If it’s popular in Germany, given by a German parent to a German child and based on a Hebrew root word, I’d argue it’s a German name as much as it is Portuguese, Spanish, or Italian.

It’s all semantics though, I assumed your original question was about how common the name was in Germany, not about its linguistic roots. It seems fairly common. If you’re looking for a deep dive on the history of the name I’ll let you do your own research because I honestly don’t give a shit and you’re being kind of rude.

Wikipedia says the root is Hebrew. So…. a European name? Seems pretty popular in Germany.

Yep, I know a Manuela from Germany!

Are you disagreeing with the thesis of the comment above, or just critiquing the quality of their data?

If you disagree with the thesis, can you explain what your position is?

I assumed sleep apnea. CPAP users of today are the past’s “dang he died mysteriously in his sleep, oh well!”

You didn’t say “Western countries being developed is a quirk of environment, not the consequence of any innate superiority” though. You said the thing I quoted above. I’m addressing the words you actually said.

Honey, I’m bored. You’re either incredibly dense or unwilling to have a straightforward discussion. I think you should stick to your plan of leaving the internet.

You still haven’t answered why you’re bringing up white supremacist talking points (even for the purpose of “debunking” them).

“I have always assumed that white light-skinned people have a leg up because they’re white light-skinned.“

You’re voicing white supremacist talking points. You don’t even really debunk them in your original post. You just propose an alternative. You still haven’t explained why you felt the need to even bring this line up. Nobody was wondering about skin tone’s role in economic development. Except you I guess.

Seems to me you’re pissed off that you made a stupid argument and people called you out for it. Frankly, you came in with white supremacist talking points and you shouldn’t be surprised that people were distrustful. You got a lot more grace than you deserved from most in this thread. Not from me, admittedly, I assumed you were malicious because you didn’t seem thick. Now I think you’re just overly emotional about the whole thing and it’s clouding your perception.

Did I say I only expect nuance or charitable interpretation from one side? I expect it from both, but I’m not seeing it from you. I see people largely agreeing with you but begging you to reconsider the way you frame your argument. I see you responding only to the negative and evidently not even SEEING the positive responses. You might be right that the internet isn’t a good place for you, you seem ill-equipped to handle even gentle disagreement.

Quite a few people engaged with your argument. If you read back through the responses with a charitable eye you might be able to see it. Those who criticized you were ultimately trying to help you get your point across to others by suggesting you drop the part of your argument that addresses white supremacist talking points. That part of your argument was distracting and largely irrelevant to the conversation, and it made people think you were attempting to covertly inject racist ideas into the discussion (a common white supremacist tactic).

You’re big mad about this, huh? Everyone else is crazy, you’re the only one making any sense. Couldn’t possibly be something wrong with your argument.

People are just trying to point out why you’re getting shit my dude. You don’t want to hear it. If you want to be part of conversations in the future, learning to accept criticism is a skill you might want to work on developing.

Why are you trying to explain this correlation? Nobody else had mentioned skin tone, so you weren’t correcting anyone. You just brought up a completely unrelated correlation out of the blue for no reason? And you’re defending it in comment after comment instead of just saying “sorry that was a non-sequitur, my bad”.

If you give kids free lunches, they will have no incentive to get jobs cleaning slaughterhouses! Without this opressive welfare program, the kids will be free to choose whether to continue on to middle school or leave their studies behind for a lucrative career in an abattoir.

The fact that they refuse to acknowledge that the skin tone part of their argument is irrelevant leads me to believe that they are being disingenuous about their motivations. You’ve clearly pointed out that climate is a sufficient explanation and that references to skin tone are unnecessary and misleading.

It’s actually fine to do multiplication before division, you just have to be sure about which numbers are intended to be included in the divisor of your fraction!

c/TheyDidAMath

I’m a scientist and I’ve only ever encountered strong juxtaposition in quick scribbles where everyone knows the equation already. Normally we’re very careful to use fraction notation (or parentheses) when there’s any possibility of ambiguity. I read the equation and was shocked that anyone would get an answer other than 9.

I originally had the same reasoning but came to the opposite conclusion. Multiplication and division have the same precedence, so I read the operations from left to right unless noted otherwise with parentheses. Thus:

6/2=3

3(1+2)=9

For me to read the whole of 2(1+2) as the denominator in a fraction I would expect it to be isolated in parentheses: 6/(2(1+2)).

Reading the blog post, I understand the ambiguity now, but i’m still fascinated that we had the same criticism (no parentheses implies intent) but had opposite conclusions.