Fartsdumper (pronounced farst-hoump-ah)
In Norwegian Nynorsk & Norwegian Bokmål, the indefinite plural of fartsdump (masculine or feminine), a road hump, speed bump or speed hump.
Mid twentieth century: The construct was fart + -s- + dump. Fart was from the Middle Low German vart (speed, velocity; movement, motion; transport, transportation, traffic), from the From Old Saxon fard (traffic; journey) from the Proto-West Germanic fardi, from the Proto-Germanic fardiz (journey, voyage). In the higher Germanic, the definite singular was farten, the indefinite plural fartar & the definite plural fartane. The -s- was the genitival interfix indicating that the former part is a characteristic of the latter. Dumper was from the German dumpf ((of a sound) dull (pain also), hollow, muffled; a thud (dull sound)), a gradation from the Middle High German dimpfen (to smoke, fume) and it’s speculated it may ultimately be derived from the same source as the English dank. In fartsdump (masculine), the definite singular is fartsdumpen, the indefinite plural fartsdumpar & the definite plural fartsdumpane. In fartsdump (feminine), the definite singular is fartsdumpa, the indefinite plural fartsdumper & the definite plural fartsdumpene. The alternative form is the synonym fartshump (and derivatives).
The English Dank is a curious one, the conventional etymology suggesting it dates from the late fourteenth century, from the Middle English danke (wet, damp; dampness, moisture), probably from the North Germanic and related to the Swedish dänka & dank (marshy spot), the Norwegian dynke (to moisten), the Icelandic dökk (pool), the Old Norse dǫkk (pit, depression; water hole), from the Proto-Germanic dankwaz (dark). The alternative etymology traces it to the a West Germanic source such as Dutch damp (vapor) or the Middle High German damph, both ultimately from the Proto-Germanic dampaz (smoke, steam, vapor). Dank is an adjective & noun, dankly is an adverb, dankness is a noun and danker & dankest are adjectives. The noun plural is danks. Dank’s niche in the language is unique but words associated with the idea include chilly, damp, humid, muggy, steamy, sticky, wet, clammy, dewy, dripping, moist, slimy & soggy.
In other languages the evolution differed. In Modern Dutch, dank (gratitude, a showing or token of recognition; reward, recompense) is from the Middle Dutch danc, from Old Dutch thank, from the Proto-Germanic þankaz. In German, dank (thanks to, because of) was cognate with danken and the Dutch dank (and related to the Latin grātia) while in Lower Sorbian it came to mean "tax, fine, levy, duty". In one Germanic quirk, in Luxembourgish, dank evolved as the second-person singular imperative of danken (to thank), from the Old High German thankōn, from the Proto-Germanic þankōną and cognate with the German danken, the Dutch danken, and the English thank.
Humps & bumps
The terms speed hump and speed bump are, by most, used interchangeably because few of us realize there’s a difference, both appearing as tiresome, planned obstacles placed in a road. However, to traffic engineers, there is a difference. A speed hump is intended to slow traffic to a speed in a 10-20 mph (16-32 km/h) range and is used in high volume areas such as residential streets, school zones, bus stops, the approaches to pedestrian crossings and around hospitals. The construction and installation techniques vary depending upon the dimensions of the hump and the material used but the objective is gradually to reduce the speed of traffic, thus minimizing both the occurrence of incidents and reduce severity of injury in those which happen. In design, a speed hump is a compromise between its purpose the need (1) to avoid damage to vehicles and (2) ensure emergency service vehicles are not unduly impeded. Speed Bumps are more aggressive intent, designed to reduce the speed of vehicles to as slow as 2 mph (3 km/h) and generally no more than 5 mph (8 km/h). Rising at a more acute angle and usually higher than a speed hump, speed bumps are used in areas where vehicle and pedestrians (or animals) share the environment such as parking areas, concourses or inner city streets. The core purpose is a shock which induces a driver abruptly and rapidly to reduce speed.
Flink Fartsdumper (Smart Speed bumps): In high-tech & law-abiding Scandinavia, the smart-speed bump seems admired, only transgressors suffering while the obedient in their Volvos cruise on, their serenity undisturbed.
The Nordic nations seem well-advanced in the art and science of speed humps & bumps, something not surprising, Sweden especially notorious for its onerous (and enforced) road-rules. The new generation of Scandinavian smart speed humps & bumps are part of an integrated system of traffic management which permits speed limits in a given place to be varied according to defined conditions (time of day, visibility, weather conditions, day of the week etc), the signage changing automatically or by intervention in response to a specific event (road damage, accidents etc). All this is accomplished by a combination of robotic devices which use sensors, artificial intelligence (AI) and centralized or distributed monitoring centres where humans react to information passed dynamically by the AI. Part of the system is the smart speed hump or bump, one of the features of which is that the devices can be designed to be both depending on need and indeed even cease to exist, becoming a flat structure not protruding from the road’s surface. Manually or automatically thus, at any time, a road may change from one with a speed hump, a speed bump or no obstruction at all. The use of sensors monitoring the speed of traffic allows a speed hump or speed bum to be raised in response to a vehicle travelling above the limit while remaining flat for those not offending, sinners thus punished while the virtuous proceed serenely and slowly onwards.
This is an aspect of the surveillance society which is becoming pervasive, the integration of which with AI has implications both reassuring and ominous. The developments are most obvious (and most discussed) in China’s (People’s Republic of China; the PRC) Social Credit System (unrelated to CH Douglas's (1879–1952) mysterious theory of political economy). The Chinese system began essentially as an exercise in database matching with the intention of ensuring those with a history of bad debts weren’t able to obtain credit from other institutions. From there it grew to the point where the combination of big-machine databases and facial recognition software can mean someone crossing a road without waiting for the “Cross” sign to appear, might find their “social credit” score debited. Presumably, if one jaywalks once too often, there can be consequences although whether that will be a text message suggesting a closer attention to road rules or a knock on the door at 2am informing one that one is to spend the next week in a “re-education centre” remains to be seen. To the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) the social credit system must seem admirable because, after all, anyone who waits for the “Cross” sign has nothing to fear and pedestrian injuries & fatalities should greatly be reduced. A win-win system then.
In the West, the pressure to adopt systems which pivot off the possibilities offered by facial recognition and database matching will be irresistible. Corporations like the idea that someone wandering around a shop should see and hear content as tailored to their buying habits as that which is delivered to their screens at home or in their pocket. They’ll be interested too in whether someone walking into the shop was once convicted (or even accused) of a property offence such as theft (especially shop-lifting it’s presumed) so matching a corporate surveillance system to law-enforcement databases offers obvious efficiencies in loss-prevention. In commerce, the attraction of AI is that such systems, whether revenue generating or loss-preventing, run at essentially marginal cost. Thus a “success” rate, in terms of additional sales may need to be as little as 3% because 3% of a store’s total customer movement should be still a big number. Politically, it may be more of a concern because the possible implications of agencies of the state knowing (and recording) what a citizen eats, drinks, reads & watches and where they go with whom and what they buy or do when they’re there, remains substantially still speculative. The possibilities will however emerge as the systems, gradually (and not necessarily obviously) are rolled-out, history suggesting we’ll be told about (1) the benefits and (2) if we’re doing nothing wrong we have nothing to fear.
Fart kontrol in the age of climate change.
In Scandinavia, Fartkontrol is a familiar and well-understood road-sign but in the English-speaking world, at first glance it might summon thoughts other than of traffic management. When Rudy Giuliani (b 1944; Mayor of New York City 1994-2001 & Donald Trump’s (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) personal attorney since 2018) appeared at a hearing conducted by Michigan House Oversight Committee in Lansing on 2 December 2020, there were so many memorable moments, it’s perhaps unfair to focus one but Mr Giuliani’s inability to maintain fartkontrol was so emblematic of the event that it’s as well remembered as his appearance in the mockumentary Borat Subsequent Moviefilm (2020). Helpfully the precise moments of interest may be determined by the expressions of distaste shown by Jenna Ellis (b 1984), an attorney then attached to the Trump team and sitting to Mr Giuliani’s left. The hearing was held to investigate allegation of voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election and focused both on aspects of the behavior of voters and the operations of electronic voting machines provided by Dominion Voting Systems. Footage of the hearing provided some fun for viewers but the drama of the events of 6 January and more recently the coverage of the congressional committee investigating the involvement of others in the attempted insurrection diverted attention from what was in itself a serious matter. That may soon change as the previously little-reported suit by Dominion (US Dominion Inc & Dominion Voting Systems Inc versus Fox Corporation & Fox Broadcasting (CA No N21C-11-082 EMD CCLD)) was recently cleared to proceed by the Superior Court in Delaware. Dominion is, inter alia, suing Fox News for repeatedly broadcasting claims Dominion rigged and otherwise manipulated the 2020 election, even though it knew the claims to be demonstratively untrue. Even if a final judgment doesn’t in quantum approach the US$1.6 billion headline damages Dominion have cited, the case may become interesting (1) as a marker on where the US mainstream media stands in relation to the First Amendment and (2) especially interesting if Fox is subject to discovery, the tantalizing prospect being the revelation of communications from Rupert Murdoch (b 1931; effective controller of News Corp & Fox News) himself. Just what Mr Murdoch actually tells his editors to do and say has for decades been a matter of fascination among political junkies.
If Mr Giuliani’s inconsistent fartkontrol was a footnote, the appearance of his star witness was one of the better fifteen minutes of fame seen in recent years. Ms Melissa Carone’s (b 1998) performance before the oversight committee was a smorgasbord of conspiracy theory, accusation and political polemic; of its genre, it was a tour de force. Indeed, it seemed a star had been discovered and a career in politics or the theatre (it can be a fine distinction) seemed certain but unfortunately the Michigan Department of State recently disqualified the mercurial Ms Carone from contesting the Republican primary for a state Senate seat, the office saying she (and ten others who had nominated) had made false statements on an affidavit candidates were required to submit. In the matter of Ms Carone, she had attested she had against her no unpaid fines for election law violations and all of her public campaign filings were up-to-date. The department of state ruled this was not true and it was her second recent disqualification, the Macomb County Clerk & Register of Deeds having earlier barred her from participating in a primary for state representative.
Ms Carone knows a conspiracy when she sees and accused Republican election officials and the GOP leadership of plotting to keep her off the ballot. “This is how our elected officials keep good candidates from getting elected” Ms. Carone said, adding that she was “…going to fight it. Even if I don’t end up on the ballot, my voice will be heard. I’m not going anywhere. I will still be exposing these establishment sellout RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) in the Michigan GOP.” The office of the Macomb County clerk denied any political motivation, saying the disqualification was because “…she basically perjured herself” and that it was in Michigan “a felony to make a false statement on affidavits like those signed by candidates.”
Rudy Giuliani.
Melissa Carone
