“I bought the car” would indicate that you bought a specific one that is jointly understood.
In fact, if you had previously talked about a specific car you were thinking about buying, “I bought a car” would be a strong indicator that you bought a different vehicle than what was discussed.
The point is that in saying "I bought a car", you're not attempting to specify which specific car you bought. The fact that you obviously did buy a specific car isn't relevant to the grammar of this.
If the audience already has some context about which specific car you were going to buy, then you could say "I bought the car yesterday." In that case you're referring to a specific car that the audience is expected to already be familiar with.
I think some of the confusion over this seems to be coming from attempting to apply knowledge that you have to a sentence when the audience wouldn't have that knowledge.
I wonder if it's possible to come up with an alphabet where different sound clusters are addressed by individual letters. For instance:
'h𐑬se' and 'aut' - where 𐑬 is read as 'au' in RP, but as 'oy' in NI.
The downside is that the said alphabet would have more letters and it won't be always easy to guess the spelling based on pronunciation (still easier than currently in English), but the upside is that one can always read any word correctly in their accent.
you see that to an extent with the use diacritics in some languages. for example "ch" or "cz" in czech is written as č.
here is an interesting article listing digraphs in various languages with latin script that have lots of examples where the same sounds have a single letter in other languages:
It depends on the company. A few companies have a terminal level that is approximately equivalent to Dropbox's IC3/IC4. This level does not involve managing people, but it does require owning projects that can span across several teams.
The boom _during_ Covid has been crazy, but I think it's still possible to get a FAANG job that will get you to the US. The other route would be joining a FAANG in the UK and then changing teams after 1-2 years.
I'm honestly not trying to nitpick, but the explanation "they do X because they can X" is not a good one. Being able to do X is a prerequisite for doing X, but it is not a sufficient condition. Why do they choose to, though? Perhaps, a part of it is vanity, but
> nothing to do with your skills
is a bit much. I might assure you, a FAANG interview requires certain skills[1], and it's easy to fail or be "downleveled" to a lower salary.
[1] - not to discourage anyone from trying to, you just need to put in some time and work.
I have trouble discerning the author's point exactly.
- Yes, you can't rely on open-source project going in the same direction as you want.
- Yes, any process involving people has a phycological and interpersonal component.
> To this day we read about the war and it feels distant[...]
> [..]don't get blindsided, especially in times of war[...]
I'm glad the author is not affected by the war, but I supposed it's fair to say that it is not hard for the author to stay unbiased (or it might be just indifferent).
My point would mainly be to spread awareness and share an experience and my interpretation of it, not "slander" and paint a target on my back by namecalling and divulging more information which doesn't serve a purpose beyond wanting clout under the assumption that the war does not affect myself and others around me.
That seems harder to solve, but if it becomes a problem; maybe using a keyboard with more resistive keys (which sounds counterintuitive) might enable you to rest your fingers on the keys in a more relaxt way.
reply