In English, some prayers came directly from the King James Bible. The singular second-person pronoun in those prayers corresponded with the informal second-person pronoun in the normal spoken or written English of that time. It would have been weird to change the "hallowed be thy name" written in the Bible to "hallowed be your name" when actually praying just to be more formal towards God. Being formal would also not reflect the teaching that Christians have been adopted as sons and daughters of God. I read that "thou" indicated familiarity and affection like between family members and friends and lovers, whereas "ye" indicated distance, and using "ye" towards someone that you'd normally call "thou" would indicate you had a problem with them. So calling God "ye" would require you to rephrase passages in the Bible and might connote that you don't think God has a friendly or familial sort of relationship with Christians, but is far removed from humans or even antagonistic towards them.
$500 per person per year divided by $0.50 per meal equals 1000 meals per year, which is almost every meal all year. Most people only eat pancakes for breakfast, and not anywhere near every day. What about a moderate rate like 2 maple syrup meals per week: then it's only $26 per person per year.
Psilon in this case means plain or simple (as opposed to compound or two-letter), as in spelled with one letter, because when the name was coined in the Koine Greek period, υ was pronounced /y/ like οι (but not like ι as in Modern Greek yet). Similarly, epsilon (ε) was pronounced like αι (as it still is).
There's no need to explain French tu by looking at Germanic languages. It descends pretty uneventfully from Latin tū. However, French and Latin tu are cousins of German du and English thou.
Good insight that I hadn't thought of. To flesh that out, the KJV translators used thou as singular and ye as plural consistently to render the second person singular-plural distinctions found in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. The translators never intended a usage of thou in the KJV to imply informality, only that the original language used the second person singular. That would naturally carry over into prayers and hymns that don't come from the KJV Bible. However, common people at the time who couldn't know the translators' chosen convention might have then read closeness into the pronoun used to address God, which wouldn't be a bad thing theologically.
Apparently it doesn't. From what I read, relative humidity is maximum possible humidity divided by actual humidity (probably not the correct terms), whereas vapor pressure deficit is maximum possible minus actual. Fraction versus difference. So the same vapor pressure deficit could correspond to 80% relative humidity at one temperature, and 85% relative humidity at a higher temperature.
As far as I can tell from Wiktionary (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E7%B7%91#Japanese), though I don't speak Japanese, the Japanese word midori has had the meaning "bud" or "sprout", but the Chinese words written with the same character don't. Spelling and word identity are distinct. This confuses me sometimes when looking up Japanese words.
1. If "midori" began with the meaning "sprout", then...
2. its spelling in early texts should have been 芽 [sprout] and not 綠 [green].
The spellings were fixed a long time before the article identifies the change as taking place.
The Japanese spelling of a word must develop by either (1) the Japanese borrowing a Chinese word with the meaning of the Japanese word; (2) option #1, but the Japanese meaning of the word later shifts; (3) option #1, but the Japanese spelling of the word later shifts [this would be weird]; (4) indigenous innovation of a character; or (5) refusal to use a character at all.
"Midori" appears to have begun its life by being spelled as if it meant "green" and to have continued to mean "green" since that time. This is strange if it originally meant "sprout", and I'd like to know more about the claim and the history.
Ah, I see, I misread your comment quite badly. I don't have any references to look this up in, but perhaps the ancestor of the word midori is first attested in a syllabic spelling in Old Japanese with only the meaning "sprout", and when it came to be spelled logographically as 綠, it was mainly used with the meaning "green". But the question could be asked in the Tea Room of Wiktionary, where it would probably find its way to someone more knowledgeable than me.
Drinking nectar doesn't necessarily mean pollinating, that is transferring pollen. The pollen has to stick to the insect's body and the insect has to visit another flower that is genetically compatible and the pollen has to get stuck to the stigma of that flower when the stigma is gooey and receptive.
Some flowers can only be pollinated by insects of particular sizes or shapes because of the position of the pollen-producing (anthers) and pollen-accepting (stigma) structures, and some insects bypass pollen entirely by biting a hole in the base of a flower to drink the nectar, and some insects don't visit multiple flowers of the same species consistently enough to transfer pollen (honeybees for instance apparently) as efficiently as other insects (bumblebees).
Most wasps (of which hornets are a subtype) are only interested in nectar, not pollen, and some flowers don't produce nectar so won't be visited by wasps. Most wasps have short tongues for their body size, so they can't access some flowers that bumblebees can (bumblebees have long tongues). Some bees (bumblebees or mining bees for instance, not honeybees) buzz their wings to extract pollen from particular flowers like blueberries and tomatoes, enabling them to be pollinated effectively, and wasps don't do that.
So giant hornets can't do all pollinating that bees can do. However, in the upper Midwest the spotted bee balm (Monarda punctata) is pollinated by large wasps, so there might be other flowers in the area invaded by giant hornets that could be pollinated by them.
Disclaimer: I'm an amateur, not a scientist with a degree.
I can see the convenience of sort of importing implementations of traits into scope. One difficulty is that traits are used for core functionality, like dereferencing and comparison operators. It would be inconvenient to have to import the implementations to do these basic things and confusing if some commonly used types could have their basic behavior dramatically changed. Maybe that could be solved by choosing some traits that are more central and preventing them from being switched out by importation, so you couldn't for instance change what `==` does to a pair of `f64`s.
This part of the article seems to suggest that charging a flat rate that includes the base price plus the maximum possible taxes and fees would be allowed: "'A provider that opts to combine all of its monthly discretionary fees with its base monthly price may do so and list that total price. In that case, the provider need not separately itemize those fees in the label,' the FCC order said." I wonder what the ISPs' objection to this is, maybe that it would overcomplicate accounting?
