Would you say that something that might take significantly more input to complete a task in, say, being a medical or astrophysics researcher (something that might take months to see results from the work) would be negatively affected by generalizing labour under a more progressed form of communism (assuming there aren't many people qualified to do this work in the population), or would you say it wouldn't be significantly less effecient than if labour were specialized?
I think you missed the point of the post. This is about if and/or how division of labour is used in socialism, not whether people will do jobs.
I feel like the US is far down on the victims list. Look how they massacred my boys Spain and Italy
I see many self-identified socialists imply that, in a socialist society, people would constantly be doing different jobs and would split their labour between many different jobs rather than specialize. It definitely makes sense when it comes to jobs that don't require too much specialization, but how does this work with highly specific jobs that require a disproportionately high amount of resources to become skilled in? Would they spend more time on a specialization, would they frequently rotate the same as everyone else?
I think it'd be better if we disregarded highly authoritarian leaders in general and embraced socialism. Back in the day, kings and emperors fought their battles, but it didn't make their feudalism any less... feudal.
It's just shrimple compound words and maybe agglutination. You can form words decently synthetically (although not very agglutinatively) in English to an extent too – in fact, English loves affixes quite a lot despite generally being more analytic than synthetic. For example, I now will demonstrate bipreindefenestratability. A word you might actually be able to find in dictionaries is "propreantepenultimate". Then there's words like "goodbye", formed from "God be with ye".
Another similar concept that doesn't go as far as agglutination is compound words, which English also likes (often times they may have a hyphen or space between them in writing though, rather than just being glued together).
Germanic languages (including Old English and Old Norse) used to all have extensive compound word formation, but it has slowly became less and less pronounced of a grammatical feature over time in most languages. Another comment mentions German "Handschuh" ("Hand" + "Schuh", handshoe), there's also Dutch "handschoen" and Luxembourgish "Händsch"; well Old English had "handscōh" ("hand" + "sċōh", handshoe). Plus Modern English words like "handkerchief" (hand + kerchief/coverchef).
Yeah the crashes and bugs have been the one thing that I noticed was wrong with the game, it gets mildly annoying crashing randomly because you did something random like change settings while in a match or just crashing after you finish a mission for no apparent reason... other bugs too have been annoying but game-breaking bugs usually aren't as frequent as crashes I think. The worst I've experienced was objectives that were already completed being marked on the map like they weren't completed.
Divinity 2 was amazing, although I got really bored when it came to Act 3
I wouldn't say it comes from Korean, more like it and its analog in Korean probably have a shared origin due to the mixing of ancient Koreanic and Japonic peoples pre-migration and during migration. It may have come from a different language that doesn't exist today, it may have originated in proto-Korean or proto-Japanese, or Koreanic and Japonic language speakers may have just changed each others language in a way which caused the particle to emerge in both languages (which is certainly plausible given how much they influenced each other's grammar in general).
uget download manager, aves mobile image viewer