Still do, Franken is on the one hand a part of Bavaria very insistent on not actually being Bavarian (and they're right), OTOH a dialect continuum reaching over the Ruhr area up to Flanders and Holland.

Charlemagne was a prince of Austrasia, just another guy in a long dynasty of conquerors but notably the one to conquer Rome (and conversion-by-genocide of the Saxons). Also a lot more Gauls back in the day in France before they went all national state and suppressed minority languages in favour of sounding more Roman.

Goes all the way back to at least Proto-Germanic *finnaz for Sami, possibly from "to travel by foot, walk". Not terribly unrealistic given the semi-nomadic lifestyle of Sami, Sami and Suomi might just be the same word via general Uralic relatedness (and sound the same to Germanic ears anyway) also what's now considered Finns was back then a rough assemblage of tribes consisting of multiple Uralic immigration waves known to Swedes as "Forest Finns", as supposed to the herding Finns (ie. nowadays Sami) further north.

Which I guess makes Estonians Swamp Finns (in so far as Finland-Finns aren't claiming that one for themselves with their swamp forests) and Hungarians... Paprika Finns.

Lots of things are possible, fewer are likely, even fewer attested, even fewer attested without doubt.

Though it'd have a special irony to it: Some Roman asking a bunch of probably Austro-Bavarian or Alemanic warriors "who are you" and getting the answer "Germannen" -- "spear men". Were Italy an Island they would've said "sailors".

Probably more likely than Romans observing those tribes, noting more or less bog-standard javelins, not exactly a rare or particularly notable technology, and saying "hey let's ask them what they call javelins and add a -man after that for no apparent reason". Even if they specialised their tactics etc. around those spears would you call Greeks "Phalanx people"?

The Saxons were named after their typical sword or fighting knive, the Seax or Sax.

There's also a possibility the name is related to "settling", and the knife then probably named after the tribe.

the “Alemanni” who lived in modern day Germany and bordered modern day france.

Alemans still live in Baden-Württemberg, parts of Bavaria, Switzerland and I think there's also a splattering in Austria. Basically, High Germans which aren't Austro-Bavarian (same culture, different kingdoms) are Alemans.

“Saksa” is derived from the German region “Saxony”.

That one can be a bit misleading: The modern state of Saxony has nothing to do with the Saxon tribe, the place the title was applied to slowly drifted over the ages. They're much more related to Prussians and Thuringians and even Franks, going all the way over to Flanders and Holland, than Saxons proper. (Holland, not Netherlands).

Here's a rough splotch of where Old Saxon was spoken, which you can consider "core Saxony". At least linguistics-wise it spread quite a bit especially during the days of the Hanse (becoming a minority language as far up as Estonia), but it definitely stops before arriving at a place where "goose meat" means "could you please". Utter gibberish.

Twitter International Unlimited Company
One Cumberland Place
Fenian Street
Dublin 2
D02 AX07
Ireland

VAT ID IE9803175Q

They're sitting in Europe selling lunches. More specifically, ads. They're also sitting in Europe preparing lunches, more specifically, they have servers here. If they don't want to be beholden to EU law then they should stop doing both.

Why would anyone post this? Of course it didn’t just turn up out of nowhere.

Good. Then you agree that it's valuable to look at the reasons for inequality, I presume, and not stop at "inequality is the centre of it all". Both material and immaterial ones. Or to put in classic Marxist terms (a bit reductive but it's close enough): What's the economic and cultural obstacles to class consciousness.

That quoted phrase you have there is pure hot nonsense.

It's using habitual/continuative aspect. "This thing here that is habitually that way because it habitually is that way".

Russian propaganda doctrine is about attacking the very concept of truth itself -- they want people to think "I can't know what's true", so that they disengage politically and leave the ruling to the ruling class.

F35s would overwhelm Ukrainian logistics capacity also Ukrainians don't have many good things to say about the Abrams in practice, from what I gather mostly weight as well as lack of reactive armour package and general sturdiness of the turret. Leo2s have similar issues: A T74 weighs just over 40 tons, that's the kind of weight Ukrainian infrastructure is made for (think random bridges in the countryside and lots of mud), Leo 2A5 55t, 2A6 62t, 2A7V 66.5t, M1A2 SEPv3 66.8t.

Send F16s and Bradleys instead. Send those Abrams to Greece they have about 500 Leopard 1s Ukraine can use and already has infrastructure for. Same weight class as the T74.

EDIT: Oh, before I forget: Send any Leo1 chassis you can find anywhere. Rheinmetall is working on Frankensteining new Skyranger turrets onto old Leo1 chassis which then will essentially be Gepard 2s -- same chassis, even more capable turret. Those kinds of systems are about the only thing that can reliably take down drones in a cost-effective manner. Also send over three Patriot batteries or five or ten.

One guy yelled that all are Hamas? When the rest didn't say anything then obviously it must be true because it's what you like to believe.

The "no parading prisoners" clause doesn't really apply to these situations. Or, well, at least it's debatable.

The provision was added to disallow what had been common in WWI and WWII, and that is parading prisoners through streets while crowds cheered on. Photography existed back then and the convention very much does not say "you can't have pictures in newspapers". Should there be some privacy considerations? I'd say yes, but we also shouldn't overdo it. After all filming soldiers while they're fighting is legal, why would everything suddenly change completely once they're captured?