According to Wikipedia, the Chicago metropolitan area has a population of about 10 million people, far less than Poland’s 38 million, which makes your claim completely impossible from the start. In fact, according to other articles, it seems that there are about 185 000 people of Polish descent living in Chicago (less than half a percent of the population of Poland), and a bit less than 10 million in the entire US (which is significant compared to the population of Poland, but still “only” about a quarter). And this article claims that there are “roughly 20 000 000 people of Polish ancestry living outside Poland” [in total], which is still less than the population of Poland.

Germany for example adds up to 101% though, that would be impossible if they had truncated. Most likely they simply did round to full percent.

To be fair, those forklifts can be quite dangerous. Just ask Klaus.

I’m curious, is there an advantage of running a script over an add-on? Like is it faster or takes less resources? Or did you just happen to code it like that? Not complaining though, it’s been working great for me so far.

Developer of RedReader also said they want to eventually support Lemmy and perhaps tildes and hacker news, even though RedReader got an exemption from the api fees for now. But as a “long-term vision”, so probably not immediately.

Thanks! Tbh I don’t care much about the first reason. I’ve been planning to eventually get around to watch at least ENT and some of the newer shows, so I probably won’t be finishing with DS9 regardless. So far I’ve been following more or less the “start with TNG” ordering in the OP, and am now in season 3 of DS9. Do you think it would still be a gain to start VOY or am I already through the looking glass, i.e. does the latter add more to the earler seasons? If it’s mostly about the world building and not the story I might give a rough version of the “chronological viewing order” a try and see if I enjoy it.

Can you give a (spoiler free if possible) reason for why you would recommend watching VOY before DS9 instead of the other way around? I assumed that VOY might contain spoilers for DS9 since it aired later.

To my knowledge, neither the USSR nor the PRC ever claimed to actually have achieved communism (hence why the USSR has “socialist” in its name, not “communist”), but they were governed by “communist” parties in the sense that they were following in the tradition of Marx and Lenin and at least claimed to want to achieve communism at some point. Of course, the USSR no longer exists, and the PRC has undergone a series of economic reforms since the 1970s, after the death of Mao. They now claim to follow something they call “Socialism with Chinese characteristics”, but as far as I can tell it seems very similar to something I would call “capitalism in an authoritarian one-party state and a bunch of blabla about how it technically doesn’t contradict Marx”, but ymmv. So imo the CCP is now only called “communist” for historical reasons, and in that sense I see it as similar to the case of North Korea, but they might still have some theorists who would disagree with that assessment. And in the West in particular many people just mix up terms like “socialist” and “communist” anyway, and also often don’t realize that the economic systems of Russia and China have changed a lot since the end of the cold war (or Mao’s death).

sidebery (best tree tabs I can find)

I was looking for something like that, thanks! I also followed these instructions to hide the native tab bar.

https://startrek.website/u/M_5/view/Posts/sort/New/page/1 for those looking for the links.

Isn’t “have” either an auxiliary verb or verb and “of” a preposition?

Yes.

Are these acceptable? If yes, why? If not, why not?

No, because you constructed them by merely replacing the verb “have” by the preposition “of” in situations which have nothing to do with “of” after “should”/“would”/“could”. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make, since neither I nor the people I cited ever claimed that this should work in the first place. The claim of in particular the author of the first paper I cited is that for some speakers there seems to be a novel construction modal verb + “of” + past participle, not that the preposition “of” has the same function as “have” in this case or in any other (in this case, the novel construction as a whole would have more or less, but not entirely the same function as modal verb + “have” + past participle, but “of” would still be just a preposition).

I don’t know man, Oxford Dictionary (click Grammar Point to expand) says that […] it is definitely considered wrong in standard English.

Yes, it certainly is considered wrong in standard English, but the interesting thing is that in some non-standard dialects there might be genuinely a novel grammatical construction which actually uses the preposition “of”. I mean, you don’t need to find that interesting, but I do. And if that is indeed the case, it would mean that the speakers of those dialects are not making a purely orthographic mistake like when people confuse “they’re” and “their”, for example, but are rather speaking or typing in their dialect.

the reason “in some dialects of English native speakers really do say ‘should of’ etc” is phonetics.

What the author of the first link claims (and the second link explains in a more accessible way), is that it’s not just that for everyone. Like some native speakers really do say “of” sometimes, even when it’s stressed and doesn’t sound like “'ve” at all. So for them it wouldn’t just be a spelling mistake, but a different grammatical construction.

last I checked it was never added to the dictionary

Some dictionaries (e.g. Merriam-Webster) actually do list “of” as an alternate spelling of “have” (not in the sense of a genuinely different grammatical construction though).
Obviously it’s not considered standard by anyone, which is also why teachers call it incorrect, who (should) teach the standard dialects.

Language of course is living and ever changing, but the line must be drawn somewhere lest we devolve into shouting and grunts like neanderthals

Language changes whether you and I like it or not, and efforts to stop that from happening are generally unsuccessful. You can also rest assured that a simple change in what is considered correct grammar or spelling (which, as far as I know, nobody has been suggesting in this case so far, but it seems like that would be the “worst-case” scenario from your perspective) would not lead to us or language “devolving”. Also, while we don’t know anything precise about how Neanderthals spoke, most likely they sounded more or less like us and did not communicate by “shouting and grunts”.

Just read the second (or the first, but that is more technical) link I shared. Some native speakers do in fact seem to say “should of” even when the “of” is stressed, so in their dialect it would be grammatical.

That’s not how linguistics works though. If people (native speakers) speak like that, it’s “correct” or normal for their dialect. This doesn’t mean it’s “correct” in whatever is considered the “standard” dialect of the language (for English, there isn’t one single standard, but de facto there are standard dialects in the English speaking countries which are taught in school and typically used in the news, newspapers etc.). But from a linguistic perspective, both “I have seen it.” and “I seen it.” are equally “correct” (linguists typically don’t use that term in this context, rather something like “grammatical”), they just represent different dialects of English.

As far as I know this is pretty normal in (some?) Southern American dialects, i.e. it’s not wrong, just dialectal.

While it is true that “should of” etc. can easily originate from a confusion between “‘ve’” and unstressed “of”, which sound identical, the statement

“Should of” is incorrect

itself is at least a bit misleading and prescriptivist in its generality.

Interestingly, there seem to be at least some native English speakers who genuinely do say “should of” (with a stressed “of”) sometimes. This paper for example argues that people who say “should of” really do use a grammatical construction of the form modal verb + of + past participle. One argument the author mentions is that this would also explain the words “woulda”, “coulda” and “shoulda”, since “of”->“a” is quite common in general (e.g. “kind of” -> “kinda”), but “'ve”->“a” basically doesn’t occur elsewhere (e.g. no one says “I’a” or “you’a” instead of “I’ve” or “you’ve”). Another is that the reverse mistake, i.e. using “‘ve’” in place of “of” (e.g. “kind’ve”), is much rarer, which is a clear difference to e.g. the situation with “they’re”/“their”/“there”, where people use these words in place of the others in all combinations frequently. I recommend this blog article for a much longer discussion.

Also, whether genuine mistake (which it almost certainly is in many cases, although probably not all) or different grammatical construction, YSK that “should of” etc. didn’t just become popular recently, but have been used for centuries. E.g. John Keats wrote in a letter in 1814: “Had I known of your illness I should not of written in such fiery phrase in my first Letter.”. Many more examples (some older as well) can be found e.g. here or here.

TL;DR: While in many cases “should of” etc. can well be a mistake, originating from the fact that it sounds identical to “should’ve” when unstressed, there is some interesting linguistic evidence that at least in some dialects of English native speakers really do say “should of” etc. (i.e. in those cases it is not a mistake, merely non-standard/dialectal).

It’s not entirely the same though. Some of the “tankies” in the West seem to be Maoists more than Stalinists, as far as I can tell. Besides, some (many?) Stalinists also consider the term “Stalinist” derogatory, and prefer to call themselves “Marxist-Leninists”.