computational linguist more like bomputational bimgis

  • 1 Post
  • 26 Comments
Joined 6 months ago
cake
Cake day: April 2nd, 2024

help-circle
  • sparkle@lemm.eetoScience Memes@mander.xyzCorn 🌽
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    2 months ago

    Which person decided to domesticate that thing. Just like “hey I found this weird looking grass fruit wanna enslave it” and chief’s like “hell yeah of course I wanna enslave it!” and then they just ate increasingly beady grass for a few thousand years


  • sparkle@lemm.eetoScience Memes@mander.xyzbig bro jupiter
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Venus was habitable (with vast oceans, plate tectonics, soil and everything) for 3 billion years (almost 70% of its history!), until about 700 million years ago… it stopped being habitable because of Jupiter.

    From Wikipedia:

    Between 700 and 750 million years ago, a near-global resurfacing event triggered the release of carbon dioxide from rock on the planet, which transformed its climate. In addition, according to a study from researchers at the University of California, Riverside, Venus would be able to support life if Jupiter had not altered its orbit around the Sun.

    Considering there’s a good chance Jupiter obliterated our next door neighbours, an entire planet of organisms… yea it’s not as nice as it seems

    Oh well. Mars was also habitable for a few hundred million years – in fact, the river beds and remnants of the Martian oceans are still very clearly visible on 2/3 of the surface, even after 4 billion years, and NASA is on a mission to bring fossils of ancient Martian life back to Earth, if there are any. But all of its atmosphere leaked out into space because its dynamo (magnetic field generation) abruptly disappeared so… skill issue lol. One of the many possible contributing factors to that happening is that giant impacts during that period of time overheated its mantle which fucked up global heat flow & convection near the core so… Jupiter’s fault again?








  • Compared to other languages… If those other languages are Romantic, North Germanic, Dutch, Afrikaans, or Frisian. A majority of other languages are typically considered more difficult for people who only speak English.

    That being said, I found Russian way easier than German at first, but that quickly stops being the case… German shares a lot of semantic/syntactic similarities with English so you can reasonably assume that a lot of German constructions will easily translate to English, for Russian though it’s more unfamiliar and you have to put more effort into thinking Russian-y. The main thing that made German way harder at first is German declensions… ugh… Russian has a complex declension system but it’s extremely regular, while German declensions are pretty irregular and the declension of articles is especially bad because their forms overlap a lot. Adjective declension is similarly bad. German word order also fucked with me a lot but it’s decently rigid so you get it quickly.



  • sparkle@lemm.eetoFunny: Home of the Haha@lemmy.worldNice tile
    link
    fedilink
    Cymraeg
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    This is usually what happens when you don’t wear shoes. “Fashionable” shoes deform your feet and crush them up a bunch. It’s why old people in rich countries have so many foot issues, especially bunions. Toes are naturally supposed to be spread out a bunch and radiate outwards, but historical western fashion trends were towards pointy shoes/feet, so that’s what’s the norm now.

    There exist shoes that don’t deform your feet though. Like another reply said, barefoot shoes are one. Those are hardly everyday shoes though, you’ll have to search a lot harder (and spend a lot more money) to find “natural” foot-shaped daily drivers





  • sparkle@lemm.eetopissposting@lemmy.worldChoice posting
    link
    fedilink
    Cymraeg
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Brian Morris is a sadistic fundamentalist Christian creep and a fraud

    There’s also this comment that goes into it well

    He was also an advocate for female circumcision (which is illegal in most of the non-muslim world and is mostly used as a mechanism to prevent women from having sex or to remove the pleasure from sex, it’s a very cruel act)

    In the same thread you can find this (the link doesn’t work anymore though)

    Another person already wrote about the academic bias that Brian Morris has, and how he’s trying to tilt the body of research to support circumcision. It’s also important to note that Brian Morris has a circumcision fetish, he gets sexual pleasure from seeing people getting circumcised and he is a member of the Gilgal Society, a circ fetish group. His name has been included in Gilgal pamphlets and in some of his early research papers he thanked the Gilgals for providing information and support.

    You can verify some of the information I wrote on this page https://www.circumstitions.com/morris.html

    I recently found a sub called r/DebunkingIntactivism (a “pro-circumcision” sub) and it’s… it’s fucking nutters. The people there talk like they’ve completely lost their minds. It’s basically where a bunch of insecure circumcised dudes go to fume over other people not being mutilated, and make “slurs” for them and stuff. Anyways the few weirdos that are active in that sub love to cite that guy and only that guy a lot.






  • Yeah this is a reason I think this is dumb. Who decides what a woman is here? Australia doesn’t even have bathroom laws discriminating against trans people as far as I know. How do they enforce this, by just telling people who they think look too much like a man to leave? By asking for their ID and only allowing in people who legally changed their gender?

    Women’s safe spaces are important. This is not how to do it.

    Is this the intent of the artist? Are they making a statement about gender identity? Was the baseless discrimination the art all along? This specific article doesn’t make it clear to me, but maybe I missed something.


  • I don’t like explicitly stating “cherry-picking”/“strawman”/“ad hominem”/other fallacies because people seem to have a visceral reaction to seeing those words, probably are confused as to what they actually are and are assuming you’re just throwing out random fallacies to conveniently discredit any arguments with no basis, and will refuse to consider the rest of the stuff they read. I think it’s more consumable for the people who really are open to seeing new angles if they have more specific/relatable views to work with, rather than me repeating the same thing they’ve already heard a hundred times without much elaboration. I can’t confirm that though