@CowperKettle It can, sure. But it is unlikely to do so now in the US or Canada. A recession becomes a threat when it has persisted for two quarters - so far it has been only around 2 months of lock-down. There is sufficient capital stock as of now.
But if unemployment keeps skyrocketing (which is due to the decrease in job-finding rate and not due to the rise in the separation rate) there will be an economic depression. The lock-down is a negative shock, I don't disagree - markets may very well deteriorate. But governments and institutions in developed countries can better tackle a recession and prevent deaths from it than they can tackle deaths from the pandemic - I am saying this in regards to the present time.
Counties do not exist in isolation, the knock-on effect will topple economies of weaker states, killing people through malnutrition, suicide and increased crime.
@CowperKettle What is your point though? Are you arguing that the lock-down is better lifted immediately? That borders be open this week? I never said that there won't be an economic recession - it is bound to follow if it hasn't already started. My argument is that delaying the lifting of the lock-down by a few more weeks won't necessarily increase the effects/impacts of the recession.
Lifting the lock-down this week may make things even worse; it may result in more people getting infected and a second wave of the virus. If that happens, there will be a second lock-down (may be a longer one), which will surely make the impending recession more severe.
Well, I don't think anyone can look back and say their skills were the same — If they do, they're worse off than they think. You just have to keep climbing the tall peakless mountain and occasionally look back and be happy about the progress you make
ell.stackexchange.com/questions/244726/… I think this question should be answered, but with that notice thing saying that it doesn't fit the Q & A mod- wait a minute, no question on SO fits this model anyway. Every question on some programming issue could have multiple correct answers. I do say correct, as in formally answering the question, although some answers could be better, as in more optimal in whatever aspect.
It is slightly opinion-based, and would perhaps be better migrated to the meta site. I think it's a good question because I don't know the answer myself, haha. Not sure about that suggestion by user Michael Harvey.
At any rate, I think news presenters could be a good choice. They don't really speak at length, however...
You need someone interviewed often, or who gives speeches. Perhaps some former US president.
Maybe a radio show host? You kinda wanna see their mouth movements, though?
millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/… This site has all these famous speeches by US presidents, i.e. transcripts, together with audios and videos where available. I'm not an expert, but from what I can hear, I think Reagan's accent sounds pretty okay.
It's a simple BrE vs. AmE thing, really. A learner's dictionary will have it, and again we're going back to not having provided the asker with links to dictionaries before the question was posted.
You can of course make it complicated by conducting some sort of research in terms of GloWbE lookups, but I doubt anyone finds the issue that interesting.
But even that aside, I'm certain the issue has been raised before and there are most likely dozens of websites already explaining it, meaning whoever did ask this doesn't know how to / care to google.
It'd be a different matter entirely if there were conflicting information regarding the issue, in which case asking here as well would be okay.
@M.A.R. You're either insulated or you're grounded.
Language Overflow
Language Overflow