lvxferre

joined 2 years ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 days ago

I'd usually say "may he rest in peace", but he'd probably find it lame and boring, so: may he rest with lots and lots of booze. And cocaine.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 days ago

Conservative lawmakers have also done their best to attack the policy. During one speech during a debate about quotas, Senator Flavio Bolsonaro — the son of the former far-right president, Jair Bolsonaro — asked, “What about poor whites?”

Whataboutism runs in the family, uh.

That said, there are also quotas for those. For example, I'll coarsely translate an excerpt from Paraná's Federal University's site:

Thus, there are four quota groups:

  1. Public school students, regardless of income;
  2. Public school students, with household income lower than 1.5 minimum wages per capita;
  3. Black [pretos], mixed [pardos], and indigenous [indígenas] students, regardless of income;
  4. Black, mixed, and indigenous students, with household income lower than 1.5 minimum wages per capita.

Relevant to note low and mid-low classes study almost exclusively in public schools.


Some anecdote. My uni (the above) implemented quotas in '05; by then I was in my first grad, so I remember it well. Criticism sprouted from all sides, including black people - like one student saying she was glad she was admitted in '03, so nobody would think she did it "through the backdoor" (pela porta dos fundos).

To be fair with her, back then nobody actually knew how it would turn out. Two decades later, though, we see the quotas help by a lot.

It's also relevant to note that, in Latin America, racism piggybacks on classism; while in Canada and USA I feel like it's the opposite. In other words, I think the primary source of prejudice here is social class. This should explain where both Flávio Bolsonaro's "whataboutism" and that student's comment come from.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 days ago

TL;DR: facts do change minds, but you need to attack the false beliefs that are central to the belief feedback loop; dumb shit like "ackshyually" won't do anything.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 days ago

This reminds me the Welsh speakers in Chubut. It's, like, ~10k people; same backstory as Canadian Gaelic - immigrants in the XIX century.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago

The notion of “class” is heavily overloaded. Here I am referring to class as a socioeconomic identity derived from income, educational attainment, and occupation, following Kouaho and Epstein [37] . As a finer granule of class I will focus on profession (i.e., occupation), as members of a profession are typically (though not always) also homogeneous with respect to income and educational attainment.

Slur: comparing someone’s work which is confirmed not to be using AI with AI-generated work, as a means of critique or negative reflection on that person’s abilities.

The author is clearly cherry picking definitions of "class" and "slur" in order to call that behaviour "classist slur" - because the later is negatively charged. Pfffft.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 days ago

Preferably a 2D one, to account for both "I luuuuv both" and "a plague in both houses".

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

We could simply map front/back = law/chaos and closed/open = good/evil... but that's booooring.

Instead, let's say:

  • Cardinal vowels are lawful, glides are chaotic. Everything else is neutral.
  • Good vowels are only defined by height, backness, and roundness. Give them an additional contrast and they become neutral, two and they're evil, three and they're the sounds uttered by Satan when you just reach Hell.

So for example the schwa strictu sensu is true neutral - it isn't just a central vowel, it's also reduced (shorter). Something like [ɜ̥̃ʊ̥̃] is chaotic evil. But most languages have a backbone of lawful good vowels.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 week ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (6 children)

I'd say pretty accurate:

top left

English verbal paradigm is rather barebones; because of that, the content verb of a sentence often "ditches" meaningful distinctions into the rest of the sentence. Sometimes an aux verb, or even a conjunction. That's the case here; you got a distinction between realis and irrealis, that plenty languages would convey through the verb, but English doesn't.

Note the "counterfactual timeline" (irrealis past, unreal time etc.) often deals with events the speaker wishes that would have happened in the past.

mid left

Ah, here's a paper about this. I didn't read the paper fully, but: apparently it is computable but NP-hard.

bottom left

Indo-European. Germanic branch.

top centre

There's a proposed language family called Dené-Yeniseian; the languages in question are spoken in Siberia (Yeniseian) and a chunk of North America (Na-Dené).

Trivia: remember the Huns? Likely Yeniseian speakers.

schwa

The current mainstream hypothesis is unvoiced vs. voiced vs. breathy voiced. There's also a bunch of alt hypotheses including glottalisation; for example "stiff" unvoiced (i.e. [p t k]) vs. pre-glottalised vs. "slack" voiced; Javanese has the stiff/slack contrast, and pre-glottalised consonants are somewhat common.

bottom centre

Two main pressures:

  • the speaker wants things to be easy to pronounce; e.g. if an articulatory gesture is unneeded, it might get ditched.
  • the hearer wants things to be easy to distinguish; e.g. if two sounds associated with different phonemes are a bit too similar, and the distinction is meaningful, they might drift apart from each other.

Those two pressures are in a tug-o-war, and that tug-o-war drives sound changes.

top right

I feel like the spread of Afro-Asiatic might have to do with this period, as it probably allowed people to migrate further than through drier periods. But past that? I have no idea, and I hate that I have no idea.

mid right

Eh... it's complicated. It seems, for most authors, that Tibetan and the Sinitic languages are in different branches of the family; and usually Burmese is placed in Tibetan's branch. Everything else, though? No consensus at all.

bottom right

The problem starts with the definition of a language. I'll illustrate it with the Romance languages:

  • If you speak Portuguese you'll probably understand Galician just fine. So let's count them as a single language. It's reasonable, right? Portuguese is basically a Galician dialect.
  • If you speak Galician you'll probably understand Asturian just fine. It makes sense - both originated from Latin dialects spoken right next door to each other. Let's count both as the same language. Alongside Portuguese, as per the step above.
  • Asturian and Castilian/Spanish are really similar, so let's lump them together. Alongside Portuguese and Galician.
  • Castilian and Aragonese, too. Same language as Portuguese, Galician, Asturian.
  • Catalan is really similar to Aragonese. One more into the bag!
  • [one thousand steps later...]
  • Sicilian and Calabrian are really similar, right? Same language then. They get into the same bag as the others.

So you reach the conclusion that none of those varieties "counts" as a language. Then you proudly put in some paper "number of Romance languages: three (Italo-Western, Sicilian, Romanian). Italian is now an Italo-Western dialect, French is an Italo-Western dialect, everything else is a dialect.

Except that most of those so-called "Italo-Western speakers" can't understand each other. And the speakers don't consider their native varieties the same language, they consider it as different things.

But this isn't just with the Romance languages. Cue to English and Scots, or the Germanic varieties in the continent. Or the Sinitic varieties spoken in China. The Bantu family. The Slavic branch. I think Quichua has the same issue, too.

Yeah, nah, you aren't "counting" them - you're placing arbitrary divisions here and there to make the number bigger or smaller.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 week ago

Dark traffic

It's kind of cute how they're trying to frame it as a malignant thing on the same level as "dark patterns".

...has the spam/advertisement/annoyance "industry" ever considered that most people wouldn't install ad blockers, without the blatant issues of modern internet advertisement?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

My Saturday was like: cooking a batch of coxinhas, watching anime, downloading + subtitling the first season of Midnight Diners for my mum, RNG manipulating Emerald in an emulator for a shiny Swablu... I do have some work to do, but it's a few hours worth, and I can send it Monday evening so it's everything fine.

I'll probably buy a bottle of vodka tomorrow and make some "rangpurcello" - a neighbour gifted me a whole kilo of the fruit, might as well use the skins. (I typically freeze the juice.)

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago

A few actually good answers (surprisingly good for "Hacker" News) in the comments:

Have it admit it doesn’t know instead of sounding like a Reddit thread full of “experts” trying to one up each other

Other people taking it seriously, honestly. It's hard to take it seriously when everyone is thinking it will dethrone God or put everyone out of a job and if you're not using it you are going back to the Stone Age while it embarrasses them repeatedly.

When you ask it to do you something and it tells you to fuck off and do it yourself.

I will take AI seriously when the data used for training is gathered with consent from its authors.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 week ago

It's clearly WIP and currently it sucks. But I'm glad that they're at least trying to address the problem. In the meantime Google is doing its usual "smear the content on the user's snout until it swallows."

view more: ‹ prev next ›