654
Apple has seemingly found a way to block Android’s new iMessage app
(www.theverge.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2023
654 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
59017 readers
2705 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Do you mean US American teenagers, or North American teenagers, or who exactly? Surely that can't be global?
That stat came from an article that made the rounds a few weeks ago that cited a phone survey of 1000 or so kids in one small part of the US. Small, poorly controlled sample size, so bad data.
It isn't. As far as I know, iMessage is irrelevant in Europe.
At least here in Germany whattsapp is the standard. Apple has a phone market share if ~30%. In other countries the Facebook messenger is also quite important afaik.
But apple somehow managed to have pretty much all schools forcing their students to get an IPad. So the apple market share is increasing. I can not tell you how furious that makes me. Every parent has to buy one (or several) of those, so their children can use the most basic teaching apps, that any 100€ tablet could easily run. Poor children get an IPad on tax payers money, so I basically pay for my own children's IPads and then a part of my tax money also flows to apple. I just wonder who (except Apple) got rich on that deal... I fxxxing hate politicians.
Telegram is the standard in Eastern Europe
Yeah, lemme edit it. USAian kids
The correct term for that is American by the way, not USAian.
Chile citizens are called Chileans.
The point you’re trying to make is correct on a technical level, not a functional one. Unfortunately we can’t will languages into behaving in ways we think is ideal simply by making pointless assertions in obscure forums.
Yeah, I mean I totally get the annoyance of American being overloaded for both US person and of the American continents, but USAian ain't the solution lol that kind of sucks (hard to say, no history to it, etc)
Give me a term less ambiguous than "American" and I might use it.
American is pretty unambiguous. What are you getting it mixed up with? No one else uses it. If you hear American, do you have to run through a list of other countries asking them which they are from? Of not, it's unambiguous.
You could argue that it shouldn't be the pronoun for a US citizen, but that's a different argument than it being ambiguous.
Whatever adjective makes you feel better: appropriate, apt, fitting, correct, modest, less expansive, less assuming, less imperious, less opulent, less grandiose, less egocentric, less narcissistic
No thanks. The USA doesn't represent all of North and South America.
I never said it does. I just said it's the correct word. It's not confusing or ambiguous. Only one country uses it. It also does represent multiple states in the americas, hence the name.
If that's the correct word to you, fine, use it. I won't. Just because one country assumes it can be eponymous with not just one, but two entire continents, doesn't make it right, nor do I have to agree with it.
And I guess South African should be something else, because there are other states in southern Africa? Language doesn't really care about being "correct" with terms. It cares about being understandable. No one knows what USAian is. Everyone knows what American is. There isn't really any debate anywhere around what to call people from the United States of America, even among other American nations.
You are correct, it should be something else. To agree on what is pretty difficult though. Azania has been suggested, but there are 12 official languages that probably have their own terms. I won't even attempt to guess how many different tribes were brutally merged into one country by imperialists when they drew the borders to call it South Africa. It wouldn't surprise me if they did rename themselves someday.
Even India doesn't want to be called India. There's a growing movement for it to be called Bharat.
Funny that, I didn't have to explain to anyone what it is because the immediate reaction by people like you was "that's not how you say 'American' ".
You could have called them anything and I would have known what you were talking about because of the context. The same context you used to guess "USAian" was available to everyone else.
So it was context alone, was it? Using the acronym USA in an adjective referring to something from the USA didn't clue you in at all. Just the context. Without it your reasoning would've completely led you astray and the sentence would've become unquestionably incomprehensible.