lvxferre

if [[ instance == "lemmy.world" ]] && [[ topic == "Palestine" ]]; then echo "PTB"; fi

Serious now, PTB.

Since the existence of the state of Israel causes violence in the Levant, anyone defending the "survival" of that ethnostate is promoting violence. And yet you don't see LW mods removing comments defending it - why?

People are focusing on the Excel part, I'll focus on the maths.

I wish our societies picked base-12 instead of base-10. Divisions in base-12 give you repeating digits less often, and being able to split exactly by 3, 6, 9 and 12₁₀=10₁₂ is far more useful than doing it for 5 and 10₁₀=A₁₂.

~~Plus 4chan would stop arguing if 0.999... = 1. It would argue instead if 0.BBB... = 1.~~

I once had a cat that "elected" one of the beds as her litterbox. I have a feeling that, if she could, she'd blame humans for her shit.

All science is junk science when you care more about enforcing your own views than about accurately describing how things are.

The problem with landfills is widespread, not just in USA. And the solution is simple in theory, hard in practice: we shouldn't be using landfills at all. It's hard in practice because it means:

1. Reducing the average amount of waste per individual. Yeah. In an economic system that encourages mindless waste.
2. Sorting the waste so it can be processed (recycled, composted, etc.). Waste is messy, so you need to rely on human labour (that's expensive). And people throw dangerous junk away, things the workers won't know how to deal with, things that are so oddly specific you won't be able to pile a large enough amount of it to process it further (and yet since there are multiple types, they're together a big problem). Ah, if you're composting it, give up using the compost to fertilise food crops - odds are it'll be contaminated as fuck.
3. Creating and maintaining facilities that process that waste. Except people nowadays really, really, really love plastic; and plastic is not just "it's plastic lol process it together", each type must be processed separately (this compounds with #2).
4. Deciding the less shitty way to handle what you won't process. Burning is often a solution, and often a problem on itself; let's not forget that decomposition is never complete unless you reach high temperatures (here's some additional cost!), and if it's incomplete you're releasing harmful substances in the atmosphere.

So... yeah, we got a bunch of ticking bombs, all around the world. Yay, capitalism. /s

Here's a better idea: address the socio-politico-economical issues that make people resort to crime on first place. Done, "prison crisis" averted.

You could warn the players that the game is best played blind, and the source code will have spoilers. Beyond that it's up to them, I guess. (Or us. ...I'm genuinely curious about your game.)

This may not be the most wholesome but I’m looking to make an indie rpg that tackles the non-choice of being born. T

This reminds me a bit Deltarune: it goes all the length to let you choose the head, torso, and legs you prefer... then its (referring to the body, aka "your creation") favourite food, blood type, colour... a gift... then a name. Then it says: "your wonderful creation will now be discarded. No one can choose who they are in this world."

It's the same general "vibe" I get from your idea - we don't choose certain things.

Wow. Installing it now. I need this.

I see YT videos mostly in three languages (IT, PT, EN), and you have no idea how much I bloody fucking hate that autodubbing crap - no matter how I configure YT, Google, and my browser, that steaming pile of shit automatically turns on for at least two of the languages.

And frankly, I don't want it even for other languages. For me it's subtitles all the way. Let me see the korokke recipe with the original audio, who cares if I don't speak Japanese?

It is not even good dammit. Not even for people who want/need it. It sounds robotic and expressionless, the voices being chosen don't match the people being shown, the lip movement is desynchronised to the point of uncanny valley, the translation is filthy garbage.

I wish I could outright ditch YouTube, but PeerTube tends to be unstable and true alternatives (i.e. not relying on anything Google) have network effect against them.

[rant]

Might as well rant about the rest of the botnet aka Google aka Alphabet:

Even when taking privacy concerns out of the equation, I can't help but stay clear of most things Google. Mostly because of anti-features like the above.

Search? I'm using DuckDuckGo nowadays, except for reverse image search. It has the decency to ask me if I want an AI overview, and if I say "never" it respects my choice; I don't need an assumption algorithm telling me to put glue on my pizze. I also abhor results being "tailored" (= bubbled) based on location, and goddammit respect the language options I've set up in my browser!

GMail? I never used it for my primary e-mail, only for potentially junk subscriptions. Nowadays it isn't even worth that, so I'm using a Proton account for the same purpose. And if some service assumes you use GMail, guess what - I'm not using it.

Android? Yeah, I still need to use it because of my bank app, but goddammit every fucking update I need to deactivate yet another dumb feature. Plus I barely use the phone. Also, stop trying to convince me to enable PlayProtect, this wall is not to stop invaders going in - it's against users going out, and using non-Google repositories.

Maps? I want a map; nothing more, nothing less. Organic Maps fits the bill.

And in every single Google product, there's always that belittling tone. Never to be spoken in loud voice, always implied. Something like this:

• "Since you're a user, we assume you to be stupid/filthy/dumb trash unable to think by itself. Something like you would cause itself harm if allowed to decide what it should do, so we're telling you what you should do."
• "You want to say «no»? Ah, so you're too stupid to understand simple concepts, like obedience... right. Here's a «maybe later»; we're going to smear the same pop-up on your snout all the time, until you say «yes». You're a user, not a human being, so consent doesn't apply to something like you."
• "Oh, the user is still able to jump the wall and run away from the walled garden! Quick, raise the walls. Users are things to be herded in factory farms, not free range, you know?"

[/rant]

Thanks!

If by "most correctly", you mean "the closest to what Koine Greek would do", then yes. Note however that each language will impose restrictions on the allowed sounds and sequences of; for example Finnish won't use [ä] like Ancient Greek would, simply because the sound isn't there in Finnish (it adapts it to an [ɑ]).

Also note the word itself can be pronounced multiple ways even in Koine Greek. For example the ⟨αῖ⟩ diphthong can be read as either [äɪ̯] (as in English "by") or as [ɛ:] (as in English air); as far as I'm aware this sound change happened in early Koine Greek times.

Never really understood why English insists of weirdly dropping the final bits of Greek and Latin names (“Plutarch” vs “Plutarkhos”, “Justinian” vs “Justinianus” etc)

Short explanation: English does it because it's what French does. And French does it because of its history as a Latin descendant.

Long explanation:

Since French is a Romance language, it's the result of a Latin dialect undergoing a bunch of sound changes. Those sound changes affected all words inherited from Latin. For example capus/capum¹ → chef, bonus/bonum → bon, Romanus/Romanum → Romain (yup, it applies to personal names!) ille → le, so goes on.

However, Latin is a prestige language in Europe. So even if French is a Latin descendant, it kept reborrowing words from Latin. And because of the above, French started changing those loanwords in a specific way, that kind of mimics part of its own evolution.

In other words: French developed a convention on how to handle Latin borrowings². And part of that convention is to sub/remove the endings. Other Romance languages do something similar³.

What I said applies to the Latin names. Now, the Greek names go one step deeper: Latin itself borrowed Greek words left and right, adapting them into Latin. Some would be eventually inherited by French. So the convention on how to handle Latin names in French also handles Greek names: "Latinise them first, then pretend they're Latin words."

Then you get English. Most of that Classical knowledge entered English through French, so English borrowed that convention of adapting Latin words too. Eventually developing its own convention on how to do it, that looks kind of similar to the one French used back then. And some names were subjected to local sound changes, and just like the Romance languages English messes a fair bit with word endings. And the vowels, too (Great Vowel Shift).

In contrast, German also treats Latin as a prestige language. But since it's neither a Romance language nor borrowing the convention from one, it's getting the names straight from Latin, and modifying them a bit less⁴. That includes keeping the nominative endings of the words.

NOTES:

1. I'm listing words by their Latin nominative and accusative. The nominative is the form likely to be borrowed; however, French and the other Romance languages inherited the accusative.
2. This can be seen by the Modern French renditions of those names: Ptolémée, Justinien, Plutarque.
3. For reference, look at the Italian versions of those names: Tolomeo, Giustiniano, Plutarco. Parts of the ending are still there, unlike in French, but the ending -s/-m is gone.
4. It still does change them, mind you. After a word is borrowed into a language, it's subjected to the sound changes of that language; plus spelling plays a huge role, and even in non-Romance languages there are minor conventions on how you're "supposed" to handle Latin names. Cue to German spelling "Justinianus" instead of "IVSTINIANVS" or "Iustinianus".

Sorry for the wall of text.

For my take on those news, check here. Including context. Here I'll solely talk about the comments in that cesspool of idiocy.

[1]All this does if make things worse. [2] Things like banning the sale of personal information would be a step in the right direction.

1: It's too early to know what'll happen. It might make things better, worse, or the same.

2: I agree that the sale of personal info should be outright banned; one's control over their own data should be seen as an inalienable right.

Note currently there's an ongoing law project seeking to assign property rights to individuals over their personal data. IMO a side-step - on one hand it means you'd have an easier time suing megacorpos for stealing your data, on another it means they can still press you to share it.

A big issue here would be defining social media. // Are forums social media? What about reddit? What about YouTube? // I think what we really need is a ban on algorithmic recommendations that seek to encourage engagement or total time spent on the app.

The article 19 of the Marco Civil da Internet - that the STF is getting rid of - does not talk about "social media", but rather "provedor de aplicações de internet" (lit. internet application provider). It's basically anyone providing internet services to a third party.

As such, "ackshyually wut teh definishun of sacial meria" is not a relevant concern.

US Social Media should just cancel service to that territory.

I kind of low-key wish that that happened, those megacorpos are cancer. But it won't - no megacorpos would unnecessarily restrict its own market.

But let's roll with that. The impact of that would be hilariously small: a single month of disruption, then business as usual. For reference check what happened when ~~the dickhead~~ Alexandre de Moraes banned Twitter, almost everybody and their caramel-coloured dog migrated to Bluesky. Once a platform is gone so is the network effect associated with it.