I'm not sure why you mention this as a contrast. Macro evolution also does not follow the scientific method as there is no repeatable experiment you can design to falsify the hypothesis. This is well-known among evolutionary biologists.
I hadn't heard of macro-evolution so take this from the stance of a skeptical relatively well-reasoning individual. I can't see anything from a cursory browse that suggests it's a pseudoscience? Am I missing something?
In practice, the foreign subtitles do not line up with the foreign words as well as the native subtitles line up with the native words. It took me years to figure out why this was.
In a conversation I had with someone who knew the business, the new language subtitles don't line up with the new language audio because the new language subtitles are translated from the original language subtitles, not the new language audio.
Why? This saves a step from someone having to rewatch the final new language dialogue and transcribe the new language as it is exactly spoken. That step can be skipped and the new language subtitles can still be translated from the original language subtitles, although they will be quite off much of the time.
There's practical reason too. Translations made for overdubbing are designed to roughly take the same amount of time to say, and ideally to carry the punch in the same part of the sentence (so it fits with when the actor makes the corresponding funny face). This is not always trivial, to the point that sometimes translators change the meaning entirely (especially with eg comedy - entire jokes are reinvented because they were untranslateable so they just put a different joke in).
Subtitles are translated with brevity and ease of reading in mind. Translators typically take more freedom with nuances and emotion because, well, you're hearing the actor say it out loud in the original language and that's where you get the emotion from. So it's ok if the subtitle has it in a different order / different "punch", etc.
I'm also pretty sure that translated subtitles have as their primary target audience people watching the movie with the original audio. Taking the two step process of going from the source audio, to translated audio, to subtitles seems like a needless detour for that (both organizationally, but also qualitatively).
I know this too well as I tried learning French by watching FR dubbing with FR subtitles on Netflix.
There's absolutely zero resemblance between the two. Different words used, different order within the sentence (dubbing says "A B C" while subtitles say "C B A" half of the time). Pure madness. I immediately had to stop because it's been impossible to follow the two :(
Practically, not many people want dubbing and subtitles at the same time, so it's probably rational choice to save the costs.
I also ran into this issue with French specifically, and got frustrated and gave up. Even original language French films/shows seem to have spotty subs (or none at all!) Most of them have English subs, but that's not as helpful for learning. Did you ever find alternatives?
Yeah this is unfortunate. As a native English speaker living in Finland - going to the movies it's interesting seeing how dumbed down the subtitles are. Dialects, slang: a lot of it can't be translated directly. I just installed this extension and tested it on "Salt, Fat, Acid, Heat" and one of the first things I noticed - two lines into the show was:
"... that she grew up eating in Iran" => "joita han söi Iranissa"
The Finnish translation here is "that she ate in Iran". Contextually, it still makes sense, but it's important when learning a language why it's okay to translate it that way. Literally it means something different, contextually it means the same.
I might give this a try, with the auto-pause feature.
For a language learner, shows where they match up are gold!
If anyone is studying Spanish, the animated show Star Wars: The Clone Wars have audio that exactly matches the subtitles (Start Wars: La Guerra de los Clones). Good show with a good mix of action / dialogue that I learned of Spanish a lot while watching.
This can reveal some interesting insights into how the film was made. I often notice extra lines that got edited out to make the scene more concise. Sometimes the director changes a whole shot.
That would be extremely frustrating. Due to certain sensory issues, when possible I often have the (English) subtitles displayed while watching a show, as I'll otherwise just miss the odd word or phrase.
If the subtitles do not exactly match the dialogue, it is very frustrating. This happened a lot with some older shows I have the DVDs of, where the subtitles are... abridged versions of what is spoken. Impossible to use really unless you are stone deaf.
But why are the original language subtitles not accurate ? and I am referring even to "simple" local TV series that didn't undergo several rounds of editing.
As part of my Swedish learning I watch a lot of Swedish shows with Swedish subtitles, there are always discrepancies
If there is a script for the movie subtitles will often be identical to the script even if the actors deviated from it.
Much simpler and quicker to do than having somebody transcribe everything that was actually said and then having someone watch everything again to make sure it was transcribed correctly.
I imagine the audio is transcribed before voice actors speak; they aren't translating on the fly.. it seems to me the natural solution would be to have the transcription the voice actor uses be the same as what's provided to the subtitle generation.
This seems to require two translation attempts; the main benefit being they can be done independently/parallel, but at the cost of duplicating the work. But it doesn't seem to save any work (assuming VAs work off a written transcription/translation, presumably completed by other staff members)
FWIW subtitles for the original language will also sometimes vary from the original audio as well. I tend to re-watch shows on low volume with subtitles on so I've caught this a number of times, but it's fairly rare.
Usually I've seen the subtitles shorten the words in the audio. "You must come with me now" -> "Come now" or similar. I've been assuming it's to help the reader keep up with some quick exchanges.
> the new language subtitles don't line up with the new language audio because the new language subtitles are translated from the original language subtitles, not the new language audio.
Foreign DVDs include two subtitle tracks, one to translate the English dialogue and another to transcribe the dubbed dialog. At least, this is the case for my Chinese Disney DVDs.
As an American public school student who was forced to listen to this arrangement in multiple music and history classes, over the years I've begun to find this startling and anxiety-producing piece suspect on multiple levels. The copyright squabble is kind of funny though, they just couldn't help themselves.
> over the years I've begun to find this startling and anxiety-producing piece suspect on multiple levels
As an amateur string player, the opening triggers me in that there is invariably one blow-hard clarinetist playing the glissando opening too loudly whilst everyone is warming up their instruments prior to tuning. Just.. yeah, we get it, please shut up. :(
Any translation has a profound impact on the way the bible is perceived, so perhaps it is worthwhile to look directly at the source.
Take this famous opener in the KJV bible for example:
John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Well just what does it mean by Word? Turns out this is Koine Greek λόγος, logos.
Logos not only means word, but it importantly also means reasoning, order, and logic. Logos has multiple senses that don't translate well into a single, word. This was a big revelation for me.
Won't do it justice, but there was a sermon I thought was pretty interesting a couple years ago relating to the passage where Jesus asks Peter if he loves him.
Basically Jesus asks Peter three times whether Peter loves him. And three times Peter says "You know I love you".
Seems like a pretty uneventful passage in English.
Our pastor elaborated a bit and explained that in the original (greek / aramaic, don't remember which), there are several kinds of love.
What Jesus is saying is basically "Do you love me perfectly, the way only God can?"
What Peter is replying is basically "I love you the way that man can, imperfectly."
This happens twice.
The third time Jesus asks "Do you love me imperfectly, the way that a man can?" And Peter gives the same refrain.
Put's a different spin on it since in the first it's just a repetitive exchange, but in the second form it's an instance of God coming down to man's level.
"reasoning, order, and logic" still make sense to me because I believe in theistic evolution - evolution is basically a tool that God used to get us where we are today.
There is also Pandeism (where basically God ceased to exist because he became the universe). Scott Adam's book God Debris touches on this.
FYI, (I'm not Catholic, but) the Catholic Church today holds that view that Science explains the how, and Religion explains the why. It was actually a Catholic priest that came up with the Big Bang theory.
FYI continued, I believe everyone should be open-minded and respectful. I understand that my beliefs may be wrong (after all not all religions can be right at the same time). I believe people taking either side to the extreme does not help anyone, and I'm glad we can have reasonable, respectful conversations here on HN.
> I believe everyone should be open-minded and respectful
That would be probably the biggest improvement for mankind since inventions of fire and wheel, but we're unfortunately often far from there. As an atheist/agnostic, the amount of crap I had to (and sometimes still have to) go through is significant.
Almost all religious people interact with me in fashion of 'oh-you-lost-foolish-boy-who-doesn't-get-the-one-and-only-truth-which-is-mine/ours, but-we-shall-be-kind-to-you-nevertheless' to some degree. That's not how respect looks like.
Probably the most respectful behavior was actually from various muslims while travelling, although for them it was sometimes hard to grasp that I can be fully working human being without faith in god (at least in usual sense). Its such an integral part of their existence, more than most Christians these days I believe. Most christians are way too self-righteous, and you can't even talk with them about it because they become immediately deeply offended.
I think being offended about stuff and judging people isn't exclusive to religion though.
I do wish that everyone would become more intelligent and thus nicer to each other (I believe if people were more intelligent, they would realize they would be better off if they were nicer), but then again, I think humans are inherently flawed and thus we'll still have problems, just of a different variety.
Oh well. We have to make the best of what we can while we're here.
just a nitpick but land ownership-based industries, in which you get a license from the government to own and lease out monopolies on land, are inherently far from free markets. ive always wondered if land ownership could be made to be more free market-like.
Is he alive or dead? Cause of death? There are of course the radiothor incidents (where people actually died from eating uranium and thorium products, note this is selectively consumed for many years at concentrated levels, much higher than in rocks)[1]. Also the Baltimore Radium girls, who ingested concentrated radium to make glow in the dark watches.
Half-life is longer for uranium, but I would say they are just as radioactive, as they are in secular equilibrium and apart of the same decay chain [1]. They are just as "radioactive" in this configuration, as they go through the same number of decays. Their concentrations can change.
SI measures radiation in decay events per second. The rate is important because we mostly worry about decay product exposure during our lifetimes, or maybe how long a mass must be contained until it stops being an acute risk to our species, rather than the grand total of decay over astronomical time scales.
I see what you're saying about the journal contributing to the legitimacy of what they are purporting to be illegitimate, it's an interesting point.
I would like to add separately however for people unfamiliar with sci-hub, I am unaware of any copyright infringement issues of linking to or downloading from sci-hub. Sharing or downloading links has never been copyright infringement. Distribution is, which is why sci-hub is based in a separate jurisdiction (Russia I believe) that does not recognize US copyright claims.
.svg){kind=link}
I'm not sure why you mention this as a contrast. Macro evolution also does not follow the scientific method as there is no repeatable experiment you can design to falsify the hypothesis. This is well-known among evolutionary biologists.