Your pet peeve, technical or otherwise.

[Nominal Animal]

Yes, the expansion of singular “they” [is] absolutely established, and the least-disruptive of any of the alternatives.

I love using they in online discussions when the participants use pseudonyms, because I so easily get gendered pronouns wrong (as in, unless I'm careful, I won't even be consistent with them).  I just never grokked gendered words, not in Swedish, German, or English, and I studied all of them at comprehensive school.

Really, it's the forced language uppityness that bugs me in this respect.  It's like "You need to call me Sir/Lady Uppity, you trash".  Most of those who do want others to use specific pronouns for them do not see it that way, but hey, if I don't get to define how language works and should be used, then neither do you.  It evolves by itself via use, and even if I am a linguistic troglodyte, I too am part of the language user scene like everybody else is.

I don't like honorifics either.  If formal, I'll use your surname, but that's about it.  I do honorifics once when introducing people to others, but not to refer to them, especially when they are present.  If they insist, I'll laugh and leave; I've seen too much to play dat.  Call me stuck egalitarian .

[IDEngineer]

My experience with plurals like they, them, etc. is that the people in question are utterly unknown, so these terms are used to apply to anyone without specificity. This occurs in user manuals and the like.

When you're speaking of a specific individual, either in print or verbally, there is no rational reason to use the plural. And doing so can be confusing, too. I'd be pretty angry as a firefighter if someone said "THEY are still in the burning building", or as law enforcement if someone said "THEY are still shooting", when what they really meant was a single person was involved.

People can live how they wish, but there's no justification for corrupting existing words in the language. Make up some new words if you must, but stop co-opting words and confusing normal conversation. I've gotten fed up enough with this nonsense that when someone aggressively insists I use "they/them" I tell them I'm very sorry that they ALSO suffer from multiple personality disorder. Sometimes I add "What is the name of the personality with whom I'm speaking at this moment?" "They" usually lose coherence at that point, to the entertainment of everyone in earshot.

[vk6zgo]

My experience with plurals like they, them, etc. is that the people in question are utterly unknown, so these terms are used to apply to anyone without specificity. This occurs in user manuals and the like.

When you're speaking of a specific individual, either in print or verbally, there is no rational reason to use the plural. And doing so can be confusing, too. I'd be pretty angry as a firefighter if someone said "THEY are still in the burning building", or as law enforcement if someone said "THEY are still shooting", when what they really meant was a single person was involved.

People can live how they wish, but there's no justification for corrupting existing words in the language. Make up some new words if you must, but stop co-opting words and confusing normal conversation. I've gotten fed up enough with this nonsense that when someone aggressively insists I use "they/them" I tell them I'm very sorry that they ALSO suffer from multiple personality disorder. Sometimes I add "What is the name of the personality with whom I'm speaking at this moment?" "They" usually lose coherence at that point, to the entertainment of everyone in earshot.

"They" referring to a individual is quite appropriate in many circumstances, as in a comment like:- "Some random on Facebook is complaining that they were banned from eevBlog!"
In that case, the person commenting has no idea whether the "random" is a man, woman, extraterrestrial, robot, or a dog.("On the Internet nobody knows you're a dog!")

In the above, I nearly used "you" in place of "the person commenting", but knew some nit picker would pick it up!

English varies quite a bit in what is a normal way of expressing things.

I read an American crime novel where someone says speaking of the victim,"I knew her, so I dropped in to her house".
The detective then thinks "Egad!---This person spoke in the past tense, so must have known the victim was dead!
QED: They are the killer!"

To an Australian, the past tense would commonly be used in the case of "something done in the past", irrespective of the state of health of the person referred to, so the above deduction needs rereading to work out just what the hell is going on.

I might say, referring to a visit to another town. "I knew the bloke at the Pizza shop, so dropped in to catch up"
The trip, obviously took place in the past, & the Pizza guy is still "hale & hearty".

[pcprogrammer]

Slightly related,

"You" in the English language might also be confusing when it comes to politeness. I Dutch there are two different words to address someone in person. "Je of Jij" and "U". The former is used when you know someone on a more personal level and is a friend. The latter is more formal and used to address someone you just meet and you show some respect with this one.

The same exists in French "Tu" and "Vous"

In English "You" is used in both cases and is in that way easier.

But on a forum like this one it is a bit tricky on how to address who you are replying to or writing about, and still be politically correct.

[TimFox]

In "Early Modern English", e.g. Shakespeare and the King James translation of the Bible, there is a distinction between singular/informal "thou" and plural/formal "you".
See pp 450-451 of D and B Crystal "Shakespeare's Words", Penguin, 2002.
That discussion includes interesting examples where the speaker's opinion of the other person changes during the speech.
I find it interesting that in modern French, German, and Dutch (etc.), God is addressed in the singular/informal second person, and that usage of "Thou" persists in modern English.

[pcprogrammer]

Interesting

I'm not a language person and thought "you" was just the thing in English, but now that you mentioned it "thou shalt not kill" or "thou shalt not steal" bubbled up, but there it feels more like a plural in addressing multiple people, like done in church. Google showed "Exodus 20:15" for "thou shalt not steal"

Not to familiar with how "God" is addressed in the countries you mentioned. I'm a non practicing atheist  and don't circle in religious circles.

To my surprise I saw a youtube video a while back about atheism around the world and a list of the top 25 countries with the highest percentages of them, and the Netherlands was not in that list. Did not verify the list against other sources though.

[coppice]

In "Early Modern English", e.g. Shakespeare and the King James translation of the Bible, there is a distinction between singular/informal "thou" and plural/formal "you".
See pp 450-451 of D and B Crystal "Shakespeare's Words", Penguin, 2002.
That discussion includes interesting examples where the speaker's opinion of the other person changes during the speech.
I find it interesting that in modern French, German, and Dutch (etc.), God is addressed in the singular/informal second person, and that usage of "Thou" persists in modern English.

Thou is specifically singular, but you has always covered both singular and plural. There are plenty of places in olde English writing  where you is clearly referring to one person. Thou is still in common usage in many English speaking places. Often blended to the point people barely notice, except in comedy scripts with lines like "Where's the bin?", "What business is it of yours where I have been."

[TimFox]

That's why I referred to "you" ("vous", "Sie", etc.) as "formal/plural". 
Note that in German, the capitalized "Sie" is second person, but non-capitalized "sie" is third person.
In Early Modern English (lose "olde"), "you" functions as plural or formal singular.
See the Shakespeare book I referenced for a detailed description, especially in regards to different status between the first person (speaker) and second person (hearer).
There is an apocryphal story about a suburban high-school teacher who bragged to a professor that he was teaching Shakespeare to his students in "old English".
The professor was amazed, since that would require a linguist at the level of J R R Tolkien to pull off.

[pcprogrammer]

That's why I referred to "you" ("vous", "Sie", etc.) as "formal/plural". 
Note that in German, the capitalized "Sie" is second person, but non-capitalized "sie" is third person.

I don't know about how it is in German, but in French "vous" is both. It compares to the Dutch "U" (formal) when you address a single person or "jullie" when you address a group of people. The two Dutch examples I gave before "je or jij" and "U" are singular. The usage of "je or jij" is based on where it sits in the sentence. "Je bent gevonden" which means "You have been found" or "Ben jij het" which means "Is it you". Don't know how to call the two different types of usage, but I'm sure there is an expression for it.

[Bassman59]

In "Early Modern English", e.g. Shakespeare and the King James translation of the Bible, there is a distinction between singular/informal "thou" and plural/formal "you".
See pp 450-451 of D and B Crystal "Shakespeare's Words", Penguin, 2002.
That discussion includes interesting examples where the speaker's opinion of the other person changes during the speech.
I find it interesting that in modern French, German, and Dutch (etc.), God is addressed in the singular/informal second person, and that usage of "Thou" persists in modern English.

Thou is specifically singular, but you has always covered both singular and plural.

Here in the US, of course we've bastardized the language to suit our needs.

That's why we have words like youse (pronounced yoooz) as in youse guys for the plural. There's also you all for plural, which Way Down South has been contracted into y'all and of course from there somehow that became singular so they came up with y'all's because they think the apostrophe-s makes it plural. There's also all y'all and all y'all's and clearly all youse Europeans are just baffled by all of this.

[Nominal Animal]

English:
Parent: Stop tormenting the cat!
Kid: I'm not tormenting it!

Finnish:
Parent: Älä rääkkää sitä kissaa!
Kid: En minä rääkkääkään!

Even Finns get confused when you ask how many 'kääk' syllables there are in that final word.
Don't get me started on how confusing it is to ask a guy named Kokko to make the Midsummer Bonfire; that sounds just like chickens anxiously waiting for dinner.

[pcprogrammer]

Luckily something like subtitles exist on TV.

We like to watch Scandinavian detective series and certainly need them to be able to follow what is being said. In Danish there seems to be some German influences but still can't understand what is being said. Looking at your example it seems to be even worse in Finish.

But I guess that when you grew up with it, it all makes sense

Just like Dutch sounds like gibberish to people who don't speak it.

Edit:
Dutch:
Parent: Stop met de kat te martelen.   (Can also use: Zit de kat niet te kwellen.)
Kid: Ik ben de kat niet aan het martelen. (Ik ben de kat niet aan het kwellen)

[JohanH]

In Danish there seems to be some German influences but still can't understand what is being said.

Ask any Swede or Norwegian and they agree. Written Danish is very easy to read for Swedes and Norwegians (and Swedish speakers in Finland, like me). But spoken Danish is so different. I've no issue talking to Norwegians, we just adjust our respective dialect a bit. But with Danes I prefer to use English.

The Scandinavian, German and Dutch languages are relatively close, so I've no issue of basic understanding of written Dutch either, but spoken is too hard to understand when you are not used to the language melody and sounds.

Finnish is a totally different language, so there is no relation except for a few thousand loan words from mostly old Swedish and old German. But the words are differently spelled and pronounced in Finnish. Example: the word for "chair". English cognate word "stool", Swedish/Danish/Norwegian "stol", Dutch "stoel", German "Stuhl", Finnish "tuoli". Yes, it's the same word with same origins, only pronounced a bit differently and thus written differently in each language.

[Bassman59]

Luckily something like subtitles exist on TV.

We like to watch Scandinavian detective series and certainly need them to be able to follow what is being said. In Danish there seems to be some German influences but still can't understand what is being said. Looking at your example it seems to be even worse in Finish.

Here in the colonies, we like to watch the various BBC detective shows. We've learned that Cambridge is the Murder Capital of the EU.

However, the shows that take place in Scotland and Ireland require subtitles, because I know they speak a language called "English" but I'll be damned if I understand what they're saying.

I assume that our EU friends also have subtitles on when they watch shows that take place in any US city where a local dialect of English is spoken. "The Sopranos" is a good example. (So are "The Wire" and "Treme.") See the above comment about "youse," which is gabagool^* Italian spoken by working-class people (of any cultural background, really) from places like Gowanus, Bushwick, Hoboken and Staten Island.

^* gabagool is how we pronounce the Italian cured pork capicola. It's sorta like prozhute (spelled "prosciutto"), and it makes a nice sandwich.

[pcprogrammer]

Have you ever watched "midsomer murders" it is in a fictive county, but they drop like flies during the investigation. Hence the "murders"

But yes we do have subtitles for the "English" spoken programs. I don't need them that much and sometimes the translations are hilarious

Between the US and UK detectives I prefer the UK. I find them more subtle and less loud.

[rdl]

Pretty sure y'all (or you all) is singular most of the time. The plural version would be all y'all.

[tooki]

My experience with plurals like they, them, etc. is that the people in question are utterly unknown, so these terms are used to apply to anyone without specificity. This occurs in user manuals and the like. …

The point, though, is that English has not only the plural “they”, but also the long-established singular “they”, which we have generally used for singular (or unknown number) persons of unknown gender, and more recently expanded to known persons who do not identify as one of the two traditional genders. Yeah, that takes a bit of getting used to, but grammatically speaking, English has had the singular “they” for centuries.

Pretty sure y'all (or you all) is singular most of the time. The plural version would be all y'all.

Absolutely not. I lived in the South for many years (as did my mom, who’s an English teacher)  and “y’all” is never used to address a single person, it is distinctly to contrast the singular and plural. (There are people who claim there exists a rarer, singular “y’all”, but they appear to be northerners who don’t actually use y’all themselves. I don’t think their opinions matter, to be frank. But everyone agrees that its primary, if not sole, meaning is the plural.)

“All [of] y’all” means simply “all of you[pl]”. (To contrast with “some of you”.)  “You [pl]” and “all of you” are not synonymous either, after all.

[tooki]

Here in the US, of course we've bastardized the language to suit our needs.

Like every language in existence has done and continues to do.

That's why we have words like youse (pronounced yoooz) as in youse guys for the plural. There's also you all for plural, which Way Down South has been contracted into y'all and of course from there somehow that became singular so they came up with y'all's because they think the apostrophe-s makes it plural. There's also all y'all and all y'all's and clearly all youse Europeans are just baffled by all of this.

”Y’all’s” isn’t a plural or hyper-plural, it’s a possessive form of y’all (i.e. a plural of “your”).

Belongs to me: mine
Belongs to you[sg]: your
Belongs to you[pl]: y’all’s

[tooki]

What’s gotten forgotten here is the last, rarest of the “nonstandard” plural “you” forms in USA: the Appalachian “you’uns”!

As in the real-world phrase, asked by a Tennessee diner waitress, that left my Swiss stepdad in complete confusion: “Would you’uns be a-wantin’ anythin’ else?”

[vk6zgo]

Have you ever watched "midsomer murders" it is in a fictive county, but they drop like flies during the investigation. Hence the "murders"

But yes we do have subtitles for the "English" spoken programs. I don't need them that much and sometimes the translations are hilarious

Between the US and UK detectives I prefer the UK. I find them more subtle and less loud.

"Summer Bay", in the Oz soapie "Home & Away" is pretty deadly place to live, too!

[vk6zgo]

Luckily something like subtitles exist on TV.

We like to watch Scandinavian detective series and certainly need them to be able to follow what is being said. In Danish there seems to be some German influences but still can't understand what is being said. Looking at your example it seems to be even worse in Finish.

Here in the colonies, we like to watch the various BBC detective shows. We've learned that Cambridge is the Murder Capital of the EU.

However, the shows that take place in Scotland and Ireland require subtitles, because I know they speak a language called "English" but I'll be damned if I understand what they're saying.

I assume that our EU friends also have subtitles on when they watch shows that take place in any US city where a local dialect of English is spoken. "The Sopranos" is a good example. (So are "The Wire" and "Treme.") See the above comment about "youse," which is gabagool^* Italian spoken by working-class people (of any cultural background, really) from places like Gowanus, Bushwick, Hoboken and Staten Island.

^* gabagool is how we pronounce the Italian cured pork capicola. It's sorta like prozhute (spelled "prosciutto"), and it makes a nice sandwich.

As far as the cop shows are concerned, Australians seem to be able to understand them all.

If you watch very old (1950s) detective series & movies, Brit stuff always seemed to have "chaps" with "Oxbridge" accents as the heroes & higher level villians, with real UK regional accents confined to a few "comic relief" characters & bottom level minions.

A similar problem bedevilled US productions with the ubiquitous "Mid Atlantic" accent.

Now, regional Brits & Yanks sound the part (at least to those of us who don't live in the regions portrayed).

[themadhippy]

Dont risk a visit to Beckindale .Plane crashes, bus crashes, helicopter crash, fires, explosions, floods,acid attacks ,murders .All in a tiny Yorkshire village

[Nominal Animal]

Back on topic.  (But I did like Bergerac and Midsomer Murders and Hamish MacBeth and Schimanski episodes of Tatort, back when I did watch TV.)

Whoo boy, the state of graphical user interfaces (schematic capture, symbol creation) for spice-compatible circuit simulation on Linux, is bad.

[PlainName]

Gonna get worse once they modernise to the borderless, flat, white on white (sorry, black on black now) of Microsoft's Metro.

[JohanH]

Whoo boy, the state of graphical user interfaces (schematic capture, symbol creation) for spice-compatible circuit simulation on Linux, is bad.

This is interesting. One would think, due to the open source origins of SPICE, that there would be also good graphical programs available for Linux. On the contrary, there are only a few. Supposedly also e.g. KiCAD works with ngspice, but I haven't tried.