No underline in CommonMark, that’s a link. Which isn’t underlined on my end because it’s not the 1990s, any more. U͟n͟i͟c͟o͟d͟e͟ ͟w͟o͟r͟k͟s͟… more or less. It’s a hack. 𝒞𝓊𝓇𝓈𝒾𝓋ℯ 𝓉ℯ𝓃𝒹𝓈 𝓉ℴ 𝓌ℴ𝓇𝓀 𝒻𝒾𝓃ℯ, 𝔞𝔫𝔡 𝔰𝔬 𝔡𝔬𝔢𝔰 𝔟𝔩𝔞𝔠𝔨𝔩𝔢𝔱𝔱𝔢𝔯.

“Variety” doesn’t imply status as a dialect or as a language; it’s neutral in this regard, that’s why I used it.

I believe and forgive you.

The reason why I bristled is because there’s a political dimension to the classification: The reason we have that generational gap in native proficiency is because the language was actively combatted, sidelined, and bemeaned by academia, “Low Saxon is an obstacle to education”. Parents were made to believe that for their kids to have success, they needed to chide the grandparents for speaking it while the kids were around. In that effort, it was quite popular to class it as a dialect which goes contrary to the experience of speakers, flies in the face of more than a millennium of literary history, status as Lingua Franca, and much more. So for me, being neutral doesn’t cut it: It diminishes the hard-won spark of self-esteem that’s necessary to revitalise the language.

Also it’s important to distinguish proper Low Saxon from Missingsch, the contact variety to Standard German. (Contemporary) Missigsch indeed is a dialect of Standard German, you can go full-tilt on its non-Standard features and Bavarians will still understand you.

variety

Language! High German may have an army but we have the fleet.

More seriously if you class Low Saxon as a non-standard variety of Standard German and then have a look at the family tree you’d have, for the sake of consistency, call English a German variety. Sure they’re all West Germanic languages but we need taxa for the taxonomy god: Low Saxon is more closely related to the Anglo-Frisian languages than to the Allemannic/Bavarian line, which is where Standard German stems from.

I generally agree, though there’s cases where you want to be selective with what you’re describing. This Low Saxon dictionary, for example, has a policy of not listing loans and calques from Dutch, German, or English unless they’ve been well-established, doubly so if there’s an already existing Low Saxon word which fits the bill.

The justification is that the language is in a vulnerable state with native proficiency having jumped at least a full generation so many speakers’ vocabulary is lacking. E.g. my repertoire of words for plants and animals in Low Saxon is negligible, so in speech I have to improvise i.e. use a loan. I occasionally look stuff up and I don’t want to find the loan I just used listed, giving it dictionary blessing would amount to aiding and abetting the decline of the language. Why the hell would anyone want to aid and abet the sidelining of wonderful words like Huul­bes­sen, “howl broom”.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cromulent

Gesundheit.

Nah, you’re just occupying another spot on it. And unless you’re an algae or something, literally living from light and elements floating about in the air and sea, you’re not at the bottom.

The ecology expands beyond your pet ethical considerations.

Side question: Would you begrudge your dog eating your corpse? If you love them so much, why don’t you feed them, when that is all you have left to give?

Your dog would not mind eating your horse. Your dog also wouldn’t mind eating you.

There’s two principal reasons why people make a difference between cats/dogs on the one side and horses on the other: The degree to which they’re family, but very crucially also to the degree to which horses, or cows, very much aren’t carnivores, it’s about position on the foodchain, how much heavy metals etc. accumulate, that’s not just a modern thing it’s always been the case. That’s why eating dogs is an exception among human cultures, while with cows not eating them is the exception.

Horse meat is absolutely tasty, and if it wasn’t so unpopular it’d probably be in the same price range as beef, overall the market is quite small, and absolutely zero horses are raised for meat. Bluntly said at the end of a horse’s career an owner is asked “do you want an urn, vacuum packs, or not pay anything I’ll sell the meat”. If your dietary preference for meat is animals which have been loved and pampered all their life horse is a very good choice.

Trouble with the scandal back then was that it was all untracked horse meat. And there’s plenty of horses around which get treated with veterinary drugs that make them unsuitable for human consumption because no owner is prioritising slaughter over their health.

I was talking about the foundation itself, not foundation+subsidiaries. And yes ever since the writing was on the wall wrt. google funds they’ve been putting more and more money in investments to make sure they can survive, as opposed to grants. Still keeping with the foundation’s mandate, though, e.g. all their VC investments into AI are the polar opposite of what the likes of OpenAI are doing. Kinda sceptical e.g. huggingface will ever turn a profit, much less a significant one, but it’s important to have them.

Firefox is a way for them to make money for their charitable projects. Always has been.

They’ve been opening secondary streams of income – also via Firefox, like pocket and stuff, but it’s unclear whether that would even allow them to keep developing Firefox. It certainly would mean that Mozilla doesn’t have any money left over to give to others which is their main purpose of existing.

If you actually had a look at their actual numbers, they’re a charity you know, they’re public, you’d see that the bulk of money is spent on charity. Mozilla has never been a charity to develop Firefox, Firefox has always been the breadwinner for Mozilla’s charity operations.

The Commission already has an instance and the ECJ also has an instance. I didn’t find one for the parliament, they might not even want to have one but instead leave it to the parties. A parliament instance would amount to the EP president policing parliamentarian’s speech not just inside parliament but also outside of it, kinda iffy.

*Mögest du von einem Schwertfisch gefickt werden.

Konjunktiv I, and “bei” would be appropriate for “by candlelight” or “at the bakery”, but not “by some agent”. “vom Bäcker” – you’re getting fucked by the baker, "beim Bäcker’ – you’re getting fucked at the bakery. Dative in both cases.

Oh this is beautiful and reinforces the result that actual AGI will have to be able to develop its own encodings. In the sense of rather yellowstone relying on a fixed network creating a mapping, decide on a network to create mappings that make sense. Here’s the whole system-theoretical background, papers at the bottom.

Can you not see the image I posted in the comment?

Yes and I can’t make heads or tails of what you want to say with it.

The way the petals are drawn is not how a human would draw them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgDYlmRwXF8

What I’m hearing from you is vague gesturing, “don’t think I’m confused about that kind of stuff” and “trust me, bro”.

“Not how humans would draw them” doesn’t cut it. Explain how it differs. Zooming in on those flowers “hah they don’t look like flowers” does not prove anything, of course they’re not perfect: They’re in the background. Too much detail would make them pop out, that’s why you draw the impression of detail, not actual detail. The artist in the video is a master at that.

inconsistent arm length

Because it is impossible for humans to get anatomy wrong, or just not care. Right panel is a compromise: Gesture wants negative space to the right (gal is running), panel width is limited, don’t want to cut off hand, so make arms different length it’s a comic FFS.

the distorted/melty flowers in the third panel

Because everything humans paint is hyperrealistic and infinite detail. Impressionist technique doesn’t exist.

the bottom of the TV stand

…what? Best guess I have is that you think that it’s geometrically wrong but it just doesn’t have a door, drawers, or such. Which btw would break the composition.

kinda melty/bendy lines here and there

Smudge tool don’t exist.

There was a brief moment where “all lives matter” had no clear meaning, where the slogan still was up for grabs, where the fascists were still starting to rally while BLM was already in full swing. If, at that juncture, BLM had had the wherewithal to, as I already said, switch to chanting “all lives matter” without skipping a beat the few fascists already using it would have looked like actually supporting BLM. They would’ve backed off.

Are neurodivergent folks treated equally, with equal consideration? “Existing while not being able to respond to BS demands” is a crime that exists in the US. There’s a bodycount to back that up, covering the whole spectrum of spectrum disorders.

That out of the way: Why give the enemy a slogan and exclude your allies? What possible gain would that bring about?

All Lives Matter’ is a slogan to avoid acknowledging that black lives also matter.

Because it was claimed by fascists. That’s the only reason it has that meaning. Because it was given up, not claimed by woke folks. Words, slogans, don’t have meaning in themselves the meaning only exists in context. “All lives matter” is a fascist slogan because it got chanted by fascists, not because it’s fascist in itself. If fascists shout “chocolate pudding is tasty”, what does that mean? I have no idea but it surely doesn’t bode well for black folks.

You don’t have to fucking explain to me that “All lives matter” got appropriated by fascists. I fucking know. I’m complaining about how BLM let it be appropriated, how the wider platform let victory be snatched away from under their fingertips by semiotic illiteracy that made MLK spin in his grave. Man was way ahead of <currentyear>.

I don’t believe there is no difference at all between men and women. I simply believe that a lot of the things we say are inherent differences are actually not as inherent as people tend to believe.

Depending on who you mean with “we” I definitely agree.

For example, I’ve seen no evidence that women are inherently more kind/caring/empathetic than men in any biological way, only that society socializes them to be so,

…and fails at doing so, if I may add. Male-pattern aggression is simply more obvious because it’s in your face physical while female-pattern is psychological, always ensuring plausible deniability.

Yet if you ask most people, they’ll assume there’s something biological that makes women more like that emotionally.

Women favour low-risk engagement, passive aggressiveness over overt aggressiveness. Thus you see emotional manipulation used way more often, one approach being self-victim-framing, and for that the narrative of “oh women are so delicate and emotional they have to be protected no matter what they do” fits the bill. Female viciousness is beautiful but I very much prefer it in the “never start a fight, but always finish it” version. Relevant symphonic metal. Also if you’re trying it with me you’re getting tickled into submission.