instruction:
Given the Question and Answer pair, detect whether the answer is acceptable or not. Denote acceptable answer as "yes", otherwise denote as "no". An acceptable answer is consistent with the context in question, detailed, long, and uses general knowledge of English. Answers that are not definite and suggest a variety of options are not acceptable answers.
question:
Question: How did 7 come to be an abbreviation for 'and' in Old English? is a beautiful question about the Tiroian "et", which is now the "" character 1. My question is what impact did the association of this 7-like-glyph have on the eventual placement of keyboards placing the & on Shift+7 combination? The Wikipedia article on the QUERTY keyboard shows that the ampersand was a separate key in the bottom left of the keyboard in the original patent application drawings. The patent was filed in 1878. The Das Keyboard blog shows a Full Duplex keyboard (with separate keys for upper and lower case letters) from 1897 with no ampersand key at all. I have not yet been able to find a reference to the first keyboard to place the ampersand and 7 together. The Wiki article on the ampersand only mentions that it is usually keyed via Shift+7, but occasionally on 6 or 8 instead. Dvorak layouts appear to share similar associations between 7 and &. So is it a coincidence? Or is there some association? 1 This looks really different in the EL&U site fontface. See the linked question or the Wikipedia article for more faithful renderings. 
Answer: Although the 7 was the ampersand on IBM's standard keyboard layout, that is hardly universal. The first nine printable characters in ASCII are ! " # $ % & ' ( ), which should give a good clue as to what the top row of a teletype keyboard looked like. On many early teletypes and terminals (and also, BTW, on the Apple ][), the shift key toggled bit 4 of the character being produced, thus it would turn a 1 (011 0001) into ! (010 0001), and , (010 1100) into < (011 1100). Since the digits 1-9 received consecutive code, so did the characters produced by combining them with the shift key. Shift-7 on those keyboards was apostrophe; the ampersand was shift-6. Other typewriter keyboards also varied considerably in where they put the ampersand. Its association with the number 7 is nowhere near as consistent as the association between 1 and !, 3 and #, 4 and $, or 5 and % which existed in both older computer keyboards and today's US arrangement.
answer:
yes


question:
Question: I've heard people say "be king" (as in "I can't wait to be king") in movies and TV. Why don't they say "be a king"? Which is correct? 
Answer: Oddly enough, I think "to be king", "to be a king" and "to be the king" are all different. If you say "to be a king", like recognizer says, it would imply one of any number of kings, whereas if you say "to be the king", it would imply one specific king of one specific kingdom. On the other hand, if you say "to be king", it's like you're saying "to have the attributes and/or capabilities that come with being (a/the) king", whichever those are. In other words, one can be "a king" or "the king" and still not "be king", if such states do not apportion to their monarchs the features of "being king". And, one can "be king" even without being "a king" or "the king", if such features are made available in some other way, unlikely as that may be. Note that I'm not talking about metaphorical meanings of "king", here (like, say, the "king of rock'n'roll"), but of literal meanings, such as monarch or ruler.
answer:
no


question:
Question: I just realized there are some people around my workplace who always try to correct me when using a certain word, saying that that's not how I should speak, and I should use other words (the ones they provide me with) or pretend they didn't understand what I was saying, but it's pretty clear that they did understand. This again with the same purpose, of making me rephrase, or use the words they expect. When doing this, they use, among others, the argument that they sure have understood, but others might not. But then, nobody else complains of not having understood what I was saying. Another argument they use is that even if they understood it, what I said was incorrect. I make the assumption that when I express my ideas in words, I use enough details to get the point across. I would call this type of non-constructive attitude a 'hater' attitude, but I'm curious whether there's a more specific word for this. meta: I'm not a native English speaker, and I don't know a word for this in my language, I'd just use the dictionary to find out if my language has an analogous word. Anyway it would be good to know if there's a word for this concept in these two languages. meta: Also, the situations I refer to happen (mostly) when I'm speaking my own language, but the language really isn't the point here, because I do speak multiple languages and I did meet this behavior (though very rarely) when speaking any language. 
Answer: You could call a person who does that a pedant: Pedant (noun) a person who annoys other people by correcting small errors and giving too much attention to minor details; one who unduly emphasizes minutiae in the presentation or use of knowledge (Merriam-Webster).
answer:

yes