It's been a while since I watch that video, but I'm pretty sure he mentioned the different team working on it reason as well, and the rest of the video was only explaining the intentional differences instead of the inherent differences that comes from different people working on the translations?
Where I live, due different dialects being widely in use, it's common for TV and movies to show subtitle in the same language as the spoken language. Even then, it is not uncommon for the subtitle to deviate from what is spoken.
Also, as an English learner I used to watch TV shows with subtitles for the visually impaired, and there are times when the English subtitle deviate from what's the actors says as well.
Sometimes it's phrases that are commonly use in speech but strange to see written down; sometimes it's just tonal things that would get lost if written as-is; sometimes long speech is summarized so it doesn't' become a wall of text; sometimes it's most likely to just be mistakes.
Unless the difference actually contains significantly different meaning and can lead to misunderstanding, I don't see why that'd an issue that is worth spending the effort on eliminating?
Especially when it comes to translation, it's not like there's only one possible way of translating a sentence, who should make the editorial choice on which version is best and would that even be helpful for the purpose of disseminating information? If anything, having two version is probably better for gaging the tone and nuance in the original language.
> Unless the difference actually contains significantly different meaning and can lead to misunderstanding, I don't see why that'd an issue
The following are some of the reasons why it's very desirable that audio and subtitles should match:
(1) It's great when you're trying to learn a language or to watch in a language in which you're not fluent. It's extremely frustrating when the audio and subtitles don't match. This point is made by many people in the comments to the video[1].
(2) Even if you're fluent in the language, if you're watching with both audio and subtitles enabled, it's jarring when they don't match.
(3) If you didn't understand something in the audio (because of poor pronunciation, poor sound quality, or whatever), and you turn on subtitles to see what was said, you expect to see exactly what was said, not something "similar in meaning".
(4) A reason quoted directly from the YouTube comments[1] (which I think is a more common a problem that people realize): As someone with sensory processing issues but technically normal hearing - sometimes understanding what i'm hearing comes with a short delay, and accurate subtitles help bridge that gap so I can still keep pace with what i'm watching! If the subtitles don't match, however, it can COMPLETELY throw me off because of the conflict in information and I end up more confused than if i'd only read the subtitles or only listened to the audio. Accurate subtitles are an accessibility feature!
> phrases that are commonly use in speech but strange to see written down
I'm curious to know if you can give an example of that?
As someone who did work on subtitles in modestly popular videos as well, I believe there should be two subtitles---one for disabled peoples and one for language learners. They serve overlapping but not entirely identical purposes. The point 1 is well said though I think Tom Scott aimed his subtitles mostly to the former, as like television regulations.
The points 2 and 3 are comparably of less concern in my opinion. I don't watch TV nowadays, but when I did I used to watch programmes with on-screen captions (as opposed to optional subtitles, pretty common in East Asian channels), which never faithfully reproduced what has been said, and I was fine. Maybe I was more annoyed if I were able to turn captions off and only occasionally turn them on, but the whole points don't really match my experience.
The point 4 is what I'm most unsure about. I believe this kind of experience can be replicated by who can hear some but not all of foreign words and need subtitles (of the second kind) to connect them. For example, I can hear and speak Japanese but very slowly, so I normally have Japanese subtitles turned on. And I think I often experienced a lack of understanding due to my weak knowledge of Japanese, but never experienced such a conflict in understanding. Maybe the sensory processing issue has a substantially different mechanism to my model then?
> I'm curious to know if you can give an example of that?
Filler words, cut-off words, etc. Faithful transcriptions need to reproduce them (and yes, I also did some transcription works and that was really annoying) but subtitles needn't and shouldn't in most cases.
The article is talking about colorectal cancer and bladder cancer, y chromosome owners can get those cancers too whether or not they have female phenotype or not.
Think of it as men = "people with y chromosome" varible setting, or a "People with y chromosome (hereinafter referred to as men)" in a contract.
The scientifically accurate way to describe the subject of the article is "people with y chromosome" but that is clunky to repeat so they want to designate a shorthand for it, while acknowledging that without proper definition the shorthand would be vague and not accurate description.
I'd think defining your terms clearly is perfectly suitable for a scientific journal.
Defining unusual term is perfectly suitable for scientific journal. Men == people with y chromosome is something that has been used for thousands of year (in the context of scientific writing), and if you have to define it, you might as well define the term “define”.
In the context of this paper, no one is gonna ask “what do you mean by men” if you remove that disclaimer. Sure, another paper that discuss some social issues with men might have to clarify whether it is the y-chromosome men or all men, but this isn’t the case here
>Men == people with y chromosome is something that has been used for thousands of year (in the context of scientific writing)
The pattern of sexual inheritance in humans was only discovered in the 1920s, and the link between sexual inheritance and the X and Y chromosomes was not discovered until 1959. (Before that, sex was identified based on secondary sex characteristics, which do not perfectly adhere to the XX/XY inheritance system.)
Scientific research journals date back only to the 1600s, and they did not develop the rigorous standards we expect today until the 1800s.
Medical writings have been ascribing disease to bad airs, humors, gods, and curses, head shape, and all kinds of junk for thousands of years, yet somehow we evolved past that, no?
The correlation between Y chromosomes and sexual characteristics wasn't discovered until the early 20th century, so no. For the vast majority of human existence, the term "Men" has been used without reference to any underlying genetic status.
Sure, we didn’t know the relation, but the y-chromosome didn’t spring to existence the moment we discovered it. The point is that whatever we wanted to use the word to describe was clear.
It still isn't defined by the presence of absence of the Y chromosome. Some animals have sex defined by incubation temperature; there are animal species with inbuilt hermaphroditism and dioecious plants; male birds are WW, female birds are WZ. Biologically sex is defined by gamete size. It's a construct used to link together behaviours in many different species that are derived from a variety of mechanisms.
My understanding is that in humans that meiosis (production of gamete) begins in females whilst they're embryos whereas in males it only begins at the onset of sexual maturity. I would be interested to know if this is the same in other species because my working theory is that male meiosis is the fuel of evolution because there are more mutations in the male germ line cells. The female gametes having differentiated earlier and undergoing fewer replications provide a working original template as opposed to the male gamete's likelier deleterious replications. One small set of large well provisioned gametes likely to work, many large sets of likely mutated gametes hopefully with some useful mutations amongst the bad ones which can be rooted out by selection.
The fundamental existence of sex is interesting and its implementation is pretty complex. 99.9% of references to it in the "trans debate" are reductionist misrepresentations. Either of mystifying complexity making its existence meaningless or as if an authoritative revelation from an omniscient, omnipotent being.
And it now infects every discussion that we have about sex in humans. It's made sex, one of the most fundamentally interesting (and considering the success of its possessors) facets of life on Earth, torturous to discuss because it has become about the limits of society's ability to limit freedom of conscience, individuals rights to identify, and the right of the individual to self identify. It's narrow, myopic, fundamentally boring in the context of biology.
EDIT: for the record I agree with you in spirit. The rant was my thoughts following on from my minor point of information.
> used for thousands of year (in the context of scientific writing)
The Middle English word was "mannen" and in old english "mann" meant roughly the same as we mean with "human" now, i.e. without respect to sex.
I don't think the paragraph will be looked back on as anything except a sign of troubled political times (rather than communicating anything of use with regards to the information in the article) but what you've written is incorrect.
I have heard anthropologists tell anecdotes about Red Cross refusing to help a village just a couple of hours drive away from their outposts because there is no press coverage and they would rather spend their supplies on places where it'd get reported on, because the report brings in more donations. Emotionally I sympathize with the people that the speaker spent time with and resent Red Cross's decision, but pragmatically I can see that it make sense.
I've talked to nurses who volunteered at MSF say they passed by many villages that needed help on their way to their destination, a more well-known location that will bring more attention for their services. Lord knows they lamented over it, but the decision was made by the organization to ensure they get the maximum donation needed to help more people.
I have literally never watched a single Mr Beast videos, but going by what I'm seeing in articles like these, I fail to how what he's doing is any worse than most charities.
FWIW, no one use his "real name" even here in HK. He has a chinese pseudonym that most people use, but even Jackie Chan is much more widely known/used than his actual legal name.
That was kinda like calling 50 cents "Curtis James Jackson III".
And being a general pos, horrible husband/father amongst other things...
I usually bit my tongue when westerners fanboy about him since I don't want to be the party pooper but yeah, we don't really like him here.
The blooper reels were neat, but that was a common feature in HK action films at the time and not really about integrity, since I don't think the audience were expected to believe any of the action were real.
I'm not a westerner fanboy of his. I am a black African. Met him and worked next him on a movie set in early 2016.
I've never seen a major actor act out in the good interest of a black foreigner, inexperienced in film, speaking unoptimal mandarin.
My encounters with him were mainly professional, in the span of 6 months. Hard for me to judge his character in a bad way. He might an overworker who shoulders the image of an entire nation's film industry. But he is success is well-earned. His later alignment with the CCP during the HK protests angered me a bit. But I had my fair share of unfair treatment by the CCP. I know they can be cruel. But Jackie is no bad boy, I swear.
Good to know he was professional people he work with - for what it is worth, I am not saying he is not good at what he does, and whatever personal shortcomings he might have, it's not about his work.
That's why I usually hold my tongue when people praise his work, there's no reason his personal believes should affect people's enjoyment of his work (I'd do the same for people enjoying Orson Scott Card's books, for example).
I only bought it up in response to someone else mentioning it.
That said, his weird political stance is not a new thing, and not under duress from the CCP. He had been saying things like "freedom is not good for Chinese people" "Chinese people need to be controlled" since around 2009.
Because people sending dick pics and spam had been a known issue for ages, yet this change came soon after China complaining about people sending protest flyers, rolled out in China first, and with no option to leave your phone open.
One can argue whether it's Apple's job to fight censorship (and I might agree that it's not), but you have to willfully blind say this is not pro-censorship.
People who have not heard of King before Twitter and only hear of him from Twitter are not going to be the people buying his books.
So even if there were significant amount of people like you, he is not gaining anything from people seeing his Twitter. On the other hand, I have relatives who created Twitter accounts only to follow authors they like - the number of curated lists of notable literary figures is a testament to that fact.
I'm not saying Twitter is worthless to writers - readers talking about the books certainly helps sales, but that occurs regardless of whether the author themselves are on Twitter or not, and Twitter is certainly not the main platform people use to discuss books.
Money order in post office / banks / WU. The place generating the order will usual check your ID but they do not require you to include that info on what's sent to the recipient.
Netflix doesn't sell you movies, it sells you access to their services. If you look at their site now, it offers you to "create or restart your membership" to their "streaming services".
If he purchased Netflix membership for a year and lost access before that year is up, I'm sure he'd be equally miffed.
Minecraft sells you the game - even right now, their site says "Get Minecraft" - in fact, it defaulted to Japanese for me where it says "MINECRAFTを購入" which is an even more unambiguous "BUY MINECRAFT".
It is like the difference between buying a e-book on Amazon and having it removed remotely, versus a book being removed from Kindle Unlimited. You have to be willfully obtuse to not understand why people might have different expectation for the two types of transactions, legalese in be damned.
In my personal experience Airbnb is good when you are travelling with a large group of people (6+) and/or with children.
You can get a house with 3-4 rooms, a few bathrooms, a functional kitchen, laundry area, etc, for about half the price as it would be if you got double rooms at hotels for the same number of people, and it's much more convenient since you're not spread across different floors.
For solo travel tho, I'd rather book a hotel sight unseen than use airbnb, since too many people try to make their couch in the corner look like a nice private room in the listing.
Where I live, due different dialects being widely in use, it's common for TV and movies to show subtitle in the same language as the spoken language. Even then, it is not uncommon for the subtitle to deviate from what is spoken.
Also, as an English learner I used to watch TV shows with subtitles for the visually impaired, and there are times when the English subtitle deviate from what's the actors says as well.
Sometimes it's phrases that are commonly use in speech but strange to see written down; sometimes it's just tonal things that would get lost if written as-is; sometimes long speech is summarized so it doesn't' become a wall of text; sometimes it's most likely to just be mistakes.
Unless the difference actually contains significantly different meaning and can lead to misunderstanding, I don't see why that'd an issue that is worth spending the effort on eliminating?
Especially when it comes to translation, it's not like there's only one possible way of translating a sentence, who should make the editorial choice on which version is best and would that even be helpful for the purpose of disseminating information? If anything, having two version is probably better for gaging the tone and nuance in the original language.