The other comments have covered a lot of the background and variances throughout the world. But what I’ll add is that few countries are purely in one camp or the other. To use the USA as an example, criminal cases are adversarial, in the sense that the defense attorney will duke it out with the government’s attorney whether someone goes to prison.

For civil cases like a contract dispute, the procedure is closer to an inquisition system, although with the judge still merely presiding over the process. But attorneys in a USA civil case can depose witnesses, much like how (I think) a European judge-led inquisition would call a witness, and similar to how British coroners conduct an inquest (if murder mystery depictions on the BBC are accurate).

Perhaps the full thrust of the inquisition style can be found in USA federal agencies, whose rulemaking capacity requires asking direct questions to subject matter experts in a public forum, one which eventually leads to a determination on some germane topic, often enacting secondary legislation at the same time. Americans might not necessarily call such an action as a “ruling”, but evidence was taken, all sides were heard, and even public comment was accepted, before rendering a decision.

That said, one could argue that such “Article III” rulemaking (eg FCC Commissioners) or judgements (eg Immigration Court) are distinct from the traditional judicial rulings from “Article I” courts (eg US Supreme Court). But that’s a Constitutional wrinkle for another discussion.

I am always deeply enthralled when math and comp-sci unite to yield an elegant result, where my definition of elegance is: efficient + minimal.

I mean, you’re still using a resource that was provisioned only for emergency use. The rough analogy is borrowing the exterior-mounted fire extinguisher of your apartment building to use it as a temporary paperweight, and then putting it back after two minutes.

Your use of it in this way might be benign, but if everyone is doing that, someone will eventually mess up and that resource won’t be there when it’s truly needed. Plus, what is the objective from calling your own elevator while you’re in it? Just yell lol

I don’t mean to sound boring, but while there’s a time and place for pranks and fun in an elevator, I personally think the emergency equipment is off-limits. Everything else is fair game, up to and including playing Doom on the LCD screen that modern elevators seem to have.

Could you explain more about what you observed? Many elevator phones have an inbound number, so that emergency responders can return a call, although it would be unlisted for obvious reasons. So far as I’m aware, the phone is akin to a normal phone line, rather than being a special line like a payphone. So if you did find the number, it may be possible to call it.

That said, I can’t endorse messing around with the emergency equipment in an elevator, even though it’s not actively in use. Enough prank calls might cause the property management to disconnect the line, making it unavailable when an actual emergency arises. And even though that would incur legal liability for the management, that would still mean someone who needed help couldn’t get help.

EDIT: And just to get ahead of anyone suggesting that calling the emergency phone is a way to test it, it really isn’t. A true test would be making an outbound call to the emergency dispatcher, and then asking them to verify the caller ID and return the call. Good property management should already be doing this regularly, in the same way as testing the fire alarms and checking extinguishers.

This is essentially a quick rundown of open-source software licensing. The notice is saying that the TikTok app uses some software that is owned by Facebook, but that Facebook has irrevocably licensed the software such that anyone (including you or TikTok) can use and distribute that software for free, provided they follow the few rules in the BSD 3-clause license, which has three clauses: 1) include these three clauses with any source code copy of Facebook’s software, 2) include these three clauses in the docs bundled with any compiled app that uses Facebook’s software, and 3) do not use Facebook’s name in a way that implies an endorsement or affiliation with Facebook.

TikTok can continue using that particular version of Facebook’s software until the heat death of the universe, and Facebook can never come back later and demand payment from TikTok or you or anyone for that software. But Facebook is still considered the owner, because they retain the right to relicense the software under different terms, perhaps with a license that doesn’t require including the copyright notice, for example. Likewise, Facebook has the right to sue to enforce the BSD 3-clause terms against anyone who isn’t abiding by those terms. But it looks like TikTok is abiding, since they posted the full BSD 3-clause terms, so Facebook can’t complain.

Note: Facebook could change the license for later versions of the software, but any versions prior would be unaffected. Integrating any software commercially always requires checking the license terms, and while open-source software has fairly standardized terms, diligence is still important and licenses do occasionally change.

Firstly, and it’s honestly a minor issue, I think your question will draw more answers if it had a title that at least mentions the crux of the question, that is “what is a western style room/home?”.

Anyway, answering the question, the distinction of a western-style room, home, hotel, bathroom, suit, or even envelopes is a description generally used only in contrast to the “global norms” that are Western-world designs. So far as I can tell, this isn’t (usually) rooted in any sort of bias against the non-Western world, but rather a helpful if coarse indicator about what things will look like.

To that end, classification as western style is mostly going to appear in places where that is not the norm or is not endemic to the given place. Japan is a good example as the island nation continues to have its own designs that remain popular, while having imported a great number of western ideas since the Meiji Restoration in the mid 1800s.

Whereas the distinction as western design isn’t very useful when all relevant design options already stem from western approaches. Take for example the slender and tall townhomes common in the Netherlands. If such a townhome were constructed in San Francisco, calling it a western design is terribly unhelpful, as a standard townhouse in San Francisco would already be of American (and thus western) design. Rather, that home would be described as “Dutch style”, to contrast against the standards found in SW America, which hews closely with standard American construction but with notable Spanish influence, such as tile roofs and verandas.

The distinction also doesn’t help when comparing forms that most wouldn’t even find comparable. So an alpine cabin (a cold weather, western design) is not comparable to an Alaskan Indigenous igloo despite both being a home or dwelling. There must be at least some similarity before drawing the destination of western or eastern or whatever design.

As you correctly observed, English is tricky and there aren’t too many hard rules with the language, which is aggravating for English learners but also highlights its flexibility, which is an important quality for the de facto language of science, aviation, international trade, etc. So to answer the question, I think there are multiple aspects which make a combined word more likely, including: 1) the constituent words are different parts-of-speech being combined into a new part-of-speech, 2) a contraction whose spelling happens to be very similar to an existing word but is still mostly unambiguous, and 3) how likely the combined word appears in colloquial or subject-matter specific speech and writing.

Even a combo word that meets all three of those points is not guaranteed to be universally accepted as a new word, but some combo words get accepted even if they don’t meet most of those points. Starting with your examples, “greenhouse” certainly meets point #1, since “green” is an adjective and “house” is a noun, which combined form the new noun “greenhouse”. “login” does the same, although it also meets point #2, since it’s a contraction of “log in” (v.), meaning to sign into a web service. The same goes for “work out” (v) and workout (n, an exercise program for each day of week).

I personally always write “log in” when I mean the verb, and “login” (n.) to refer to the credentials needed to sign in. But that’s my CS degree showing. As such, I’m of the opinion that “login” as a verb is a typo, since it’s the wrong part-of-speech (a noun when a verb is needed). Same goes for “alot” (IMO, a typo) and “allot” (v, to allocate). Whether such typos are permissible depends on the quality of the writing, as “takecare” and “ofcourse” would be unacceptable in a dissertation but perfectly fine for an IRC chatroom for die-hard fans of British cooking shows. But I think most people in the latter group, if asked, would probably agree that “ofcourse” is a typo. Basic English literacy means we’re not going to hapazardly throwawaythewhitespace andtryto pretendthatitdoesnt matter.

Finally, prevalence, which is considered by many linguists to be the ultimate test of neologisms: if people use it and it’s understood, then it’s a word. But that rule needs to be viewed from the lens of the intended audience. For example, years and years ago, I understood the legal term “housecar” in the California Vehicle Code to mean something akin to a family saloon car, meaning a car suitable for transporting a whole family or household. This would contrast with a pick-up trucks, sports cars, and commercial vehicles. But my naivete was to not look up the actual definition, and I just wrongly assumed that definition because it made sense for “house” and “car” to combine in that way. The real definition is a car that is also a house, meaning an RV or motorhome. That just goes to show that – since I’m not a lawyer – I was not the audience to gauge whether “housecar” is a valid combo word or not. Whereas California-based lawyers would have likely recognized the meaning in short order.

Basically, each combo word is unique in its circumstances, but perhaps those three points I mentioned have a lot (haha) to do with whether a combo word achieves universal adoption. “alot” does not seem to have met the full acceptance test.

Can you be more precise about what level of automation these trucks should have? Other forms of transport like trains and aircraft have automation, but it’s not full automation and they accept that limitation as the technology develops.

SAE has a classification system for automation of the driving task, but this wouldn’t necessarily include the task of loading and unloading cargo, nor the paperwork management for consignments, all of which are part of the commercial truck driving job.

Answering the question as written and without any particular comment on the example given, yes, it can be manipulative to respond to allegations with a counter that the allegations are slanderous, but it’s not always manipulative. Though it does highlight the gap between what someone says and what they mean.

Some folks will argue that the term “slander” has lost its original meaning but I still ascribe to the legal definition which says it’s a form of defamation. That is, a falsehood being perpetuated about someone, regarding something that can be proved one way or another. Without defining the term, no one could sensibly answer the question here.

So does this mean when person X asserts slander, they’re saying they have a potential lawsuit? Possibly, but that’s the rub: “slander” is now colloquial shorthand for “all those things they said about me are lies” rather than “I now have cause to sue”. It’s natural to refute unsavory descriptions about oneself, even in spite of attached evidence, so sometimes calling something as slanderous is a knee-jerk reaction, akin to saying “ow!” after stubbing one’s toe on the bed post.

But that’s the most charitable view. “Slander” can also be a rejection of the validity of the evidence, and that’s more a symptom of the “post-truth” era we’re currently in, where controversies are more newsworthy than the truth they purport to stand upon. In that sense, labeling allegations as slanderous is manipulative because it serves the purpose of misleading the audience, or encouraging them to not bother vetting or even looking at the evidence at all. And sometimes you can’t blame the audience: fact checking is difficult and boring.

I bemoan the use of legal terms in colloquial speech, as terms of law must be exact and precise, while colloquialisms must be free to express broad thoughts and ideas. But since laypeople are rarely asked to consider if a comment is actually legally actionable, and most off-the-cuff commentary isn’t, I won’t dwell on that aspect.

Sometimes it’s the original allegations which are genuinely manipulative, and it’s not manipulative to point out manipulation. Other times, no possible reading of the facts can save the remaining reputation of a genuinely awful person.

But what I will say is that a simple response of “it’s slander!” alone is not persuasive, IMO. If someone wants to be believed, they’ll have to put more effort into their defense than that, insofar as public perception is concerned. But if the evidence is bad, this shouldn’t be very hard to do.

The public and media might also bear some responsibility, if they will so easily equate “both sides” as having valid points when there’s an avalanche of evidence on one side and only bad evidence on the other. But other times, a factual question can be reasonably interpreted differently, and that’s fair too.

So I’m sorry to say that there’s no clear cut answer, whether it’s always or never manipulative. I’m not a lawyer, but their common adage is “it depends”.