aebletrae

joined 2 years ago
[–] aebletrae@hexbear.net 18 points 2 days ago

Skip woke, ship broke

[–] aebletrae@hexbear.net 9 points 4 days ago

depictions of U.S. history that “inappropriately disparage Americans past or living”

When is it ever inappropriate to disparage Americans past or living?

[–] aebletrae@hexbear.net 3 points 4 days ago

Climate Stalin strikes.
Who wouldn't kill for a more
Bearable summer?

[–] aebletrae@hexbear.net 27 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Seeing:—

The clarity was incredible. The advice? So real, it felt like a clairvoyant [emphasis mine] or someone who’s been with me all my life — but objective, neutral, and honest.

the third prompt really needs to be:—

What is cold reading?

It's a shame that someone who seems like they want to be less anxious and more resilient doesn't have better options for guidance.

[–] aebletrae@hexbear.net 10 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It's not just penicillium. There's also aspergillus, the bread fungus that gives you autism.

[–] aebletrae@hexbear.net 3 points 1 month ago

DEI? More like UTI, amirite?!

[–] aebletrae@hexbear.net 7 points 1 month ago

Tu doch nicht so blöd!

What can you expect from the language that brought you ought (or), bough (ow), dough (oh), cough (off), rough (uff), through (oo), and thorough (uh), though?

[–] aebletrae@hexbear.net 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Thought processes

There's no distinction between comparatives and superlatives.

From
nǒnska (mysterious),
nǒnskeyde (most mysterious),
vurede (best), but also
vuśkede (more beautiful),
I couldn't see how to disambiguate more/most, and briefly considered they might be the same, but felt that was quite presumptive given so few examples. Instead, I started wondering if the local suffix was the same and the nuance was more remote somehow.

še — this does indeed mean "she" but we've got grammatical gender here so sometimes it means "it" instead.

The assumption here was that the -o, -e, -a gender inflections for proper nouns would be paralleled from šo (that/where). The ya-/ye- prefixes looked they might be doing that for grammatical gender, so the assumption didn't feel unreasonable. Although "she" is more of a physical gender word, it gets the point across more snappily than "some kind of pronoun, possibly demonstrative, feminine". There was also šenǒnsulet́e (she debates) pointing in that direction.

yapoĺa (the book) and
yapoĺav (the book CONS)

Taking off ya- as a common prefix and correlating CONS (QUERY 1: what do you mean by this???) with -av, -e(y)v, -iv (though -v alone might be the marker), -poĺ- was all that was left as a root for something book-y. (I got the impression that roots were broad).

nat́ isn't necessarily the verb "make", it's a different verb which is being used as an auxiliary verb in this phrase.

Here, I used "make" as a colloquial translation given the proximity to an assumed first move, but I had noticed na (on) before correlating -t́e and -t́a with verbs (at least in present tense), so I did wonder if place or put might also work in other contexts.

roktárev (a psychic link) and
Yerokdǒvfe (this psychological war), combined with
Xaydǒ (a great war)
suggested -rok- as a root equivalent to psych-, but yerokivńe looked like it needed a simple noun, so "mind" fit the bill.

ńe (they)
uńe (theirs)
Fe (that)
yegevfe (this type)
Yerokdǒvfe (this psychological war)
had given me the impression that ye-XYZ-(iv)ńe meant "their XYZ".

keyn — the interrogative and indefinite pronouns are the same, so in this case the intended meaning is "somebody" rather than "who".

I noticed you'd translated šo as both "that" and "where", so something like this was evident.

ruňet́ey yežalevfe — not necessarily a plural verb but rather an imperfective verb, and indeed a verb derived from the word for "head"

yeruňev (the head CONS)
indicated -ruň(e)- as the root "head". I got the plural notion from
zuruňet́ey (jointly rules) and
truňet́ey ([everybody] believes),
since those verbs' agents are plural (pair jointly, everybody) but -y- crops up enough elsewhere for me to have been cautious about that.

Incidentally, (QUERY 2) are zuruňet́ey (jointly rules), truňet́ey (believes), and yekruňuynev (the academy CONS) all using the -ruň- root? I can see a potential there: someone who "heads" an organisation also "rules" it; belief is an activity within the head; academies put ideas into heads. But false cognates are a thing too, though I am left wondering if sokruňeynevńe belongs in that group (QUERY 3).

yeKődev — not the code, no.

Capitalisation like that looks like it's representing proper nouns (or perhaps loan words), where there's a bit more phonetic similarity to English, so this was just a bit of simplistic guessing.

kay (INT)
kaysuliv (questions CONS)
kaysulećke = (inquisitive)
kaysulet́e (asks)

QUERY 4: Does -ećke indicate either having the property of, or maybe motion away from?

[–] aebletrae@hexbear.net 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

My attempt to make sense of these (with some guessing) is:—

spoiler


2: Hay Hiḱey {to|in???} {yaRoyčoḱiya|the R***}!

Pe-1-e A. M***ŕe {ňa|TOPIC} anime-dećti {:|is/are} {kyertiv|love??? CONS} {xaíde|most ADJ???} lo {še|she???} {na|on} dećte {ňa|TOPIC} "sule {:|is/are} buhe" čay. Suliv daŕi {to|in???} yeruňevše {ko|to} {yecigempoĺevše|???book???}, no {še|she???} {la|yet} {nay|not} {nat́e|VERB make???} {yekoḱev|the move???} {anske|first???} hiḱev anime-dećte, {na|on} {fe|that} {šo|that} {še|she???} {ňa|TOPIC} dećte {dum|as} aniḱe {nay|not} {može|a possibility} čay. {Rine|A friend} K. S****é {ňa|TOPIC} {ariḱe|a girl} {so|with} {yerokev|the mind??? CONS} roynasinćke {:|is/are} yénske, {šo|that} {nat́e|VERB make???} zede {na|on} yeydrestev M***ŕe. Ńesint́ev hazoske, {šo|that} sokruňeynevńe, yesnij́iḱev biśe {so|with} M. C****ye {iḿej́eske|named} {ňa|TOPIC} hoževše xaye {:|is/are} dećke {he|TEMP}, ńehke čoḱiya {na|on} dećte va {pset́e|VERB???} "{yalanav|the universe-CONS} lobuha" {to|in???} {yerokivńe|their minds???}.

3: YaVaňgleynav Buhčonska

Yaceyv vaňgla {ňa|TOPIC} {keyn|who} {udet́e|VERB???} {he|TEMP}, noževše {u|and} {dent́e|VERB???} bone {so|with} ogestev ranske čay. Yažalav vaňgla {ňa|TOPIC} {dot́e|VERB???} {bone|a thing} {ko|to} randogiyey {so|with} {šo|that} moḱiḱe {še|she???} {dum|as} {bonev|a thing CONS} {gune|other}. Yaceyv vaňgla {ruňet́ey|VERB(pl.) head???} {yežalevfe|this??? ???}, no {može|a possibility} pet́ede lo yaceyvfey {so|with} {bonev|a thing CONS} {so|with} "yeKődev yeTruňeyne" {iḿej́eske|named}. Jaḱav {so|with} E. E****a {iḿej́eska|named} {ňa|TOPIC} si žari {he|TEMP} vaňgleynav marka {dent́av|VERB??? CONS} ŕusulska bene {so|with} yatǒvša {so|with} A*****a {iḿej́eska|named}. E****a {so|with} vaňgla ŕaza {u|and} hira va {sot́a|VERB???} yarǒv yatǒvša {na|on} čoniya. {so|With} {šo|that}, yavaňgleyneyv 2 {kot́a|VERB go???} yőravńa va {udet́a|VERB???} yaboneyvńa {anskey|first???}, {u|and} {yeKődev|the Code??? CONS???} yeTruňeyne {to|in???} yaradaxey.

[–] aebletrae@hexbear.net 33 points 2 months ago (2 children)

This appears to be from a paywalled FT article but the author is given on the Vietnam category page:—

A new reality began to dawn’: the fall of Saigon, 50 years on
Chris Mullin describes the last days of the Vietnam war and the aftermath

I'm assuming there aren't too many Chris Mullins who are journalists writing about Vietnam and, therefore, he is the former MP with a Wikipedia page that gives this context:—

Having reported from Cambodia in 1973 and 1980, in 1990 he was outspoken on the British Government's record in Cambodia, being a leading voice in some of the first protracted debates on Britain's provision of clandestine military support to Khmer terrorists, allied to the Khmer Rouge.

and

his politics shifted leftward in response to the Vietnam War

and

He has been highly critical of the American strategy in Vietnam and has stated that he believes that the war, intended to stop the advance of Communism, instead only delayed the coming of market forces in the country

This doesn't read like ignorance to me. Like a lawyer prompting a witness, this seems like someone asking the questions that allow the interviewee to give the most effective replies.

I can't read the "reply was devastating" line as being personally devastating to an ignorant journalist, because someone in that position didn't need to write that and put it on show. Instead I read it as being devastating to the naive sentiment, perhaps held by the reader, that Vietnam's only legitimate response was to run to the UN.

The author has an extensive history with the topic and doesn't appear to be blindly anti-Vietnam, so I think you may have the wrong end of the stick here.

[–] aebletrae@hexbear.net 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You couldn't, because Eve wasn't called Eve at the time, and because God doesn't deadname trans women.

Original SRS surgeon God creates a woman from male flesh in Genesis 2:22. First ally Adam insists that "she shall be called Woman" in Genesis 2:23. By Genesis 2:25 they're acknowledged as man and wife. But Eve doesn't get her own name until Genesis 3:20, and then that's the only name we ever know her by.

[–] aebletrae@hexbear.net 36 points 2 months ago

Stream of unconsciousness? kelly

 

As an exercise in thinking about a language, I like trying to translate something a bit silly, that I can't just look up. Even if the result is bad, it tends to lead in interesting directions as I try to move beyond rote memorisation and end up discovering some new aspect of the language.

Today's target was "beanis".

What I came up with for Japanese was お{荏々|じんじん}. As far as I can tell, this is not in dictionaries, but sounds like an existing word, おちんちん, with extra voicing on the leading consonant, and has "bean" in it, though jisho.org gives some other meanings to the kanji.

I have no idea whether this works or is (more likely) just gaijin nonsense, but I can't think of anywhere else I could possibly post this.

 

A squad of Normal Island terrorists infiltrate the city of Kokomo, Indiana, and take over a nuclear power plant. A counter-terf expert (Chuck Connors) must stop them before their preoccupation with transuranic elements becomes a meltdown.

 

bottom-speak ...imply the existence of isobottomes? top-use-words

 

Hello again, Auntie.

I wrote for advice some time ago [Confused in Claremont], and just getting the problem out there was so renewing, I felt the need to ask a follow-up question that has also been bothering me. You see, sometimes I disagree with the free-speech advocates, and that goes even worse!

For example, to the previously mentioned "sunlight is the best disinfectant" claim, I will just ask the question: "Isn't drowning in bleach actually the best disinfectant?" (The manufacturers always tout its efficacy and, as a believer in free markets, it's important to take every marketing claim at face value. And no one's selling sunlight, are they? So that must be useless.) But they don't like this either; I can't win! And when I also point out that drowning in bleach has the added benefit of wide applicability, the liberal objectors call me "murderously uncivil". But do you know what happens if you don't drown germs in bleach? You get a stinky toilet. And what's civil about that? Or cholera?

And as for the objectors who "lean right", well, they start to shriek in what sounds like German? This is America, buddy. Speak English. I think they call me a "radical extremist", but this is just plain wrong. Like them, I'm an apolitical centrist who just thinks it's important to hear out opposing voices and pave the way to a future in which all the people whose existence irks me have died gruesome, agonising deaths. Really, I'm exactly like them, which they keep saying is important, but when I try putting some contrarian viewpoints out there myself, it always goes badly. Clearly, I'm doing something wrong, but what?

I really do try to stick to the mantra of "facts don't care about your feelings" but these guys always seem really angry whenever I try to join in with any evidence of reality at all. I don't get it.

Yours as ever,
Perplexed in Peoria

 

Dear Aunt Chapo,

From time to time, I encounter self-described "free speech advocates", who make the claim that "sunlight is the best disinfectant". This is usually the most agreeable part of their claims, and so I will respond positively: "yes, the only truly effective treatment is exposure to lethal doses of radiation", but they always react as if that isn't what they meant.

This leaves me confused, because if what they actually meant was that the best way to deal with a dangerous pathogen is to internalise it and every poison it produces, surely at least one of them would have said "phagocytosis is the best disinfectant", but they never do. It's always "sunlight", and the mechanism of action there is definitely deadly radiation.

Now, they're obviously not saying that the appropriate response to an invasive organism set on hijacking the host's systems in order to reproduce itself unchecked with the ultimate result of killing the host is to suppress the immune system, sit back, and let it do whatever it wants, because that's insanely suicidal. Yet I often get the feeling that this is what the advocates do actually want. Like I say, I'm confused.

Are they actually saying that we should send nazis to tanning salons or off on a warm holiday for some UV exposure? They do tend to look pale, you know?

Anyway, I'm sure your advice will be as helpful as ever.

Yours,
Confused in Claremont

 

Schwing! :hentai-free:

 
 

…I'm going to call it the Bearlin Wall.

 

I don't know which one of you went to Belgium to start a transportation company, but it's a good bit.

 

Since the XSS incident a couple of weeks back, I hadn't been able to log in, or even sign up for a new account. All attempts at either ended with the spinning bear. Now, presumably because of the upgrade, I have been able to create a second account to post this, but I can't log in to my original account, AppelTrad, because it prompts for 2-factor authentication.

This is (partially) my own fault, I suppose, for clicking the checkbox and not mentioning that it didn't actually give me any of the promised results, while I was still logged in; since I was also able to untick the box without being prompted for anything, I just assumed it was a bit of not-yet-implemented UI and that I had reset the option for if it ever became effective, and carried on without any problems until the forced logout.

Since "2FA being broken is a known issue", I'm wondering: is it possible for an admin to reset that field in my database record (or whatever needs to be done to cancel 2FA) without any of the security shenanigans that should accompany working two-factor authentication, so I can successfully log in again? (I have my passwords saved, so it's not just a mistyped password issue.)

view more: next ›