u/xmuskorx

A) Both are in the dictionary now: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/expresso

B) Both are understandable. No one would get confused by what you mean when you ask for one, pretty much anywhere in the world.

C) Some may argue that “Espresso” is truer to the Italian language. But that’s only if we go by pronunciation/spelling. The meaning… is lost. Espresso means roughly “expressed” or “pressed out” in Italian.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/italian-english/espresso

But… hey. Notice that one of the meanings is “expressed!” (in the sense of squeezed out). That’s exactly what “Expresso” evokes. So while “Espresso” preserves the Italian SPELLING, it loses the meaning, as the word “Espresso” means nothing to an English speaker, while “Expresso” evokes the meaning of “squeezing” or “pressing” the coffee through a filter.

This is more of a pick-what-you-want situation, and each has merit. There is no reason to prefer spelling and sacrifice meaning if want to stay "true" to Italian.

D) and sure “Expresso” makes it sound like something that is fast, and that’s false.

This just means we need to educate people on the meaning of “Expresso”: that it means “pressed through,” not “fast.”

But with “Espresso,” people don’t know what the heck it means either and still need to be educated…

This seems like basic humans rights to me:

All residents of the the same country should have the same rights regardless or religion. If Muslims can pray in public area X, then so should people of any other religion and even people with no religion.

Even UN "stresses that a comprehensive, just and lasting solution to the question of the City of Jerusalem should take into account the legitimate concerns of both the Palestinian and Israeli sides and should include internationally guaranteed provisions to ensure the freedom of religion and of conscience of its inhabitants, as well as permanent, free and unhindered access to the holy places by people of all religions and nationalities"

https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-180352

SO why do I want my view changed? A lot people feel strongly that Jews praying there is wrong and should be stopped. I want to see if I am missing something.

What is unlikely to chnage my view:

1. Some Arab/Muslim people are provoked/aggrieved by such prayer. Well.. the solution here is to educate these aggrieved people on important of equal rights, and tolerance. We should not just give in and accommodate intolerant views.

2. "Jewish faith prohibits praying there." That's... a religious opinion. Some Jews feel this way, some feel otherwise. Ultimately Every person can decided on their own what their faith means to them. Even if it's a small minority of Jews who want to pray there - they should still be allowed to.

3. Hard right Israelis use this prayer is provocation. I agree. Some do. That's why it's important for all parties to cooperate and equitably establish protocols on how to pray in the place holy to multiple faiths without interfering with each other. The solution is not "blanket ban"

4. It's Israel that has rules that ban Jewish prayer. This is irrelevant, regardless of who imposed such rules - the rules should change to be more fair.

5. "You can't just have a Muslim prayer in a church." This is true for many private churches build nowhere special. When we talk about shared public places with importance to multiple religions it is not uncommon at all to share.

For example both Muslim and Christian serves are held at Mount of Olives. I don't see Temple mount more like that than some private church located nowhere significant.

Looking forward to things I may have missed. Thanks, all!

EDIT:

I gave a delta for pointing out that you can already "silently pray." My view is amended to say that they should also be allowed to pray non-silently / visibly.

The age of AI has arrived. This is not really arguable. There are proven results in variety of fields: bio research, data processing, defense/security. (And yes consumer entertainment).

Any country that does not build data centers will fall behind and will probably have to build data centers later to catch up anyway.

So fighting against data centers is delaying inevitable at best and quixotic tilting at windmills at worst.

So why do I want my view changed? People on Reddit and beyond seem to celebrate politicians who block or delay data centers and companies who build them are villified for building them. So I want to be sure I am not missing something since the passion seems to be real.

What is unlikely to change my view:

1. Data centers take up too much energy. The solution is to build more energy production (like nuclear) that we will likely need in the future anyway.
2. Data centers take up too much land. USA in particular has plenty of land. Housing shortages are mostly artificial and mostly due to ridiculous single home only zoning that seems to be eating up 70+% of every metro area. That's what we should fix. Blaming data centers is silly.
3. AI is a bubble. Two things can be true at once. AI can be incredibly useful and be the future and be a bubble. Dot Com was a bubble in 1999-2000 but that does not mean that dot com tech did not ultimately win out. Pets.com was the ultimate bubble case study that was heavily over valued... But 20 years later chewy.com exists and is a major retail player with larger valuation than pets ever had even at the bubble peak. Same thing will likely happen to Ai, modern companies will get overvalued and some may go bust, but in 15-20 years the tech will mature and become pervasive.

Thanks every one! Looking forward to the discussion.