I'm surprised it's still being used (and a mod fixed the link now), but if you're curious, here's the discussion on 9m.no from 15 months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7783239 :)
It's acceptable (or at least “not wrong”) to use “aa” for å (and “oe” for ø/ö, “ae” for æ/ä).
While ‘å’ was made an official letter in Norwegian in 1917, it's still common to see “aa” spellings of names, and “aa” and “å” spellings are considered equivalent (fun when sorting, since ‘å’ is the last letter of the Norwegian alphabet).
As someone with "ø" in my name I have long since accepted that much of the world is not able to spell my name correctly and moved on. There is no point in investing emotional capital in things that won't be fixed for years to come. I'm perfectly fine with "ø", "oe", "ö", and "o".
The first time I was credited in the foreword of a book published in the US my name was spelled with "\x" instead of "ø".
And it could have been worse. I could have been asian or persian. In which case my name would most likely have many westernized representations.
I guess you're right about their use in words in general. I'm not sure you're right about their use in names in particular.
Firstly, people and places are still named with "aa" rather than "å". They aren't simply spelled alternatively depending on the mood or the keyboard of the writer. So it seems that, since they deliberately choose one over the other, they care whether it is spelled in a certain way.
Secondly, we make a distinction between whether someone is named "Christian" or "Kristian", for example. According to your logic, it wouldn't matter since there is no difference except spelling between these two names. But it does.
Do you have any authoritive source (linguistic, or etiquette) that says that such names can be spelled however the writer feels like?
I simply tried (and failed, it seems) to say that they are generally considered to be equivalent, and that it's okay to use “aa” when translating a name with “å”. Reasons for this could be not knowing how to write an ‘å’ (or Ł, đ, ç, ì, etc.) or simply not wanting to distract one's readers. I do not have an authoritative source.
> I simply tried (and failed, it seems) to say that they are generally considered to be equivalent,
Do you think I have a hard time understanding that the intent in this case is to use "aa" as a substitute for "å"? Let me put your mind at ease: I get, and got, that intent. I am not so inexperienced with reading or writing foreign words that I haven't noticed that one sometimes takes some liberties with spelling words using one's own characters, as long as the meaning is clear. My concern is more about whether it is proper to do that with names. Specifically, Norwegian names.
What I choose to do when I can't input some name because of foreign characters is to copy paste it when I need it. That might be tedious, but at least it doesn't require any sophistication.
>My concern is more about whether it is proper to do that with names. Specifically, Norwegian names.
Yes. This is common all over the place. Nobody really cares.
Source: I'm Norwegian.
EDIT:
>Secondly, we make a distinction between whether someone is named "Christian" or "Kristian", for example. According to your logic, it wouldn't matter since there is no difference except spelling between these two names. But it does.
Well, thats a strawman as i read it. You can't compare "normal" names and names with special letters in them. It does not really make sense. Some systems, that does not use Unicode as an example, would have no problems with "Kristian", but "Knausgård" might bring problems. Thus you write "Knausgaard". This also applies to street names, town and other words.
As i said, this is quite common in Norway. Nobody really minds it at all.
> Yes. This is common all over the place. Nobody really cares.
> Source: I'm Norwegian.
As you've probably guessed, as am I. So then we have two apparent Norwegians (me and uer haakon) who cares. So maybe "somebody cares", after all? :)
> Well, thats a strawman as i read it. You can't compare "normal" names and names with special letters in them. It does not really make sense.
Right, normal with scare quotes. What is that supposed to mean? So then, "Ch" is not "special" compared to "å" simply because of some technical limitation? Because "å" is somewhat distinct to the Scandinavian languages? Why is "Christian" and "Kristian" normal, distinct names, while the use of "aa" does not produce distinct names? In fact, as you can see in this thread, some people name their child "Håkon", others name them "Haakon". "aa" is not simply something you throw in as a replacement for "å" in names.
This is a Danish example, but so be it: Many Danish places have gone over to using "aa" instead of "å". So this was a deliberate decision, not simply "we just spell it however we want". They had to make a decision. In constrast, Språkrådet[1] of Norway does apparently not want to do the same for places like "Ålesund", for example. So at least as far as Språkrådet is concerned, the use of "å" or "aa" in names does matter and they consider them to be distinct "characters". Not simply shallow pseudo-typographical conventions.
"Ch" is not really a (compound) character in the Norwegian language, as in Norwegian words (outside of, perhaps, loan words). And yet, we respect people's names enough to call people who are "Christian" as "Christian"; not "Kristian". Did people who named their child "Christian" miss the "k" letter on their keyboard? Most likely not. Yet they chose that spelling, and we respect that.
Interesting, in Denmark, å/aa are generally interchangeable in placenames. Some people have strong preferences, but the preferences aren't uniform. Aarhus/Århus for example can be spelled either way; even the municipal government has switched back and forth about which one it recommends (it switched to Århus in 1948, and back to Aarhus in 2011).
With personal names, I've usually gone by what the person themselves does when they write in English. It's quite common for people to use a different spelling in their "English" professional life. Sometimes this is å->aa, other times it is even just å->a. In this case, Knausgård appears to spell his own name as Knausgaard when writing in English, so it doesn't seem disrespectful to me if people writing about him in English spell his name the same way he has it printed on the cover of his own English-edition books.
This is just stupid. If you start reading English language texts and sites a bit more you will find it is common for them to substitute our Nordic characters with various combinations depending on what style they have chosen to follow.
Usage is authority. Write the way you feel it should be written, read with the intent of comprehension, nothing more. Relax and move on to more worthwhile causes.
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
An iOS device will only connect to known networks. By enabling “Ask to Join Networks” it will list networks and ask if you want to join any of them – but only if no known network is in range. This is actually less safe, in that you're just a button press away from “accessing random open networks” instead of having to go into the settings and choose a network – so it makes sense to have it default to off.
tl;rl: iOS will only join known networks – toggling this setting will make it easier to join networks when no known networks are in range.
I just checked and on my android phone and you're right, I switched the 'notify me when wifi is available' setting off so that I have to select networks manually. I read the previous comment as meaning that iOS would join open networks if that option wasn't enabled. Du'oh.
If a device will "only connect to known networks", that means that it sends out an ARP request. In a nutshell, the phone shouts wirelessly «HEY! IS BILL WI THE SCIENCE FI AROUND?»
You can very easily set up a system that will respond to every single ARP request and then 'broadcast' that SSID.
If you broadcast the SSID, with no password, and the device sees it, then it will connect to this 'known' network.
> If a device will "only connect to known networks", that means that it sends out an ARP request.
You seem to have confused IP address resolution with wi-fi access point discovery. ARP requests don't happen until after a device is associated with a wi-fi access point.
It is possible to arrange for a device to scan for wi-fi networks passively, so the device will not be detected until it actually discovers and attempts to connect to a particular network.
… and advice/advise and prophecy/prophesy. For some reason, only the latter has kept the difference in spelling between the noun and the verb in American English.
> The advantage of this approach would be allowing function overloading (similarly to C++ or Java) informally without interfaces or type classes.
I might be misunderstanding something, but how does this allow function overloading more than ordinary let-polymorphism? Functions can already have a type like, say, ∀a.a→Int. It's also quite common to do type inference in two steps where the first pass creates type variables and a list of constraints. The set of constraints are then passed to a unification algorithm, see e.g. http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~cis552/lectures/stub/FunTypes.htm....
In a classic Hindley-Milner type inference algorithm, you can't have a function "add(int, int) -> int" and "add(float, float) -> float". E.g. in Haskell, you'd need a type class for this.
Modern functional programming languages use a type inference algorithm more sophisticated than the original H-M algorithm which are more flexible than the original algorithm. The link you gave as an example is Haskell with a handful of language extensions related to the type checker - something entirely different to the H-M algorithm.
There can be other ways of implementing a similar type checker in a different manner, this was just a fun idea I came up with.
> Another SINTEF-originated project is the radio technology behind GSM (Global System for Mobile Communications). Digital GSM (or 2G), replaced the old 1G analogue networks.
> In February 1987, eight systems from five different countries – Germany, France, Sweden, Finland and Norway – were in the running for creating the new standard. Some competitors were backed by major companies, such as Bosch, Philips, Mobira (Nokia) and Ericsson. Eight cars were outfitted with equipment from each candidate system.*
> The systems would be driven around Paris and the system’s transmission capacity and ability to continuously correct errors would be measured in the city’s narrow, windy streets. The system that transmitted the most data with the fewest errors would win. At first, the international press did not think the Norwegian GSM contribution was likely to win. In September 1986, the journal Communications Systems Worldwide wrote:“Since ELAB is attached to a Technical institute and has no manufacturing capability, it would appear to have little chance of success.” However, when the test was finished, the conclusion was clear: The Norwegian system was best.
> All that was left was for a little known University based outfit from Norway to trundle around Paris with their lash-up of a narrow band TDMA system. The large industries hardly gave it a second thought. Then even bigger shock waves of seismic proportions emanated out of Paris. The Norwegian lash-up of a narrow band TDMA system from Trondheim University had outperformed the SEL wide band system from a star studded industrial consortium.
