You can go deeper. To prove anything, including the consistency or inconsistency of a theory, you need to work within a different system of axioms, and assume that it is consistent, etc.
even if it’s true everywhere forever, it might still not be provable, because Gödel.
No. Gödel's completeness theorem says that if something is true in every model of a (first-order) theory, it must be provable. Gödel's incompleteness theorem says that for every sufficiently powerful theory, there exists statements that are true sometimes, and these can't be provable.
That depends on whether you interpret "when" + past tense in English to also assert the reality of the temporal clause. The interpretation which allows the vacuous truth is, in my opinion, not even technically correct (by correct I mean aligns with actual spoken usage). It would amount to formalizing the sentence as
For all meetings between us, if said meeting is at a past time and it's the first meeting (i.e. before all other meetings), you promised at that time to give me all your money.
Which is indeed vacuously true, if there have been no past meetings, or even if the meetings aren't well-ordered in time :). On the surface this is a perfectly good interpretation, but it doesn't really align with real usage (though I would love to see an example of "when" + past tense being used this way, e.g. in a legal document).
On the other hand, most people would interpret "when" + past to assert that the event actually happened, which in this context means
I have met you before, a "first meeting" can be identified, and at that first meeting, you promised to give me all your money.
Or even more formally
There exist meetings between us at a past time, there exists such a unique meeting which is first, and, for all meetings, if said meeting is indeed the first, you promised me at that time to give me all your money.
And this can be reduced to
There exists a unique past meeting between us such that [it's first, and you promised to give me all your money at that time].
I think this interpretation is most closely aligned with how "when" is actually used in practice. "If" feels different, though. It can act as simple logical implication, logical equivalence, or anything in between, so it may be more interesting to study. Also note that all of this doesn't apply to "when" + simple present, which acts very similarly to "if".
The superiority of ISO paper sizes isn't obvious at all if you don't know how US paper is different. Seems like different countries just use different sizes. But as anyone accustomed to using A- or B-series papers knows, A4 is made of exactly 2 A5s, and the pattern holds up to A10 and down to A0, whereas the US paper sizes are completely unrelated to each other.So good!
The military censor in Israel does the exact same thing: ostensibly to prevent enemies from using the data to improve their systems, in reality as an attempt to keep domestic morale high (it only ever manages to slow down the inevitable fall, though).
There’s a morpheme boundary here, probably has something to do with it. The examples in the post have no morpheme boundary before the main stress, or at least not one that’s transparent to English speakers (ab/solu/te/ly might hypothetically have been more transparent to a Latin speaker though)
Yes, but it’s usually very subtle (e.g. in realizations of single phonemes or in intonation). There are also more extreme cases which other commenters have pointed out.
I recommend you look up sociolects and sociolinguistics.
Also, for people using some Readarr derivative with Hardcover metadata, how much of a pain is it to migrate from Goodreads to Hardcover (and is it worth it)?
Calibre-Web has always been interesting to me. Can it be deployed in such a way as to keep a Calibre content server also accessible? (e.g. for sync with the desktop app/Koreader/etc.)
I sometimes wonder if I’m wrong about myself, maybe I am racist in some way but am blind to it. How would I even know?
My stance is that everyone is at least a little racist, in some way. Racism is such an essential part of society and culture, probably almost everywhere by now, that no one can avoid it entirely. However, we can try to recognize it in ourselves and other people and minimize it, and that's what really makes the difference, the end goal being to eradicate racism entirely (also apply this to all kinds of -isms and -phobias you can think of).
Maybe there are people who have cleansed themselves entirely of racism. In my view, that's comparable to achieving some sort of enlightened or transcendent state, which most of us can only aspire to.
Doing this sort of work has convinced me that the parallel postulate is a lie