Mac Plus made of legos at 1:1 scale
ideas.lego.com
ideas.lego.com
And the Rebrickable custom build page from the designer: https://rebrickable.com/mocs/MOC-69260/TheRealBeef1213/elite...
Apologies if this is too facebook-like. I'll delete the comment if it's too off-topic.
Sigh.
Hiyo!
I would have preferred if they had stuck with gray on gray to simulate a black and white monitor for the display screens.
The “hello” from Steve Jobs launch event would have been a nice inclusion, but looks simple enough to change for any user of this “kit” in future.
Sigh.
> Of course everyone is free to comply with these corporate demands, but the Lego Group has no authority over the English language to regulate it in this way. So if you want to feel guilty about using “Legos”, understand that the only thing you are guilty of is not obeying the demands of a Danish corporation, not for violating the rules of English grammar.
It's firmly 'Lego' in the UK.
Imagine if English (Language) teachers took the same stance. A+ everyone, if that's how you say it, you're correct, there is no wrong.
(And then is ESL different? Seems like racism is the effective conclusion!)
> Lego have [...]
[the company] *has.
Apple have announced a new iPhone. The New York Yankees are playing tonight. The Board were due to meet yesterday. Etc.
It's perhaps clearer if you add a description of the company:
> Apple, an American company, has announced a new iPhone.
'It' refers to the word there. The thing the word refers to is a plural.
> It's not a plural, it's a singular company.
That's just not traditional in English. What is a company except a group of people? That's what the word 'company' literally means.
Most people in English speaking countries outside US influence would say:
> Apple, an American company, have announced a new iPhone.
What about 'only one of the companies [...]', what'll you say next?
A singular company is formed of a plurality of parts, yes, just as a millipede has many legs.
Or are you claiming it has never been commonly accepted British grammar to make company names plural? If you think that then I'm afraid you're just factually mistaken.
I don't refuse to believe that I'm simply only aware of the Americanism; but I'm not willing to take an internet comment (by itself) as a correction.
If anything when I hear people say blah company 'have' done such and such, I think of that as an American/modern personalisation.
I agree completely with this answer, and I think that's consistent with 'Lego has confirmed' here': https://english.stackexchange.com/a/341284/52014 I'd only add that I consider the 'shorthand for a group of people' strictly colloquial (and oral).
> In British English it is in order to use either a plural verb or a singular verb after most collective nouns, so long as attendant pronouns are made to follow suit.
And then it follows on with examples from British literature in the wild such as news reports on how 'MI5 were living in the past'.
Or for example this BBC article
https://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/l...
> The BBC is / are planning to introduce 35 minute news broadcasts in the spring.
So you object to my correction rather than consider the inverse solely correct?
Fair enough. I have hitherto considered 'the company have announced' incorrect; I'll check that, but I don't like it for my own use.
Yes. People aren't mistaken when they use the version that is more unique to British English.
I'm telling them that people who use a plural aren't doing so out of ignorance and don't need to be corrected as if they're making a mistake.
(And The Economist's 'Style Guide' 10ed. concurs. (I'm not being selective beyond the extent to which I already am by only having that style guide.) It is of course a global publication, despite 'being' British, but it's entry on 'Americanisms' makes it pretty clear ('sparingly') it prefers a BrE starting point. I can't find anything more explicit on that.)
Sometimes I even call them MacBook Pros.
MacsBook Pro.
Yes you've got every right to continue to be ignorant after it's been explained to you... but I mean why aspire to do that?
For instance GIF's creator clarifying the pronounciation of his file format was mostly met with a mild middle finger. Is the Lego company meriting more bending backwards than him ?
reference: https://www.lego.com/cdn/cs/legal/assets/blt1a4c9a959ce8e1cb...
Why not afford it to them?
If someone asks you nicely to do something because it's important to them and it costs you nothing why not do it?
Not to mention that it does not align with HN guidelines: "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names." and "Please don't post shallow dismissals."
I expected better etiquette from someone who is said to have been an English teacher.
It's not a new language construct - they're just saying it's an adjective.
The UK uses lego as the plural for lego.
So, in answer to your "who does that?" question my anecdotal response would be "everyone"
Language probably just varies a lot from place to place
Take Snooker for example. The game components consists of a table and balls, but you don't say "Do you want to play balls?" You say "Do you want to play Snooker?".
Same with Lego. The game is called "Lego" but the parts are called "Lego bricks".
People might informally call it "Legos" in America but that doesn't mean it's technically accurate. Likewise people in Yorkshire, England, say "our dad" instead of "my dad" but that doesn't mean they're literally more than one person. In short, it's quite possible for lots of people to be wrong ;)
I don't think I missed the point. They asked: "who does that?"
And my answer was, essentially, "some people!" In fact, around me, it's everyone I've ever talked with legos about.
> People might informally call it "Legos" in America but that doesn't mean it's technically accurate.
I think it is technically accurate, because I'm a descriptivist.
So, when people in America (or other place) say: "legos" to describe they toys they're playing with that is technically accurate. Because language is how people use it. There is no "formal rule" for what english is. English is however it is used.
You're conflating different things there:
- Colloquially correct
- Formally correct
"Legos" might be colloquial but it is not formally correct.
A good equivalent here is jigsaw puzzles. You don't call multiple games "jigsaw pieces" like you implied the Lego game might be called "Lego bricks". Colloquially some people call them "jigsaws" but formally they're called "jigsaw puzzles".
Just because there is a colloquial convention it doesn't it's correct.
There are countless examples of colloquial "rules" that are grammatically or formally incorrect. Even just within the UK and USA we have different communities that have their own colloquial standards. Yet there is a national standard for how one writes formal documents.
Citation needed, please. Could you link me to the formally defined national grammar for American English, please? Who is the body that maintains this formal standard? Is it NIST, or ANSI, or an ISO standard?
There is, in fact, no formal English standard that defines what is "correct". I'm not conflating "colloquially correct" with "formally correct". I am fundamentally disagreeing with you that a concept such as "formally correct" exists for language.
I am a descriptivist. You sound like you are a prescriptivist. We may just have to agree to disagree on this point.
It's not a technical language like C so you're not going to find a technical standard in ANSI but organisations like Websters (and Oxford in the UK) do define standards for formal writing. I guess the confusion here is it's not a "formal standard" but a "standard in formal writing". I apologise for not being clearer on that. Generally the formal version of the language is considered "correct" while variations are "slang". You might argue that is only a de facto standard but it's still one that is upheld.
Some languages go further and do literally have a formal body in charge of maintaining their language, such as Académie Française who dictate the evolution of French https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad%C3%A9mie_Fran%C3%A7aise
> You sound like you are a prescriptivist
I'm really not. I frequently colour my speech with non-literal imagery and slang. But I also acknowledge that there are still underlying rules to any language. And if I seem like a prescriptivist it's only because I'm dyslexic so have to work harder than most to make my thoughts understandable -- so much so that a frequent phrase I used as a teen was "if the point of languages is to be understood then who gives a shit if I'm grammatically correct when you clearly understood me?"
Suffice to say, human languages aren't something that comes naturally to me. Thus I might be more acutely aware of the rules where you might take them for granted.
Thus the probably extremely common sentence used by parents all over America is "Please cleanup your legos".
And that refers to duplo bricks and off brand building block copies as well.
So basically, for it to be technically incorrect, you have to argue that "legos" is an incorrect substitution for "lego bricks". I would argue that it is such a common synonym for "attachable building blocks" or "lego bricks", that it is now technically correct as well as coloquially common.
Just like many dictionaries have now added an additional definition for the word "literally", making sentences like, "I am literally dead right now" both colloquially common and technically correct.
Then "Legos" is still wrong because the components are called "bricks", "pieces" or similar.
> Thus the probably extremely common sentence used by parents all over America is "Please cleanup your legos".
Just because it is common it doesn't mean it is correct. Plenty of people misunderstand computer jargon, it doesn't mean they're correct either.
> And that refers to duplo bricks and off brand building block copies as well.
This is basically an admission that the term is being used incorrectly if people are using it for stuff that literally isn't Lego too. :)
> So basically, for it to be technically incorrect, you have to argue that "legos" is an incorrect substitution for "lego bricks".
I'd already supplied lots of examples of how it's not a suitable substitution.
> it is now technically correct as well as coloquially common.
It isn't technically correct. Colloquially common, sure. But I've given numerous examples of how it's not technically correct. Even Lego themselves don't use the term "Legos" -- which should be evidence enough that it's not technically correct.
> Just like many dictionaries have now added an additional definition for the word "literally", making sentences like, "I am literally dead right now" both colloquially common and technically correct.
This "'literally' is misused by the modern generation" sentiment is actually an inaccurate modern meme. The virtual usage of the term -- used when people want to exaggerate a point -- has been in used since the 1700s. 'A Dictionary of the English Language'[0] was published in 1755 (nearly 200 years before the first edition of esteemed the Oxford Dictionary[1]). The first American English dictionary[2] was another ~50 years after that. Thus the virtual definition of 'literally' is not actually considered slang since it pre-dates modern dictionaries. Ironically its more colloquially incorrect using the virtual term than it is literally incorrect. Thus you'll often find the virtual term used in older texts by highly regarded writers:
> Among the meaning of literally is one which many people find problematic: "in effect, virtually—used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible." Neither this nor any of the other meanings of literally is what we would consider slang. This sense has been in standard use by many esteemed writers since the 18th century.
Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally (Is the extended use of literally slang?)
This is all stuff that's really easy to research. All the text is public domain and online for anyone to read. Likewise with the "Legos" slang, you can see on Lego's[3] website how they refer to the product vs the components. Thus none of this requires us to guess at whether common vernacular is formal, because it's all already published online for all to reference. The issue is many conflate colloquial slang with formal writing.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Dictionary_of_the_English_La...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_English_Dictionary
[2] https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Compendious_Dictionary_of_t...
[3] Which is correct because I'm attributing ownership here
Nobody says 'a lego' or 'some legos'; but similarly in the US I imagine you'd get a funny look (you'd never heard it before, after all) for saying 'a Lego brick' or 'some Lego bricks'.
(Actually, for anyone actually using Lego(s?), surely the real answer is that you speak in terms of their dimensions: 'a 2x4'; 'some 1x1s'..?!)
Don't all Macs have a compartment in the back to store all the files in the computer?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_o_O7v1ews&ab_channel=James...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sj5HdGjvXcE&ab_channel=AlexM...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2uHBhKTSe0&ab_channel=Movie...
For a true retro feel it should be a shade of yellow.
In all seriousness, I love this. This is incredibly well done.