Ease of pronunciation depends on how similar the sounds are between ones native language and the language one is trying to learn. For a native English speaker, Japanese has much more in common sound-wise with English than Korean does, so it would be easier for the English speaker to distinguish the important sounds of the language.
Another commenter mentioned with more exposure it becomes easier to pronounce the language, which is true for any language, but if your question is about ease of pronunciation, then the language that requires less exposure to get would be the one that's easier, and I think that's Japanese.
This isn't really a direct answer to the question, so I apologize for that. I hope it helps your understanding, though...
German and English aren't mutually intelligible, reading or listening-wise. Neither are French and English. English gets a large portion of its vocabulary from French and Latin, and French also gets a large amount of its vocabulary from Latin. This means that someone who can read English can likely recognize many of the words in written French, but not really enough to understand it.
For German, English shares a lot of vocabulary, as well, but what makes these languages "closely related" is that they are both in the "Germanic Language Family". They have a recent common linguistic ancestor. Essentially, while English and German may not have a large vocabulary overlap, sentence structure and grammar are similar and historically indicate a recent common language that they both diverged from. An English speaker can possibly understand written German, but it takes a lot of effort and understanding of the changes that occurred in the two languages as they diverged from each other.
Last thing I'll say is that the vocabulary that English barrowed from French and Latin (which makes up the majority of English vocabulary) isn't evenly distributed among "genres" or frequency of use. More "fancy" words are likely French or Latin in origin (think science terms and other jargon), while common words are mostly Germanic in origin (think words like "and", "the", pronouns, etc.)
I would maybe argue that, when it comes to debt, sure inflation might be good, but only if inflation is higher than the interest rate. This is because the amount owed (initial plus interest) is decreasing in value due to inflation. However, if one doesn't have debt (besides national debt, I suppose), then this argument is moot.
Devaluing a currency over time incentivizes it to be spent, which could be argued is a good thing, but there's a problem. Human necessities exist on a market, so the money has to be spent, anyway, on things like food and housing. Devaluing currency faster than one can save it (inflation is greater than the interest rate given by banks) only serves to make it harder to make large purchases. One can buy their necessities, but struggles to save for a house because money not spent on necessities loses value too fast to be saved for a down payment. Pair this with wage stagnation, and we see that the difference between net income and necessities can become negative: income is no longer enough for necessities, and saving is impossible.
Typst is wonderful. I've been using it for a long time. The lack of packages (as compared to latex) hasn't been problematic for me. It's mostly due to how new it is. This novelty is the reason for many of the downsides listed in the article, and can be remedied by wider adoption, and more development time.
This is a great question! You're basically correct, but there are a few additional things. As far as the relationship between workers/consumers and the means of production is that of social ownership. Rather than an individual (or individuals) privately owning the means of production and purchasing labor from workers, the workers, consumers, and society as a whole collectively own and operate the means of production.
Additionally, the economic system is not a market system. Instead, investments, production, and allocation of capital goods (resources/products which are used either as ingredients for another product or as machinery/tools to produce another product) are planned, and not left up to "market forces".
There are some aspects which are debated among communist philosophers. One major aspect is whether the economic planning would/should be centrally or decentrally done. The USSR had a primarily centrally planned economy. Others (myself included) advocate for a decentrally planned system.
Some things, which are usually stated, as being part of communism, are that society is moneyless, stateless, and classless. Starting with moneyless, if goods are exchanged on a market, an intermediate good is usually used specifically for exchange purposes (currency/money). If goods are not exchanged on a market, money is less necessary, so it is expected to be phased out.
Many philosophers say that the state's purpose is to "ease" tensions between classes, and enforce economic policies. If there are no classes, and goods and services are "produced based on ability, and distributed based on need", the primary purposes of the state no longer exist, so it would likely "whither away". Anarchists generally argue for an immediate dissolution of the state.
The keen eyed, among you readers, might wonder how the planning could be done without a state, especially if the planning is central. I would be interested in the answer to that, myself. There are a few books talking about a post-capitalist system. I recommend No Bosses and Inventing the Future.
Ease of pronunciation depends on how similar the sounds are between ones native language and the language one is trying to learn. For a native English speaker, Japanese has much more in common sound-wise with English than Korean does, so it would be easier for the English speaker to distinguish the important sounds of the language.
Another commenter mentioned with more exposure it becomes easier to pronounce the language, which is true for any language, but if your question is about ease of pronunciation, then the language that requires less exposure to get would be the one that's easier, and I think that's Japanese.
This isn't really a direct answer to the question, so I apologize for that. I hope it helps your understanding, though...
German and English aren't mutually intelligible, reading or listening-wise. Neither are French and English. English gets a large portion of its vocabulary from French and Latin, and French also gets a large amount of its vocabulary from Latin. This means that someone who can read English can likely recognize many of the words in written French, but not really enough to understand it.
For German, English shares a lot of vocabulary, as well, but what makes these languages "closely related" is that they are both in the "Germanic Language Family". They have a recent common linguistic ancestor. Essentially, while English and German may not have a large vocabulary overlap, sentence structure and grammar are similar and historically indicate a recent common language that they both diverged from. An English speaker can possibly understand written German, but it takes a lot of effort and understanding of the changes that occurred in the two languages as they diverged from each other.
Last thing I'll say is that the vocabulary that English barrowed from French and Latin (which makes up the majority of English vocabulary) isn't evenly distributed among "genres" or frequency of use. More "fancy" words are likely French or Latin in origin (think science terms and other jargon), while common words are mostly Germanic in origin (think words like "and", "the", pronouns, etc.)
I'm rooting for her
Ooooh okay lol
I don't understand...
Only fascists support fascists. Since she has made her support for Trump clear, she's a fascist.
Neither of the fucking fascists deserve it. The fact that one of them got it discredits the institution.
I'm trying, but it's just so thicc! 😭
I'm working on it, it's just so thicc! 😭
He also arguably wasn't a good capitalist.
The fourth is called absolution! Sounds like you got some more reading to do!
Actually it's not a trilogy. There are currently four books, with a fifth one on the way (apparently).
Genuine question, here. Why do racists get their power from capitalism? Are there suggested readings on the topic?
Capitalism
I think this is talking about the UK, not the US.
Woah woah woah. Slow down, there. You weren't selected to lead, just to join. You gotta work your way up!
I would maybe argue that, when it comes to debt, sure inflation might be good, but only if inflation is higher than the interest rate. This is because the amount owed (initial plus interest) is decreasing in value due to inflation. However, if one doesn't have debt (besides national debt, I suppose), then this argument is moot.
Devaluing a currency over time incentivizes it to be spent, which could be argued is a good thing, but there's a problem. Human necessities exist on a market, so the money has to be spent, anyway, on things like food and housing. Devaluing currency faster than one can save it (inflation is greater than the interest rate given by banks) only serves to make it harder to make large purchases. One can buy their necessities, but struggles to save for a house because money not spent on necessities loses value too fast to be saved for a down payment. Pair this with wage stagnation, and we see that the difference between net income and necessities can become negative: income is no longer enough for necessities, and saving is impossible.
Typst is wonderful. I've been using it for a long time. The lack of packages (as compared to latex) hasn't been problematic for me. It's mostly due to how new it is. This novelty is the reason for many of the downsides listed in the article, and can be remedied by wider adoption, and more development time.
This is a great question! You're basically correct, but there are a few additional things. As far as the relationship between workers/consumers and the means of production is that of social ownership. Rather than an individual (or individuals) privately owning the means of production and purchasing labor from workers, the workers, consumers, and society as a whole collectively own and operate the means of production.
Additionally, the economic system is not a market system. Instead, investments, production, and allocation of capital goods (resources/products which are used either as ingredients for another product or as machinery/tools to produce another product) are planned, and not left up to "market forces".
There are some aspects which are debated among communist philosophers. One major aspect is whether the economic planning would/should be centrally or decentrally done. The USSR had a primarily centrally planned economy. Others (myself included) advocate for a decentrally planned system.
Some things, which are usually stated, as being part of communism, are that society is moneyless, stateless, and classless. Starting with moneyless, if goods are exchanged on a market, an intermediate good is usually used specifically for exchange purposes (currency/money). If goods are not exchanged on a market, money is less necessary, so it is expected to be phased out.
Many philosophers say that the state's purpose is to "ease" tensions between classes, and enforce economic policies. If there are no classes, and goods and services are "produced based on ability, and distributed based on need", the primary purposes of the state no longer exist, so it would likely "whither away". Anarchists generally argue for an immediate dissolution of the state.
The keen eyed, among you readers, might wonder how the planning could be done without a state, especially if the planning is central. I would be interested in the answer to that, myself. There are a few books talking about a post-capitalist system. I recommend No Bosses and Inventing the Future.
Hope this helps!