Minor things that bother you

[Max Rockatansky]

As much as a recent Creative Snip was necessary it does bother me slightly that all the Charles Bronson/Death Wish movies references got taken out. 

[Beltway]

Riyadh is a good illustration: the English spelling comes from a Latinized form of the Arabic, not from a phonetic rendering of الریاض. Same with Beijing, Qingdao, Xi'an, Osaka, Yamato, etc. None of those are pronounced the way a phonetic transliteration would require.

I'm sure I'm not the only person who recalls how a bunch of Chinese locations suddenly got what appeared to us to be new names in the 1980s when the Chinese government pushed everyone to adopt the Pinyin system for romanizing Chinese-language names. For example, they don't want us to refer to Peking and Chungking anymore (except, in the former's case, when referring to a very tasty dinner made from duck, or to a university that retains the old name).

Same with India -- a whole set of place‑names shifted once standardized romanization replaced older colonial spellings.
Bombay => Mumbai
Calcutta => Kolkata
Madras => Chennai
Poona => Pune
Trivandrum => Thiruvananthapuram

None of those are phonetic transliterations of the native languages. They're standardized Latinized spellings that English then pronounces in its own way.

China, Japan, India -- all of them reinforce the same point: English doesn't transliterate non‑Latin scripts phonetically; it adopts a Latinized spelling and anglicizes the pronunciation.

[Beltway]

As much as a recent Creative Snip was necessary it does bother me slightly that all the Charles Bronson/Death Wish movies references got taken out. 

All? I must have been offline when they were live.

[Beltway]

Depends on what it is. In the serious technical threads I usually know what I am talking about.
In the Key Bridge threads I have done a huge amount of research and if anything recent developments have made my original stance even firmer.

I think your IT career at VDOT gave you just enough knowledge to think you're knowledgeable but not enough to realize why nobody else shares that opinion about you.

My background isn't the argument. The points I make stand or fall on the evidence, not on my résumé. If you think something I said about the Key Bridge is wrong, point to the specific procedural step, statutory requirement, or engineering constraint you think I misinterpreted.

Dismissing the argument by dismissing the person isn't a rebuttal. Engage the substance and we can have a real discussion.

The Key Bridge Rebuild project does not have a federal project number -- that speaks volumes about what FHWA thinks, here 28 months and counting.

The absence of a federal project number isn't a trivia point -- it's the clearest indicator of FHWA's current posture. A project doesn't get an FP No. until FHWA has accepted the scope, validated the cost, approved the Finance Plan, and opened the project in FMIS.

None of that has happened yet.

If you think I'm wrong, identify the federal obligation notice, the FMIS entry, or the Finance Plan approval. Without those, the project is still a state initiative with federal interest, not a federally accepted major project.

[kphoger]

The examples you're listing actually reinforce the point I'm making.

I guess I thought the point you were originally making is that Iran was some sort of anomaly, and that its spelling should be different in order to conform to some pattern of the English language that would otherwise normally spell it as Eran.

So, instead, all you're really doing is acknowledging that this phenomenon is completely normal, commonplace across multiple languages, easily identifiable in numerous English examples—and yet complaining that it still violates some sort of general rule of spelling?

[formulanone]

Yamato

To be fair, Yamato is an anomaly in its native language; characters in use today have been substituted, and do not have the same sounds nor meaning because the original characters alone were construed as offensive. I guess that's what you get when your characters were imported from China, and didn't think too much about land and people which wasn't in their kingdom. (Jukujikun (熟字訓) are readings of kanji combinations that have no direct correspondence to the characters' individual on'yomi [Chinese-based] or kun'yomi [Japanese-based]...so yes, there are typically multiple pronunciations for the same character's meaning without much of a strict rule).

If that was way out of left field, think of the times state highway departments renumbered their route 69s and you get the idea.

Semi-On topic: I kind of wish an English equivalent to furigana could exist for place names and last names which seem hard to pronounce or decipher if you're not in-the-know.

[1995hoo]

Depending on your age, Yamato might be pronounced as "Argo."

[Beltway]

The examples you're listing actually reinforce the point I'm making.

I guess I thought the point you were originally making is that Iran was some sort of anomaly, and that its spelling should be different in order to conform to some pattern of the English language that would otherwise normally spell it as Eran.
So, instead, all you're really doing is acknowledging that this phenomenon is completely normal, commonplace across multiple languages, easily identifiable in numerous English examples—and yet complaining that it still violates some sort of general rule of spelling?

I'm not arguing Iran is an exception. I'm saying English doesn't transliterate non‑Latin scripts phonetically, and your examples all demonstrate that. The spelling isn't trying to match the native vowel, so "Eran" isn't the expected outcome in the first place.

[Beltway]

Yamato

To be fair, Yamato is an anomaly in its native language; characters in use today have been substituted, and do not have the same sounds nor meaning because the original characters alone were construed as offensive. I guess that's what you get when your characters were imported from China, and didn't think too much about land and people which wasn't in their kingdom. (Jukujikun (熟字訓) are readings of kanji combinations that have no direct correspondence to the characters' individual on'yomi [Chinese-based] or kun'yomi [Japanese-based]...so yes, there are typically multiple pronunciations for the same character's meaning without much of a strict rule).

Ya-ma-too

In Japanese it's ya‑ma‑to, all syllables equal, no stress on the middle one.

The accented "ya‑MAH‑toh" you hear from many Americans is an English stress pattern, not anything from the native language.

Another pet peeve is how that many Americans pronounce Hiroshima.

In Japanese, Hiroshima is pronounced as hee-roh-shee-mah (ひろしま). The emphasis is typically evenly distributed across the syllables, unlike how it's sometimes pronounced in English. The "hiro" part sounds like "hee-roh," the "shi" like "shee," and the "ma" like "mah."

If you're aiming for authenticity, it's a great way to show respect for the language and culture!

The pronunciation "hi-ROSH-i-mah" is a result of how English speakers naturally adapt foreign words to fit English pronunciation patterns. English often places stress on certain syllables, and in this case, it tends to emphasize the "ROSH" part, which isn't how it's spoken in Japanese. Additionally, the "shi" sound in Japanese (which is softer, like "shee") is often anglicized to sound more like "ROSH," as in "rush."

President Truman got it right in 1945 -- you can look up his "rain of ruin" speech the day after, it is on YouTube.

This difference highlights how languages influence each other, often leading to variations in pronunciation.

[kphoger]

In my not-at-all-scientific and easily-changed opinion, the hi-RO-shi-ma stressing gets slightly closer to correct than the hi-ro-SHI-ma stressing—but for some reason I actually prefer the latter.

Asking Americans to avoid stressing any one syllable at all is probably too much, even if it's more correct.

[Beltway]

In my not-at-all-scientific and easily-changed opinion, the hi-RO-shi-ma stressing gets slightly closer to correct than the hi-ro-SHI-ma stressing—but for some reason I actually prefer the latter.
Asking Americans to avoid stressing any one syllable at all is probably too much, even if it's more correct.

Japanese doesn't have stressed syllables the way English does, so both hi‑RO‑shi‑ma and hi‑ro‑SHI‑ma are English stress patterns.

In Japanese it's just hi‑ro‑shi‑ma, all syllables equal. Any stress you hear in English is something English is adding, not something the native language uses.

[Rothman]

The Key Bridge Rebuild project does not have a federal project number -- that speaks volumes about what FHWA thinks, here 28 months and counting.

The absence of a federal project number isn't a trivia point -- it's the clearest indicator of FHWA's current posture. A project doesn't get an FP No. until FHWA has accepted the scope, validated the cost, approved the Finance Plan, and opened the project in FMIS.

None of that has happened yet.

If you think I'm wrong, identify the federal obligation notice, the FMIS entry, or the Finance Plan approval. Without those, the project is still a state initiative with federal interest, not a federally accepted major project.

You don't have access to FMIS and this is all malarkey.

[Beltway]

The Key Bridge Rebuild project does not have a federal project number -- that speaks volumes about what FHWA thinks, here 28 months and counting.
The absence of a federal project number isn't a trivia point -- it's the clearest indicator of FHWA's current posture. A project doesn't get an FP No. until FHWA has accepted the scope, validated the cost, approved the Finance Plan, and opened the project in FMIS.
None of that has happened yet.
If you think I'm wrong, identify the federal obligation notice, the FMIS entry, or the Finance Plan approval. Without those, the project is still a state initiative with federal interest, not a federally accepted major project.

You don't have access to FMIS and this is all malarkey.

Access to FMIS isn't required to know whether a federal project number exists. When FHWA assigns an FP No., it shows up in multiple public‑facing places: obligation notices, TIP/STIP amendments, federal participation agreements, and MDTA's own documentation. None of those exist for the Key Bridge rebuild.

FHWA also cannot obligate a dollar until the project is in FMIS, the Finance Plan is approved, and the scope and cost are validated. MDTA has not announced any of those steps, and FHWA hasn't published them.

If you believe a federal project number has been issued, then identify it. Otherwise, the absence of an FP No. remains the clearest indicator that FHWA has not yet accepted the project.

Here is a project with a federal project number --

Virginia Department of Transportation
Date Printed: 05/12/2026
Schedule of Items
Proposal ID: C0000126561B48
Order No.: A45
Oversight/State Project No.: 0495-029-588, B648
Federal Project No.: BFP-495-5(099)
Contractor: [[ to be entered on bid document ]]
SECTION: 0001 REGULAR BID ITEMS
Cat Alt Set ID: Cat Alt Mbr ID:
[[ pay items follow ]]

[hbelkins]

Today I read a Reddit thread complaining about the new Wegmans carts and saw a picture of them.  Yuck!  What is the point of small carts if you're still having to push a giant basket around and put you stuff down low?  I used to lament not having Wegmans around Albany, but right now I'm kinda glad we don't.  It keeps me far away from these things.

https://imgur.com/a/bubbles-pV1Mzp6

The new cart looks like any other cart you'd see at a Kroger or a Walmart. The old cart (on the right in the photo) is also available at Kroger.

[formulanone]

Today I read a Reddit thread complaining about the new Wegmans carts and saw a picture of them.  Yuck!  What is the point of small carts if you're still having to push a giant basket around and put you stuff down low?  I used to lament not having Wegmans around Albany, but right now I'm kinda glad we don't.  It keeps me far away from these things.

https://imgur.com/a/bubbles-pV1Mzp6

The new cart looks like any other cart you'd see at a Kroger or a Walmart. The old cart (on the right in the photo) is also available at Kroger.

I like the mini-carts/buggies when shopping for just 20 items or so. Fills up just right for my typical 5-day/4-night stay.

[Rothman]

The Key Bridge Rebuild project does not have a federal project number -- that speaks volumes about what FHWA thinks, here 28 months and counting.
The absence of a federal project number isn't a trivia point -- it's the clearest indicator of FHWA's current posture. A project doesn't get an FP No. until FHWA has accepted the scope, validated the cost, approved the Finance Plan, and opened the project in FMIS.
None of that has happened yet.
If you think I'm wrong, identify the federal obligation notice, the FMIS entry, or the Finance Plan approval. Without those, the project is still a state initiative with federal interest, not a federally accepted major project.

You don't have access to FMIS and this is all malarkey.

Access to FMIS isn't required to know whether a federal project number exists. When FHWA assigns an FP No., it shows up in multiple public‑facing places: obligation notices, TIP/STIP amendments, federal participation agreements, and MDTA's own documentation. None of those exist for the Key Bridge rebuild.

FHWA also cannot obligate a dollar until the project is in FMIS, the Finance Plan is approved, and the scope and cost are validated. MDTA has not announced any of those steps, and FHWA hasn't published them.

If you believe a federal project number has been issued, then identify it. Otherwise, the absence of an FP No. remains the clearest indicator that FHWA has not yet accepted the project.

Here is a project with a federal project number --

Virginia Department of Transportation
Date Printed: 05/12/2026
Schedule of Items
Proposal ID: C0000126561B48
Order No.: A45
Oversight/State Project No.: 0495-029-588, B648
Federal Project No.: BFP-495-5(099)
Contractor: [[ to be entered on bid document ]]
SECTION: 0001 REGULAR BID ITEMS
Cat Alt Set ID: Cat Alt Mbr ID:
[[ pay items follow ]]

Given that we've already been through this in the real thread:

https://memepediadankmemes.fandom.com/wiki/Old_Man_Yells_at_Cloud?file=297.jpg

[SSOWorld]

More nitpicking -- commonly seeing pronunciation --

Iran as "eee-rahn"

Iraq as "eye-rack"
. . .

I use "eye-ran" for Iran

is it Cutter, or KAT-ar, or Caht-ar?

[SSOWorld]

In Germany - Leopard has been pronounced Leo-pare-d

[vdeane]

Depends on what it is. In the serious technical threads I usually know what I am talking about.
In the Key Bridge threads I have done a huge amount of research and if anything recent developments have made my original stance even firmer.

I think your IT career at VDOT gave you just enough knowledge to think you're knowledgeable but not enough to realize why nobody else shares that opinion about you.

My background isn't the argument. The points I make stand or fall on the evidence, not on my résumé. If you think something I said about the Key Bridge is wrong, point to the specific procedural step, statutory requirement, or engineering constraint you think I misinterpreted.

Dismissing the argument by dismissing the person isn't a rebuttal. Engage the substance and we can have a real discussion.

The Key Bridge Rebuild project does not have a federal project number -- that speaks volumes about what FHWA thinks, here 28 months and counting.

The absence of a federal project number isn't a trivia point -- it's the clearest indicator of FHWA's current posture. A project doesn't get an FP No. until FHWA has accepted the scope, validated the cost, approved the Finance Plan, and opened the project in FMIS.

None of that has happened yet.

If you think I'm wrong, identify the federal obligation notice, the FMIS entry, or the Finance Plan approval. Without those, the project is still a state initiative with federal interest, not a federally accepted major project.

Many of us have.  Repeatedly.  We're kinda tired of you repeating arguments over and over again, hyper-fixating on things, and blowing up threads.  You may love to argue, but the rest of us don't, hence why you're getting nonsense replies from many these days.  You'll frequently ignore other people when they refute something that you say, and instead just restate the point again as if that means something, or move the goalposts.

Even on the occasion that you're right, you're almost always hyper-fixated on something and blowing it out of proportion.  And many of your arguments seem to boil down to "other state transportation agencies do something differently than VDOT does, and that makes me mad".

[Beltway]

Depends on what it is. In the serious technical threads I usually know what I am talking about.
In the Key Bridge threads I have done a huge amount of research and if anything recent developments have made my original stance even firmer.

I think your IT career at VDOT gave you just enough knowledge to think you're knowledgeable but not enough to realize why nobody else shares that opinion about you.

My background isn't the argument. The points I make stand or fall on the evidence, not on my résumé. If you think something I said about the Key Bridge is wrong, point to the specific procedural step, statutory requirement, or engineering constraint you think I misinterpreted.
Dismissing the argument by dismissing the person isn't a rebuttal. Engage the substance and we can have a real discussion.
The Key Bridge Rebuild project does not have a federal project number -- that speaks volumes about what FHWA thinks, here 28 months and counting.
The absence of a federal project number isn't a trivia point -- it's the clearest indicator of FHWA's current posture. A project doesn't get an FP No. until FHWA has accepted the scope, validated the cost, approved the Finance Plan, and opened the project in FMIS.
None of that has happened yet.
If you think I'm wrong, identify the federal obligation notice, the FMIS entry, or the Finance Plan approval. Without those, the project is still a state initiative with federal interest, not a federally accepted major project.

Many of us have.  Repeatedly.  We're kinda tired of you repeating arguments over and over again, hyper-fixating on things, and blowing up threads.  You may love to argue, but the rest of us don't, hence why you're getting nonsense replies from many these days.  You'll frequently ignore other people when they refute something that you say, and instead just restate the point again as if that means something, or move the goalposts.
Even on the occasion that you're right, you're almost always hyper-fixated on something and blowing it out of proportion.  And many of your arguments seem to boil down to "other state transportation agencies do something differently than VDOT does, and that makes me mad".

If people have refuted the specific Key Bridge and federal‑aid points I've made, then copy the refutations here so I can review them. I'm asking for the actual procedural or statutory counter‑arguments -- not general comments about my posting style. If someone has identified a federal project number, an obligation notice, an FMIS entry, or a Finance Plan approval, then post it. Otherwise, the claim that "many have refuted this" needs to be backed up with the actual evidence.

[vdeane]

Depends on what it is. In the serious technical threads I usually know what I am talking about.
In the Key Bridge threads I have done a huge amount of research and if anything recent developments have made my original stance even firmer.

I think your IT career at VDOT gave you just enough knowledge to think you're knowledgeable but not enough to realize why nobody else shares that opinion about you.

My background isn't the argument. The points I make stand or fall on the evidence, not on my résumé. If you think something I said about the Key Bridge is wrong, point to the specific procedural step, statutory requirement, or engineering constraint you think I misinterpreted.
Dismissing the argument by dismissing the person isn't a rebuttal. Engage the substance and we can have a real discussion.
The Key Bridge Rebuild project does not have a federal project number -- that speaks volumes about what FHWA thinks, here 28 months and counting.
The absence of a federal project number isn't a trivia point -- it's the clearest indicator of FHWA's current posture. A project doesn't get an FP No. until FHWA has accepted the scope, validated the cost, approved the Finance Plan, and opened the project in FMIS.
None of that has happened yet.
If you think I'm wrong, identify the federal obligation notice, the FMIS entry, or the Finance Plan approval. Without those, the project is still a state initiative with federal interest, not a federally accepted major project.

Many of us have.  Repeatedly.  We're kinda tired of you repeating arguments over and over again, hyper-fixating on things, and blowing up threads.  You may love to argue, but the rest of us don't, hence why you're getting nonsense replies from many these days.  You'll frequently ignore other people when they refute something that you say, and instead just restate the point again as if that means something, or move the goalposts.
Even on the occasion that you're right, you're almost always hyper-fixated on something and blowing it out of proportion.  And many of your arguments seem to boil down to "other state transportation agencies do something differently than VDOT does, and that makes me mad".

If people have refuted the specific Key Bridge and federal‑aid points I've made, then copy the refutations here so I can review them. I'm asking for the actual procedural or statutory counter‑arguments -- not general comments about my posting style. If someone has identified a federal project number, an obligation notice, an FMIS entry, or a Finance Plan approval, then post it. Otherwise, the claim that "many have refuted this" needs to be backed up with the actual evidence.

I'm not doing your homework for you, especially after you've blatantly ignored such things in the past (I remember on the I-81 thread where I pointed out why your arguments were based on a BS premise and then you just restated the same stuff afterwards, hyper-fixating on a premise that was beyond ridiculous).  And I think nobody cares about your latest hyper-fixation but you.  NY somehow manages to "find" double that amount of money without federal assistance every year as part of the state budget process... where there's a political will, there's (usually) a way.  You're just searching for things to complain about because you don't like that project.  There's nothing that Maryland could do or could ever have done that would make you happy, because ultimately, I suspect the only thing you'd be happy with there is the "no build" alternative.

[oscar]

If you think I'm wrong, identify the federal obligation notice, the FMIS entry, or the Finance Plan approval. Without those, the project is still a state initiative with federal interest, not a federally accepted major project.

You may love to argue, but the rest of us don't, hence why you're getting nonsense replies from many these days.

I used to argue for a living. Now that I'm a retired lawyer, I'm not giving it away for free.

[Max Rockatansky]

This Key Bridge stuff isn't even worth stringing along for amusement anymore.  Now it just comes off as sad and obsessive behavior.

[Rothman]

If you think I'm wrong, identify the federal obligation notice, the FMIS entry, or the Finance Plan approval. Without those, the project is still a state initiative with federal interest, not a federally accepted major project.

You may love to argue, but the rest of us don't, hence why you're getting nonsense replies from many these days.

I used to argue for a living. Now that I'm a retired lawyer, I'm not giving it away for free.

Implies that you did pro bono work. ;D

[Beltway]

Depends on what it is. In the serious technical threads I usually know what I am talking about.
In the Key Bridge threads I have done a huge amount of research and if anything recent developments have made my original stance even firmer.

I think your IT career at VDOT gave you just enough knowledge to think you're knowledgeable but not enough to realize why nobody else shares that opinion about you.

My background isn't the argument. The points I make stand or fall on the evidence, not on my résumé. If you think something I said about the Key Bridge is wrong, point to the specific procedural step, statutory requirement, or engineering constraint you think I misinterpreted.
Dismissing the argument by dismissing the person isn't a rebuttal. Engage the substance and we can have a real discussion.
The Key Bridge Rebuild project does not have a federal project number -- that speaks volumes about what FHWA thinks, here 28 months and counting.
The absence of a federal project number isn't a trivia point -- it's the clearest indicator of FHWA's current posture. A project doesn't get an FP No. until FHWA has accepted the scope, validated the cost, approved the Finance Plan, and opened the project in FMIS.
None of that has happened yet.
If you think I'm wrong, identify the federal obligation notice, the FMIS entry, or the Finance Plan approval. Without those, the project is still a state initiative with federal interest, not a federally accepted major project.

Many of us have.  Repeatedly.  We're kinda tired of you repeating arguments over and over again, hyper-fixating on things, and blowing up threads.  You may love to argue, but the rest of us don't, hence why you're getting nonsense replies from many these days.  You'll frequently ignore other people when they refute something that you say, and instead just restate the point again as if that means something, or move the goalposts.
Even on the occasion that you're right, you're almost always hyper-fixated on something and blowing it out of proportion.  And many of your arguments seem to boil down to "other state transportation agencies do something differently than VDOT does, and that makes me mad".

If people have refuted the specific Key Bridge and federal‑aid points I've made, then copy the refutations here so I can review them. I'm asking for the actual procedural or statutory counter‑arguments -- not general comments about my posting style. If someone has identified a federal project number, an obligation notice, an FMIS entry, or a Finance Plan approval, then post it. Otherwise, the claim that "many have refuted this" needs to be backed up with the actual evidence.

I'm not doing your homework for you, especially after you've blatantly ignored such things in the past (I remember on the I-81 thread where I pointed out why your arguments were based on a BS premise and then you just restated the same stuff afterwards, hyper-fixating on a premise that was beyond ridiculous).  And I think nobody cares about your latest hyper-fixation but you.  NY somehow manages to "find" double that amount of money without federal assistance every year as part of the state budget process... where there's a political will, there's (usually) a way.  You're just searching for things to complain about because you don't like that project.  There's nothing that Maryland could do or could ever have done that would make you happy, because ultimately, I suspect the only thing you'd be happy with there is the "no build" alternative.

You're a very angry person, you have poured vitriol on me three times above, and I'm not going to match that. If you want to discuss the Key Bridge, then address the actual federal‑aid points I raised. Personal attacks aren't a substitute for evidence.