were not standardized until more recently (I don't remember when exactly, but it's definitely post 17th century). I've read texts from the 16-17th centuries that spell the same word differently in the same sentence. (Wrote my undergrad thesis on midwifery in the 17th century and had to read a lot of hand written text along with actual printed texts.)

It's really shocking how quickly you pick up on reading text from history, and how quickly the spellings just become normal to "translate."

26

1CEninja t1_j9q78a0 wrote

Yeah one way you can think about it is somewhere in the ballpark of an hour of minimum wage work per week (probably less since I think minimum wages in purchasing power were stronger back then), and substantially less than that for a working professional.

5

Pogo152 t1_j9q6flj wrote

The article linked doesn’t confirm that the bowl is the earliest mention of Jesus Christ. According to the article, it’s just as if not more probable that the bowl predates Jesus Christ. Even if it doesn’t, there isn’t much reason to think that the “Christ” mentioned is Jesus Christ. “Christ” wasn’t Jesus’s last name or something, it’s the Greek word for messiah, a title that could be used for lots of religious or mythological figures before the dominance of Christianity.

2

phistomefel_smeik t1_j9q5kaj wrote

Language evolves and this text is 500 years old! As a german speaking historian I find it interesting how easy this short passage was to read. Written german texts from that period are way harder to decipher imo. Middle high german honestly feels like a different language or at least a strong dialect. And sometimes you think that something sounds like a modern german word but then it turns out to mean something completely different.

17

educofu t1_j9q4zyr wrote

Bad article.

"The lens created was able to change its focal length depending on the signals generated." That's all, the rest is AI generated bullshit and ads.

Found this bit from elsewhere:

"The lens is made from polymers that expand when electric current is applied. It is controlled using five electrodes surrounding the eye which act like muscles. When the polymer becomes more convex the lens effectively zooms in"

118

spleenboggler t1_j9q487j wrote

Absolutely, considering that what worked as a rhymed couplet then, and doesn't work now, is a key clue in untangling how the pronunciations of words have changed over time.

38

physedka t1_j9q3wgi wrote

For anyone that might be interested in visiting the spot where they got gunned down, don't bother. I'm from that area, and I have taken folks there before. It's nothing more than an old, worn down, hard to read marker on the side of a country road in the middle of nowhere. There is a museum in the nearby small town (Gibsland), but there's not enough stuff in there to be worth free admission, let alone the few bucks that they charge.

26

Positive_Try_5699 t1_j9q3pv2 wrote

Tbf didn't lighting suck then? Surely "dimly lit" was just their default? It's not just that they couldn't see in that lighting, but maybe they couldn't envision a world in which you could see with clarity, and so their mind never even went to the possibility of manoeuvres obscured by lack of vision.

I think a modern equivalent (maybe slightly too literal) would be if future generations had hyper-fluorescent lighting that illuminated every single speck and shadow beyond modern capabilities. There are lots of magic / party tricks we're still vaguely fooled by today that wouldn't be able to withstand that scrutiny. They wouldn't impress a 5 year old from the future even if the lights were turned off etc – the 5 year old would have the ability to envision simple visual possibilities in their mind that us adults today can't

10