Core claim: “Geissler tubes as a computer ancestor” I was really surprised at this and had to verify it “: Fair: Geissler’s 1857 gas-discharge tubes popularized controlled glow discharges and directly led to Crookes tubes, cathode rays, and gas-discharge lighting. Earlier glow experiments existed (Hauksbee, Faraday), but Geissler standardized the form that kicked off the tech tree. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geissler_tube” It is odd that Heinrich Geissler does not have a bigger place in history. I guess he was just a “toy” builder… Also interesting: Most keyword searches treat ß ≈ ss, so “Geißler” and “Geissler” have the same search results.

▲

cubefox 3 days ago | parent [-]

His actual name is in fact written "Geißler", not "Geissler".

▲

foxglacier 3 days ago | parent [-]

Names have languages too, just like other words. Eszett isn't an English letter so we transliterate and it's still the way his actual name is written in English. We do this all the time, for example Wang or Wong instead of 王.

▲

cubefox 3 days ago | parent [-]

If that were the case here, the correct translation for "Sein Name war nicht Geissler sondern Geißler" would be "His name was Geissler rather than Geissler." Which is clearly wrong, as the first makes sense but the second doesn't. (I agree though that the noun "Geissler tube" is it's own thing and indeed language specific.)

	▲	aidenn0 a day ago \| parent [-]
		Is your argument that "If a literal translation of a sentence doesn't make sense, then the translation for each word must be wrong?" If so, that's trivial to find counterexamples for: It's not hard to find Japanese sentences that would literally translate to English as roughly: "O I think it's so cute that you say 'I' (僕) instead of 'I' (私)." Claiming therefore that translating 僕 and 私 each to the word "I" is always wrong is nonsensical. If you are making some weaker claim that excludes my example, please fill me in because I couldn't think of one.