The Facebook employee who replied to the email handled it very poorly, but the guy who found this bug also handled it very poorly by not actually sending any details about what he did.
Because there are dozens to hundreds of languages that could be! How are they supposed to be good at them!
Even Google Translate probably could've done a better job than this guy's original report.
Erk no. Google translation is decent for many languages, but sort shite for lots, and non-existant for others.
Especailly big reports with lots of fine details of "this is supposed to do this" type language can be harder.
But yeah, I guess ignoring the lingua franca of the world and furthering the status quo is the easiest path.
Secondly, at a no point I said anything against this guy, he at least put in the effort and is commendable. My whole point was that thinking about resorting to translators instead of thinking about how to improve the number of English speakers is being narrow-minded. It's like saying: building a dam is hard, let's just keep the floods coming.
I already said it: yes, English it's not the most spoken language, but it's the dominant in that it transcends cultures and countries. Saying that Chinese is the dominant language because is the most spoken is like saying that ants are the most influential beings because they're the species most prevalent on earth.
English is a clear 2nd. (And on at least one estimate it is first)
Otherwise: Con esa forma tan cerrada de pensar, por favor absténgase de opinar.
Also, the only narrow minded here is the one who advocates for a fragmented world and the resulting slow flowing of information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postcolonialism
Postcolonialism, and especially postmodernism, are very complex concepts that require a great deal of study to grasp, but it may be worth your while if you want a serious challenge to your argument.
P.S. While I do think some of the statements made by cliveowen were insensitive, I also think that teaching people English (or another world language) in addition to their native tounges would help break down barriers between people, and lead to a better world overall.
The main counter argument is that you simply have no right dictate how others communicate, despite your declarations of improved efficiency and increased idea proliferation. I think people who spend tons of money on clothes and other trappings are wasting resources and contributing to unhealthy societal development, yet I do not go around demonizing these people. I kindly share my view to receptive listeners, while also attempting to recognize my own biases and inability to perfectly understand this massively complex world. Do you also go around proselytizing SUV owners for their massive waste of gasoline? Why not?
Lastly, it would be impossible to quantify this, but I wonder how much cultural richness, diversity of thinking, etc we would be losing if all of the sudden everyone was forced to only use English? My bet is that it would not be a trivial loss.
Anyways, I wouldn't be surprised if translation technologies make this discussion completely moot in the next couple decades.
-translations cost a huge amount of money
-a fragmented world slows down the spreading of information
-the most influential pieces of writing are written in English
In addition, if you say "let's get some translators instead of learning English because learning is hard" that's laziness. There's no way around, it's not like I think you're just being lazy, it's just that you are being lazy.
Lazy:
adjective
-unwilling to work or use energy
-characterized by lack of effort or activity
All I got so far are a bunch of downvotes, what I didn't get is an opinionated, fact-based counterargument.
And I'm sad to say it, but I'm frankly disappointed that a community of engineers (for the most part) exhibits this kind of hidebound mindset.
It's kind of like if I called you lazy for not going to the store and buying me a case of beer every week. EDIT: OK not exactly, but you get the point... demanding large life changes from others because you claim there is a benefit. This is the epitome of egotistical exuberance.
I would try to explain my reasoning but judging by your other replies, it would be a fruitless endeavor.
I would even argue that you are much much worse since not only are not learning other languages you are sitting on a forum complaining that other people can't speak your own and they must work just so you have less to do.
Not everybody has access to good material and resources. Yes, the internet made this much easier. But it may be still difficult to "bootstrap" it
English may be more difficult depending on your mother tongue
It is frustrating when you want to say something in another language and even if you use Google Translate you're still not 100% sure.
So I think he should have tried harder, but at the same time, it may be difficult for some people.
I concur with the second point.
How many do you know?
Edit: Oh, and how about a bit of Latin and Greek, maybe?
There's no advantage whatsoever in having a fragmented world, and if the mess in my head is any indication the alleged advantages of bilingualism are just BS.
After all, knowing more than one language does give you some different insights, not just into the culture of the other language but also into your own culture. Furthermore, there is a whole canon of classical works in basically every language which would likely lose some of its value if it were only accessible in the translated form.
We can add to the last point by taking note that English is a particularly bad example of a ‘world-wide native language’. While its simplicity – both with regards to its vocabulary and its grammar – certainly helps when it is the second language of someone, such concerns are of smaller importance when you want it to be everyone’s first language: Such a language can come with a much stronger set of grammatical rules and nicer ways to build composite words and still be (roughly) equally accessible to its native speakers.