I didn't find the grammar rules weird at all. Mind you, I fit your description of an English-as-first-language speaker. I'd like to compare notes with you.
Subject goes 1st. Verb goes 2nd. Every time. Conjugation is detailed but generally very predictable. There are some oddballs like "Gern" and "Doch" thrown in. The worst part for me was noun gender, but since German is the only language I speak that uses gender on nouns that makes some sense. I'm told it is far less hard to deal with for most other European speakers, since all of the Romance languages use gendered nouns as well as most German-related languages. Let's not talk about Finnish or Hungarian.
What parts of German, especially Grammar, did you find to be particularly bad?
Well, to start off with there is the three gender, not just two as in many languages. Get that wrong and you can get almost every word in the sentence wrong. How many permutations of "the" are there when you take, not just gender, but tense into account. Or the word "ein" which changes too. It's also completely illogical in many cases. The famous example is that "Turnip" is a feminine noun but "Girl" is neutral. German language assign gender to a turnip but not a girl-child.
Then you have some insanely long compound words, which, if you know the language well don't look too bad. It's pretty much twitter hashtagspeak. However, if you have only a small comprehension of the language they can be daunting and hard to decipher. Text books tend to steer away from the worst of them, but if you pick up a newspaper or walk down a street you'll see all these mile long words which can be daunting to a novice.
Just like English, there are lots of irregular verbs to help trip you up. Also, just like English, the word order can be confusing or backwards to speakers of most other languages.
...as was pointed out, it was very Latin and European language-oriented. There wasn't much that looked like Mandarin, Japanese, or Swahili in it. For all purposes and means, English is used now as a universal language although this is likely to change in the next centuries, if history and memory serves.
Yet, despite that; China is one of most common places for people to learn it.
You've also described German (for the most part). It's not 100% perfect, but they have a council (the RdR) that continues to scrub out weird historical spellings. Every year they get closer to perfect.
German has all sorts of weird grammar rules and compound words; etc. It's a terrible language for a world's "second language"; probably not as bad as English, but still a terrible second language. As English speakers it is a little easier to learn than some others; for much of the rest of the world its a complicated mess.
My guess would be that this has more to do with the clusterfuck the Hungarian language is than anything else...
It's not just the Hungarians. I know in a small number of French schools they do the same thing, some places in China do this too. They teach Esperanto first and then a secondary language next. They learn both languages quicker than if the learnt the second language alone.
Esperanto is deliberately designed to be easy for anyone to learn. It's not a complicated mess like most natural languages; you can learn Esperanto in a fraction of the time it takes to learn most other languages. I think for many people (without foreign language skills already) it acts as a way to train your brain to be receptive to learning new languages. Once your brain has adapted to learn other languages, it makes learning additional ones easier.
It is very much a romance based language.. That bias is likely one of the reasons why it never caught on. If you know Spanish, you have no use for Esperanto, and if you don't, you're better off learning Spanish.
Also, like Volapük before it, relying on letters that are not standard in any alphabets is a very big obstacle.
Lojban addresses that, as well as avoiding the ambiguity that many artificial languages (and perhaps especially Esperanto) suffers from, but it arrived too late - English has already become the de facto trade language, taking over from Spanish and Portuguese, and there's little need to learn Yet Another language.
Esperanto is VERY different to Spanish. Just because it begins with "Esp" don't assume it is a derivative language. I know a little bit of both languages and they are very different.
The State has 2.7M (as of 2016) registered Democrats and 2.0M registered Republicans. Yet has 10 R congressmen vs 3 D congressmen.
I'm not saying that this is NOT down to gerrymandering, but I will point out that this happens a lot elsewhere (perhaps not as extreme), and not just in the US. People on the right (in many democratic countries) are more likely to vote than people on the left. A large vote turn out normally helps the left and a low vote turnout normally helps the right.
Why this is the case is anyone's guess. Is it because the right tend to be richer with more to lose than the left; because the left have to work or watch kids and can't get in to vote. Is it because the right tends to be more of a party for the patriotic, or sometimes nationalistic than the left? Are there more lazy people on the left? Who knows.
Across much of the US you see the same thing, more republicans in office than they statistically make up by supporters. Some of this may be down to gerrymandering, but a lot of it is down to left leaning people being less statistically likely to actually go vote. It's probably worse in States like North Carolina that have districts that are politically evenly split.
Short of a simple geometric algorithm, any attempt to redraw districts will generate objections. Both parties will seek to alter the result to benefit them.
Geometric algorithm was the first thing that came to my mind when I saw the headline too. Surely there is some way to set up a standard for setting up districts based on shape of state and population densities. Might be a challenge to set up the first time, but if every state follows a set formula, or procedure for drawing up districts then people can't gerrymander.
Smartphones and computers were designed in different eras, and they don't really work well together, forcing us to split our time between them.
I feel so bad when I'm awakened in the middle of the night, and there's my PC sitting on my chest, demanding a fair share of the time that I had given to my phone.
You might want to have an expert check your "PC". Someone may have sold you a cat by mistake.
That's the problem with ordering things via Alexa. "Alexa, order me a PC", 2 days later brown cardboard box arrives poked with holes and a Pussy Cat steps out.
>> stay connected on your PC without worrying that you're missing phone notifications or calls
Who doesn't have their phone beside them or in their pocket when they're working on a computer? Hell, with most multi-factor authentication schemes, the code/approval comes through your phone, so you're screwed if you don't have it with you.
I raise my hand to that question.
Get home; take trousers off in bedroom (phone still in pocket); go upstairs and get on computer. Now, I could take my phone out of my pocket and carry it upstairs with me, but I typically don't. When I'm home, my phone frequently isn't in the same room as me regardless of whether I'm on the computer or not.
It's not as good as having the hardware, no. But it's better than suffering through abysmal performance at bottomed-out settings on something that was never meant for gaming.
Lag from streaming gameplay is much better than the midpoint of "can't run it at all on my hardware" and "running it maxed out at 144fps", by virtue of being playable and running at higher settings, so they can sell it to those who already have capable rigs as "Cheaper than the equivalent gaming laptop! (for the first however-many months)", and they can potentially ALSO sell it to the netbook/prebuilt-home-office-computer crowd as "Cheaper than buying a prebuilt and easier than building your own!"
They can compare the cost of 13 months ("Over a YEAR!") of service with the cost of a PC build (and they're free to make that build as exorbitant as they want). You could argue that, by comparing the service favorably to buying your own PC, they might be competing with their own hardware sales. However, I'd imagine the profit margin will be better for them on this service than it is on prebuilts with Nvidia cards, and I find it likely that anyone who's in the market for buying a GPU on its own either 1.) isn't going to care about this service at all, because they're happy with their rig, or 2.) will react favourably to the "cheaper than a gaming laptop" bullet point. If Nvidia see that potential competition as an issue, they may still be able to compare favourably to the cost of a "pro" console and a year of XBL/PSN.
All they have to do is shoot for a "budget option" angle, and people will find ways to justify latency/occasional downtime because it's cheaper for them (for now).
That said, after seeing how they handled the Shield line, I'll be surprised to see ANY adverts for this.
My last gaming PC cost about $600 about 6 years ago; I still don't feel the absolute need to upgrade it, although it certainly is beginning to be a little stretched for some games. I see more than capable gaming laptops on sale for $800 frequently. I'd still need a cheapo computer to run their service.
So in order for it to be cost effective it would have to be under $80 a year... and even then that would be less than optimal because you don't own the hardware, can't use it if internet gets spotty... etc. So to deal with the inconvenience of it requiring internet, say $50 a year.
If they can make a service that is $5 a month... it will be worthwhile. I somehow suspect they won't manage that.
No spin needed - if MS says its screwed, you should probably bet your shirt on it!
They didn't say it is screwed, they said it is unstable, which, at least at the moment it is. How can you use a currency to price things when the value changes dramatically daily, even hourly? You can't. At least whilst it is this volatile it can't be used as a currency for most purchases usefully.
Give it time, with banks moving in, and professional investors coming in, and no doubt- automated algorithms being place on trading computers, it will probably stabilize. Of course, then you have to deal with the transaction fees, and times next.
I think it's complicated. They say not to drink when you have a cold/flu because it doesn't really kills germs but in actual real-life use I've found it incredibly effective at taking out these type of infections. So much so that I will sometimes take a few shots of vodka when my infected kids/grandkids/etc come to visit. I have tested not doing this versus drinking and I can say with 100% confidence that drinking makes me less vulnerable to whatever infection that is near me and often heals me faster when I'm infected.
I know, nobody outside of Russia supports this but I can say for myself it is actually true.
In my large case study of one person, me, I have found that drinking sherry helps me get over a sore throat quicker. I love the taste of sherry, but don't buy it often because of the alcohol. I had sherry one time when I had a sore throat and felt better the next day, so now every time I get a sore throat I drink sherry. Seems to help, but my evidence is no better than Chinese folk medicine, or other untested techniques.
I don't really get a hangover but after I've had a few drinks I will wake up 4 am in the morning and can't get back to sleep. I've pretty much quit drinking because the next day is ruined because of lack of sleep.
I've, either fortunately, or unfortunately, never really been able to get "fun drunk". Drinking alcohol for me always puts me to sleep long before I have any of the more fun side-effects. Unfortunately, it's not a very quality sleep, and, yes, usually wake up really early not feeling refreshed.
Therefore, I only drink for flavor. Never had any real motivation to drink heavy because of the side effect of falling to sleep but not getting quality sleep. Not sure if that is a blessing or a curse.
I think the problem is, most "climate change denial" is politically based. Everyone knows that climate change is real, certain people just choose to pretend it isn't real because it fits their politics to do so (and yes, some people deliberately exaggerate it greatly because it fits their politics).
It would be nice if the issue were not politicized and we just dealt with facts., but there is a lot of attack on the science from some of a certain political persuasion, that an issue that SHOULD BE non-political, has become VERY political unfortunately. You can't detangle politics from climate change now, some people are too invested in it being political.
There is definitely a market for cheap handsets here. Not everyone lives in LA, SF, NYC, or Austin, and has the dosh to buy a new iPhone X or whatever Apple is selling on release date. In fact, most of the country is barely getting by, with the best times in memory all behind them.....None of this is rocket science here. The only thing that really is an obstacle is selling the devices in the US is the fact that companies think every Tom, Dick, and Harry can blow quad digits for a phone... which is not true.
Here you go. Unlocked phones for as little as $40. Sorry to spoil your rant.
I got my kids $30 phones from cricket when we signed up. Capable little phones too, LGs, nothing breath-taking, but I didn't want them having powerful phones.
Please let's not start using new or obscure unitz of measurement that provid no significant improvement over currently popular units.
In this case, one could say Crore is probable better than Billion as a unit because it can be expressed as a clean number "150" that is short an concise without needing decimal places. Also, 1/6th of the world's population use the term "Crore" that hardly makes it obscure. That's a higher percentage of the world than uses terms such as "miles" or "pounds (weight)" or "feet" or "furloughs per cubic quart".
Never trust an Italian car! Sure, some may look really fancy, but underneath it all; whether its a crappy Fiat or an expensive Ferrari, its still going to leave you stranded on the side of the road.
Can't understand why people would want fiat currency.
/ yes I know that's not what it means before anyone jumps on me
LOL Bull fucking shit. The entire market value of bitcoin even at its peak isn't even more than some of the top company market caps let alone significant enough to impact an entire market.
At one point, total value of bitcoin was coming close to half a trillion USD. Total world GDP is about 80 trillion.
Bitcoin's total value was therefore equal to 1/160th of the world GDP. That's a significant value; but probably not enough to sink the economy for a few reasons:
1) A lot of that value is lost for all time. Lost keys, etc. 2) The number of bitcoin investors is still pretty low. A lot of that wealth is in the hands of a relatively small number of people. Not many people would be significantly hurt by the loss of bitcoin.
I would argue, if bitcoin crashed, people would transfer money to the stock market and it would HELP the stock market. Even though, BTC is probably most similar to gold in term of scarcity and investment, people who are currently investing in it are investing in it hoping to make a quick return and understand there is volatility, not as a long term stable investment. That sounds more like stock market trading than gold trading. If you take your money out of BTC you're probably going to put it in gold.
There's actually no tumble at all, the story is BS. It's bounced between 13000 and 14000 several times in the last four days.
That's still a tumble from when it topped 19,000. (Granted, it's still a lot higher than it was a few months ago- so most people who own some are still ahead). It sounds likely that bitcoin is finding it's price. And for now, that price is in the 13,000-14,000 range. With banks and futures, and big financial vehicles coming in to place, bitcoin is going to be more stable. Less fluctuation, but also less growth. This time next year it will probably be unusual for bitcoin to fluctuate more than 10% in a month.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't find the grammar rules weird at all. Mind you, I fit your description of an English-as-first-language speaker. I'd like to compare notes with you.
Subject goes 1st. Verb goes 2nd. Every time. Conjugation is detailed but generally very predictable. There are some oddballs like "Gern" and "Doch" thrown in. The worst part for me was noun gender, but since German is the only language I speak that uses gender on nouns that makes some sense. I'm told it is far less hard to deal with for most other European speakers, since all of the Romance languages use gendered nouns as well as most German-related languages. Let's not talk about Finnish or Hungarian.
What parts of German, especially Grammar, did you find to be particularly bad?
Well, to start off with there is the three gender, not just two as in many languages. Get that wrong and you can get almost every word in the sentence wrong. How many permutations of "the" are there when you take, not just gender, but tense into account. Or the word "ein" which changes too. It's also completely illogical in many cases. The famous example is that "Turnip" is a feminine noun but "Girl" is neutral. German language assign gender to a turnip but not a girl-child.
Then you have some insanely long compound words, which, if you know the language well don't look too bad. It's pretty much twitter hashtagspeak. However, if you have only a small comprehension of the language they can be daunting and hard to decipher. Text books tend to steer away from the worst of them, but if you pick up a newspaper or walk down a street you'll see all these mile long words which can be daunting to a novice.
Just like English, there are lots of irregular verbs to help trip you up. Also, just like English, the word order can be confusing or backwards to speakers of most other languages.
...as was pointed out, it was very Latin and European language-oriented. There wasn't much that looked like Mandarin, Japanese, or Swahili in it. For all purposes and means, English is used now as a universal language although this is likely to change in the next centuries, if history and memory serves.
Yet, despite that; China is one of most common places for people to learn it.
You've also described German (for the most part). It's not 100% perfect, but they have a council (the RdR) that continues to scrub out weird historical spellings. Every year they get closer to perfect.
German has all sorts of weird grammar rules and compound words; etc. It's a terrible language for a world's "second language"; probably not as bad as English, but still a terrible second language. As English speakers it is a little easier to learn than some others; for much of the rest of the world its a complicated mess.
My guess would be that this has more to do with the clusterfuck the Hungarian language is than anything else...
It's not just the Hungarians. I know in a small number of French schools they do the same thing, some places in China do this too. They teach Esperanto first and then a secondary language next. They learn both languages quicker than if the learnt the second language alone.
Esperanto is deliberately designed to be easy for anyone to learn. It's not a complicated mess like most natural languages; you can learn Esperanto in a fraction of the time it takes to learn most other languages. I think for many people (without foreign language skills already) it acts as a way to train your brain to be receptive to learning new languages. Once your brain has adapted to learn other languages, it makes learning additional ones easier.
It is very much a romance based language.. That bias is likely one of the reasons why it never caught on. If you know Spanish, you have no use for Esperanto, and if you don't, you're better off learning Spanish.
Also, like Volapük before it, relying on letters that are not standard in any alphabets is a very big obstacle.
Lojban addresses that, as well as avoiding the ambiguity that many artificial languages (and perhaps especially Esperanto) suffers from, but it arrived too late - English has already become the de facto trade language, taking over from Spanish and Portuguese, and there's little need to learn Yet Another language.
Esperanto is VERY different to Spanish. Just because it begins with "Esp" don't assume it is a derivative language. I know a little bit of both languages and they are very different.
Two million who know "some" Esperanto.
La viro estas malbona!
The State has 2.7M (as of 2016) registered Democrats and 2.0M registered Republicans. Yet has 10 R congressmen vs 3 D congressmen.
I'm not saying that this is NOT down to gerrymandering, but I will point out that this happens a lot elsewhere (perhaps not as extreme), and not just in the US. People on the right (in many democratic countries) are more likely to vote than people on the left. A large vote turn out normally helps the left and a low vote turnout normally helps the right.
Why this is the case is anyone's guess. Is it because the right tend to be richer with more to lose than the left; because the left have to work or watch kids and can't get in to vote. Is it because the right tends to be more of a party for the patriotic, or sometimes nationalistic than the left? Are there more lazy people on the left? Who knows.
Across much of the US you see the same thing, more republicans in office than they statistically make up by supporters. Some of this may be down to gerrymandering, but a lot of it is down to left leaning people being less statistically likely to actually go vote. It's probably worse in States like North Carolina that have districts that are politically evenly split.
Short of a simple geometric algorithm, any attempt to redraw districts will generate objections. Both parties will seek to alter the result to benefit them.
Geometric algorithm was the first thing that came to my mind when I saw the headline too. Surely there is some way to set up a standard for setting up districts based on shape of state and population densities. Might be a challenge to set up the first time, but if every state follows a set formula, or procedure for drawing up districts then people can't gerrymander.
An nothing of real value was lost. At least if a 100B in monopoly money went up in flames it would keep your warm for a bit.
Mining 100B of bitcoin will keep you warm even longer; that's a lot of heat given off mining that much.
Smartphones and computers were designed in different eras, and they don't really work well together, forcing us to split our time between them.
I feel so bad when I'm awakened in the middle of the night, and there's my PC sitting on my chest, demanding a fair share of the time that I had given to my phone.
You might want to have an expert check your "PC". Someone may have sold you a cat by mistake.
That's the problem with ordering things via Alexa. "Alexa, order me a PC", 2 days later brown cardboard box arrives poked with holes and a Pussy Cat steps out.
>> stay connected on your PC without worrying that you're missing phone notifications or calls
Who doesn't have their phone beside them or in their pocket when they're working on a computer? Hell, with most multi-factor authentication schemes, the code/approval comes through your phone, so you're screwed if you don't have it with you.
I raise my hand to that question.
Get home; take trousers off in bedroom (phone still in pocket); go upstairs and get on computer. Now, I could take my phone out of my pocket and carry it upstairs with me, but I typically don't. When I'm home, my phone frequently isn't in the same room as me regardless of whether I'm on the computer or not.
It's not as good as having the hardware, no. But it's better than suffering through abysmal performance at bottomed-out settings on something that was never meant for gaming.
Lag from streaming gameplay is much better than the midpoint of "can't run it at all on my hardware" and "running it maxed out at 144fps", by virtue of being playable and running at higher settings, so they can sell it to those who already have capable rigs as "Cheaper than the equivalent gaming laptop! (for the first however-many months)", and they can potentially ALSO sell it to the netbook/prebuilt-home-office-computer crowd as "Cheaper than buying a prebuilt and easier than building your own!"
They can compare the cost of 13 months ("Over a YEAR!") of service with the cost of a PC build (and they're free to make that build as exorbitant as they want). You could argue that, by comparing the service favorably to buying your own PC, they might be competing with their own hardware sales. However, I'd imagine the profit margin will be better for them on this service than it is on prebuilts with Nvidia cards, and I find it likely that anyone who's in the market for buying a GPU on its own either 1.) isn't going to care about this service at all, because they're happy with their rig, or 2.) will react favourably to the "cheaper than a gaming laptop" bullet point. If Nvidia see that potential competition as an issue, they may still be able to compare favourably to the cost of a "pro" console and a year of XBL/PSN.
All they have to do is shoot for a "budget option" angle, and people will find ways to justify latency/occasional downtime because it's cheaper for them (for now).
That said, after seeing how they handled the Shield line, I'll be surprised to see ANY adverts for this.
My last gaming PC cost about $600 about 6 years ago; I still don't feel the absolute need to upgrade it, although it certainly is beginning to be a little stretched for some games. I see more than capable gaming laptops on sale for $800 frequently. I'd still need a cheapo computer to run their service.
So in order for it to be cost effective it would have to be under $80 a year... and even then that would be less than optimal because you don't own the hardware, can't use it if internet gets spotty... etc. So to deal with the inconvenience of it requiring internet, say $50 a year.
If they can make a service that is $5 a month... it will be worthwhile. I somehow suspect they won't manage that.
But since it's got that buzzword known as "AI" in it, I'm sure everyone will come out of the woodwork to cry about this tragic loss.
It's always sad when an Al goes away. Losing Al Bundy was the worst though.
No spin needed - if MS says its screwed, you should probably bet your shirt on it!
They didn't say it is screwed, they said it is unstable, which, at least at the moment it is. How can you use a currency to price things when the value changes dramatically daily, even hourly? You can't. At least whilst it is this volatile it can't be used as a currency for most purchases usefully.
Give it time, with banks moving in, and professional investors coming in, and no doubt- automated algorithms being place on trading computers, it will probably stabilize. Of course, then you have to deal with the transaction fees, and times next.
I am american and %100 opposed to job killing net neutrality. Anything that allows for job killing net neutrality to exist is bad for country.
Prove it. Use all of the following words in one incoherent sentence:
Guns,
Trucks,
Hell yeah,
Burgers,
Freedom,
Carpet Bomb,
Jesus,
It might be amusing if these have remote operation available and built in cameras.
When I see my wife about to sit down on toilet:
"Alexa, turn bidet spray on maximum, cold water".
Wife in shower:
"Alexa, change shower temperature to 32F"
"Alexa, now change shower temperature to 149F"
Wife looking in mirror:
"Alexa, play Clemantine by Bobby Darin"
I think it's complicated. They say not to drink when you have a cold/flu because it doesn't really kills germs but in actual real-life use I've found it incredibly effective at taking out these type of infections. So much so that I will sometimes take a few shots of vodka when my infected kids/grandkids/etc come to visit. I have tested not doing this versus drinking and I can say with 100% confidence that drinking makes me less vulnerable to whatever infection that is near me and often heals me faster when I'm infected.
I know, nobody outside of Russia supports this but I can say for myself it is actually true.
In my large case study of one person, me, I have found that drinking sherry helps me get over a sore throat quicker. I love the taste of sherry, but don't buy it often because of the alcohol. I had sherry one time when I had a sore throat and felt better the next day, so now every time I get a sore throat I drink sherry. Seems to help, but my evidence is no better than Chinese folk medicine, or other untested techniques.
I don't really get a hangover but after I've had a few drinks I will wake up 4 am in the morning and can't get back to sleep. I've pretty much quit drinking because the next day is ruined because of lack of sleep.
I've, either fortunately, or unfortunately, never really been able to get "fun drunk". Drinking alcohol for me always puts me to sleep long before I have any of the more fun side-effects. Unfortunately, it's not a very quality sleep, and, yes, usually wake up really early not feeling refreshed.
Therefore, I only drink for flavor. Never had any real motivation to drink heavy because of the side effect of falling to sleep but not getting quality sleep. Not sure if that is a blessing or a curse.
I think the problem is, most "climate change denial" is politically based. Everyone knows that climate change is real, certain people just choose to pretend it isn't real because it fits their politics to do so (and yes, some people deliberately exaggerate it greatly because it fits their politics).
It would be nice if the issue were not politicized and we just dealt with facts., but there is a lot of attack on the science from some of a certain political persuasion, that an issue that SHOULD BE non-political, has become VERY political unfortunately. You can't detangle politics from climate change now, some people are too invested in it being political.
"No Mom, I wasn't watching porn, it was Zootopia, I swear!"
I'm not sure which is worse to be honest.
There is definitely a market for cheap handsets here. Not everyone lives in LA, SF, NYC, or Austin, and has the dosh to buy a new iPhone X or whatever Apple is selling on release date. In fact, most of the country is barely getting by, with the best times in memory all behind them.....None of this is rocket science here. The only thing that really is an obstacle is selling the devices in the US is the fact that companies think every Tom, Dick, and Harry can blow quad digits for a phone... which is not true.
Here you go. Unlocked phones for as little as $40. Sorry to spoil your rant.
I got my kids $30 phones from cricket when we signed up. Capable little phones too, LGs, nothing breath-taking, but I didn't want them having powerful phones.
Please let's not start using new or obscure unitz of measurement that provid no significant improvement over currently popular units.
In this case, one could say Crore is probable better than Billion as a unit because it can be expressed as a clean number "150" that is short an concise without needing decimal places. Also, 1/6th of the world's population use the term "Crore" that hardly makes it obscure. That's a higher percentage of the world than uses terms such as "miles" or "pounds (weight)" or "feet" or "furloughs per cubic quart".
pathetic fiat!
Never trust an Italian car! Sure, some may look really fancy, but underneath it all; whether its a crappy Fiat or an expensive Ferrari, its still going to leave you stranded on the side of the road.
Can't understand why people would want fiat currency.
/ yes I know that's not what it means before anyone jumps on me
LOL Bull fucking shit. The entire market value of bitcoin even at its peak isn't even more than some of the top company market caps let alone significant enough to impact an entire market.
At one point, total value of bitcoin was coming close to half a trillion USD. Total world GDP is about 80 trillion.
Bitcoin's total value was therefore equal to 1/160th of the world GDP. That's a significant value; but probably not enough to sink the economy for a few reasons:
1) A lot of that value is lost for all time. Lost keys, etc.
2) The number of bitcoin investors is still pretty low. A lot of that wealth is in the hands of a relatively small number of people. Not many people would be significantly hurt by the loss of bitcoin.
I would argue, if bitcoin crashed, people would transfer money to the stock market and it would HELP the stock market. Even though, BTC is probably most similar to gold in term of scarcity and investment, people who are currently investing in it are investing in it hoping to make a quick return and understand there is volatility, not as a long term stable investment. That sounds more like stock market trading than gold trading. If you take your money out of BTC you're probably going to put it in gold.
There's actually no tumble at all, the story is BS. It's bounced between 13000 and 14000 several times in the last four days.
That's still a tumble from when it topped 19,000. (Granted, it's still a lot higher than it was a few months ago- so most people who own some are still ahead). It sounds likely that bitcoin is finding it's price. And for now, that price is in the 13,000-14,000 range. With banks and futures, and big financial vehicles coming in to place, bitcoin is going to be more stable. Less fluctuation, but also less growth. This time next year it will probably be unusual for bitcoin to fluctuate more than 10% in a month.