> In German it really just means "Citizen".

It most definitely does not — it’s both “citoyen” and “bourgeois”.

Thomas Mann was German, so he most definitely was not a "burgher", he was just a "Bürger". And the German "Bürger" is just "citizen" in English.

It meant an upper middle class urban citizen, while "Kleinbürger" was their lower middle class counterpart. Buddenbrooks was all about Bürgers, their history and lifestyle. Mann was a member of that class or even of its upper crust, the patricians.

This isn’t hard to understand. “Burgher” is a perfectly legitimate translation of “Bürger” as in “bürgerlicher Mittagstisch”, “Der Bürger duldet nichts Unverständliches im Haus”. “Citizen” is a perfectly legitimate translation of “Bürger” when it comes to “Bürgeramt” or “Weltbürger”.

Well, Bürger means citizen, and bürgerlich means middle-class. Indeed, not hard to understand.

Excellent. Now do “bürgerliches Gesetzbuch”.

The trolling of auggierose aside, whatever the bürgerliches Gesetzbuch might literally translate to, it is a triumph of the burghers, the bourgeoisie.

Law that applies only to the middle-class. Duh.

But you do know it applies to everyone in germany?

Cynicism is punishment looking for a crime.

Please tell me you are trolling?

https://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/B%C3%BCrger says:

Bedeutungen:

    [1a] Einwohner einer Gemeinde
    [1b] Angehöriger eines Staates
    [2] Angehöriger der Mittelschicht, des Bürgertums

Did you know that some words have multiple meanings?

See eg https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gro%C3%9Fb%C3%BCrger or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Burgher or https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleinb%C3%BCrger

They are not. In their defense, these people are imbeciles.

I think you’ll find we’re pedants.

The pedants are out there complaining. The pendants are in here just hanging around.

no, no, the poster he's replying to is the owner of a necromancer's ancient artifact.

> and mild inflammation may occur without noticable swelling.

Calor, dolor, rubor, tumor

They are not definition. Maybe they were, when we didn't know about cytokines and immune cells.

Golf.

Also, http://www.numdam.org/item/SPHM_1979___2_A1_0.pdf

This is not even approximately true. j is not “defined in terms of E”. It occurs as a source term in one of the inhomogeneous Maxwell equations, and consistency with the other inhomogeneous one (div D=rho) requires that div j = dot rho, which means that j is the flow of charge density. So, I guess if electron movement shouldn’t be referred to as current, we shouldn’t refer to electrons as charges, either…

When solving for the wave equation, the substitution made for J is sigma * E. So defined in terms of the E field and some conductivity constant. When solving the wave equation, there is no mention of charge density, everything is fields. This predicted the existence of electromagnetic waves. In reality, we know there is only electrons and photons. So thus the wave equation is the source of truth and what we call fields are just a consequence of the complex interactions between electrons and photons and this is studied in quantum electrodynamics.

Resistivity is measured in ohms * meter, so this may be a unit conversion issue…

> Sure there was the odd professor that would call a stack a "Stapel"

“Kellerspeicher”, certainly

OMG, that rings a bell. Might have been that instead, yep! It's been a while. Was literally only the one prof too.

Both are used, depending on which tradition of lecture book you follow (or sth like that)

I don‘t think that‘s unintuitive. What goes into a source-free volume element has to go out of that volume element (radiation or field).

It’s certainly unintuitive to me in that I wouldn’t expect the field an inch and a trillion miles from the sheet to be identical