If you have to pay royalties to use a digital font, it stands to reason you have to pay royalties to the keepers of information. Why that's elsevier et al all I don't know, but they are is the only logical conclusion.
Someone spent time and effort designing that font, and it's reasonable that they should be compensated for it. (Giving them the right to censor any use of the font so they can run a protection racket is a awful way of doing that, but that's not the point I was addressing.) Nature contributes nothing (today - they used to contibute printing presses) that couldn't be accomplished by publishing a first draft and soliciting reviews.
Everything? They publish basically extended abstracts, nothing that could be confidently reproduced, nor code ... or I just don't know how to read it and find supplemental material. There's a lot in the bibliography. Really just a journal article, an entry in a log book.
I have a hunch that the nominally feminine gender is rather one of subjunction, not to say subjugation. Der Himmel -> Die Sonne -> Das Wetter. Der Tag -> Die Nacht -> Das Jahr. Der Mond -> Die Sterne -> Das Pantheon ... OK, I am not quite sure, but at least gender was an innovation in Germanic, whereas the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European knew inflection for in-/animate -- e.g. there were two different words for fire, where the the other gave ignition [1].
It stands to reason that the feminin came to be at the boundary between these.
PS: This is fun ... Der Mensch -> Die Familie -> Das Dorf. Der Krieger, die Krieger, das Kriegen. Der Aktionär -> die Aktie. Die Aktionärinnen ... das Aktienpaket. Der Karren (car), Die Karre (load), das Ankarren, das Herangekarrte, das Karree (See [2] for more on four wheels, strange animism, etc. Ultimately inconclusive).
Note that the pluralizing morpheme -en was written -in in old german. Also note that many case inflections come out as -en, so I suppose that female forms were in the objectified part of speech more often, where the gender is not reflected in the article (den Kindern, Männern, Frauen).
Totally opaque to whether that's "lego's" or "legos" and children in general probably don't care for an overzealous syntactic classification of single morphemes either.
Is "gimme the lego over there" strange? I think it is, and if it is, then it's an interesting dater point to support this hypothesis.
dat- is the stem, I suppose, -um is a grammatical ending. Data simply suits the English ear better because it's close to the nominal suffix -er. How do you like this dater point?
This is the most ridiculous thing I ever heard, is it april fools day?
I read about "amper's and". Although I have no idea what an amper is, if memory serves the whole thing is related to merchant short hand, but it cannot get any more ridiculous than this joke somebody is having on you.
> which is among the worst of all sciences in evidentiary practices
Linguistics is worse: It's quite literally based on hearsay.
Edit: I think that's relevant. Perhaps mathematical skill is diametrically opposed to linguistic faculty.
Of course that's nonsense, but it's an observation inferred from the completely separate treatment of these subjects -- and other stereotypes. At least they are seperated to such an effect that being good at one of these is not perceived as prerequisite for the other. If it wasn't for informatics I would never heard the word "logic" in school. And even then, CS is very much focused on number crunching.
In fact, being good at one is often purported as apology a pro pos being bad at the other. I'm not sure why such a schism exists.
