Computers and Internet, Humor, Language

Swedish Apple Spell

Leave a comment

How Swedish spell checking in Apple Spell apparently was created:

Apple: Give us a list of correctly spelled Swedish words.
Swedish language professor: What do you need it for?
Apple: We’re doing spell checking.
Professor: Oh, you can’t do it like that.
Apple: We’re Apple! We can do anything!
Professor (making a joke list): Here, make spell checking with this.

Apple Spell just marked “spådan” (a misspelled “sådan”) a correct word in Swedish.

I mean. Sure, it is a correct Swedish word (a compound of “spå”—fortune-telling, and “dan”—the day… so, “the fortune-telling day”).

I tried to Google it, but was unable. It defaulted to “spådam” (fortune-teller) which ever way I tried to make it not. (Coincidentally, this is also a compound of “spå” and “dam”—lady… Swedish do compounds galore!)

What pisses me off most is that this ungoogleable compound exists in this shit spell checking but not some very very very common ones, like:

  • Lättstörd—easily disturbed (e.g. sleep)
  • Maglevtåg—maglev train
  • Obäddad—unmade (bed)
  • Prästinnorna—the priestesses
  • And several thousand other words that are not conlang words I have in my local dictionary (currently at 3536 words… I may be a prolific conlanger… but no, not that prolific)

That’s why I think Apple Spell is the result of a Swedish language professor jokingly showing Apple that, no, you can’t do anything even if you think so.

And no, I know what you think. Why don’t you install a Hunspell dictionary? WHY DON’T YOU TRY TO INSTALL ONE? You’d be one of a handful having tried and failed, and none of those people work at Apple.

Microsoft Word may not be good for much when it comes to fiction writing, but it does do Swedish spell-checking about a million times better than Apple Spell.

Computers and Internet

Parent-Child is the only way to define a hierarchical relationship concisely

Leave a comment

In software design, especially database design, you sometimes come across hierarchical relationships like a folder containing files, or a department containing other departments, or any other relationship where the hierarchical order or who contains who is important.

Let’s take an example. You’re the programmer using a web content system where there are folders and these folders have a many-to-many relationship to each other (meaning any folder can contain any other folder, even itself).

Unfortunately you’re tasked with placing a lot of folders inside other folders programmatically (no support from the UI, and by the way, your time budget doesn’t allow f-ing around with the UI to try to figure this one out… “it should be simple to do”, your manager says and give you very little time…)

How not to do it

Here are some examples of database table design (or rather column names) that will likely end up forcing you to redo the job and use 4 times as many hours:

  • objectID, referenceObjectID
  • connectedFrom, connectedTo
  • id, relatedId
  • topId, bottomId

Yeah yeah yeah, seeing that mess, you should definitely create a test connection to see what means what.

But what if you display the folders in the UI with components like “List connected from objects” and “List connected to objects”.

Looks good, right, we have two lists and one list can contain only one item and maybe that list can even be designed to look like it’s only one object.

Until someone else connects another object in “the wrong way” and suddenly that nice looking one-object display goes scrolling, swelling, wrapping and overflowing the whole UI.

Or hey, this being a many-to-many-relationship after all, maybe your UI can handle it just fine…

How about your users? How about the support staff?

How about the assumptions of other programmers about what contains what, or what is located where?

I mean, sure, it could be hilarious. A system where the employers can fire their boss or at least lower their wages, or where Texas is located in Austin, or you don’t eat hamburger, but hamburger eat you… like in Soviet Russia…

The ONLY way to do it

There is ONLY one way to describe a hierarchical relationship between two objects in a way nobody can misunderstand ever:

  • parent
  • child

Now, for sure, if you have problems with parent-child relationships, don’t take it out on your software, take it up with your therapist.

This. Is. The. Only. Way.

Before, after, left, right, center, above, below, alpha, beta, lalala, isn’t going to cut it.

But what if…

No what-ifs.

Parent.

Child.

Period.

Humor

Conspiracy Theory 101

Leave a comment

Conspiracy theory 101:

  1. Come up with an outrageous conspiracy theory
    (If you’re unable, there are a thousand-and-one online resources of the social variety to help you out)
  2. Tell it to everyone
  3. When someone gets shocked, concerned or upset, take it as a “proof” they are in on it…
  4. Jump back to step 1 to double down…