computational linguist more like bomputational bimgis

  • 0 Posts
  • 82 Comments
Joined 7 months ago
cake
Cake day: April 2nd, 2024

help-circle



  • sparkle@lemm.eetoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldHelth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Shhh shhh no we have to make the peasants believe every exploitable activity is an intelligent sidehustle. THEIR idea. Not something that will be forced upon them by capitalism. How do you think we create like half of professions ever?



  • sparkle@lemm.eetoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldWhat if?
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    What do you mean women don’t like a FOSS privacy-oriented user experience? Don’t they like going through 500 pages of documentation when Gentoo breaks only to realize all along that the problem was fixed by turning the computer off and on again?

    What do you mean men don’t like that either?? What kind of place is this?!



  • For a lot of English speakers, the “had” and “have” in contractions is completely omitted in certain contexts. It’s more prevalent in some dialects (I’m in the south US and it’s more common than not). Usually “had” is dropped more than “have”.

    Also, English can drop the pronoun, article, and even copula for certain indicative statements. I think it’s specifically for observations, especially when the context is clear.

    looking at someone’s bracelet “Cool bracelet.” [That’s a]

    wakes upsigh Gotta get up and go to work…” [I’ve]

    “Ain’t no day for picking tomatoes like a Saturday.” [There]

    “No war but class war!” [There’s]

    “Forecast came in on the radio. Says there’s gonna be a hell of a lot of rain today.” [It said -> Says/Said]

    “Can’t count the number of Brits I’ve killed. Guess I’m just allergic to beans on toast.” [I; I]

    “House came tumblin’ down after the sinkhole opened up” [The]

    “I’d” can be “I would”, mainly if used with a conditional or certain conjunctions/contrastive statements (if, but, however, unfortunately). Also when preceding “have” – e.g. “I’d have done that”. Because “I had have” doesn’t make sense, nor does “I had <present tense>” anything. “I’d” as in “I had” is followed by a past participle.

    “I’d” is usually “I had” otherwise, forming the past perfect tense. But in “I’d better”, it’s a bit confusing because “had better” is used in a different sense – the “had” here comes from “have to” (as in “to be necessary to”) and can be treated as both a lexical verb and an auxiliary verb. “had better” is a bit of a leftover of more archaic constructions.




  • It would be a pain for developers, but firefox and chrome using a gig of ram to view webpages and play videos is horrendous even with isolated design.

    That can’t be helped. Hard to explain well without knowing how much CS you’re familiar with, but basically in order to guarantee security/user safety you have to sandbox each tab (basically running an entirely separate container program for each tab which constantly checks for illegal memory access to prevent it from being exploited), all separately running their own interpreters for javascript/typescript, HTML, CSS, all of which are very resource intensive (mainly javascript/typescript). There’s not really any getting around this, no matter how well you design your browser.

    Now, theoretically, with the growing popularity/advances in WebAssembly, and increase in usage of frameworks/graphics APIs like WebGPU, you could completely get rid of that sandboxing and completely get rid of the extremely slow javascript and html/css, in favor of completely using safe, compiled Rust programs. There’s active research using versions of WASM which only accept completely safe code (mainly safe Rust code) so using memory bugs generated from user error to access data in different tabs becomes impossible (aside from potential unaddressed bugs in Rust itself obviously) and you don’t need to sandbox each tab – the program practically sandboxes itself. Then you could potentially have browsers with thousands of tabs perform perfectly fine, assuming each of the websites is programmed competently.

    But that’s not going to happen, because billions of users rely on HTML/CSS and JS, and it’s not pretty to transition away from. Getting rid of it would be like getting rid of pointy shoes, or getting rid of US Customary Units in the US, it’s just not happening no matter how much benefit it would bring to users. It’s not so much of a browser company issue as it is everyone ever would complain and potentially trillions of dollars of damage would be done. Also frontend web devs can barely punch out a “hello world” program in JS so there’s no way most of them are gonna be touching Rust or Haskell or something.



  • of an approximation of a derivative of the Roman foot in metric*

    The Roman foot was between approximately 0.96 and 1.1 international feet (most commonly about 0.97 ft, except in modern Belgium where it was 1.091 ft/13.1 in, the size of Nero Claudius Drusus’ foot). After that, the foot in Britain was based off the North German foot (~13.2 in), but in the late 13th century it became more like 12 in (so around the same as the modern foot). Later the English foot was between 11.7 and 12.01 in, and the US foot was based on the English foot until the 19th century when they made the US Customary Units and defined the foot as exactly 1200/3937 meters. The British made the British Imperial system and a bit later defined the foot as 1200/3937.0113 meters. They didn’t switch to metric because they saw “French Revolutionary units” (metric) as “atheistic”. Later, we advanced our understanding of physics, and the British adopted a foot of 304.8 mm in 1930, and the Americans followed them in 1933, based on the new “industrial inch” from the now-unused 1927 light wave definition of the meter (which used the International Prototype, made of a standard bar). The modern foot is defined as exactly 0.3048 meters, by international agreement in 1959 between some English-speaking countries, after the newer Kypton standard definition of the meter (which is also now not used).

    Now it’s based on the modern meter definition (distance travelled by light in a vacuum in 1/299792458 of a second, which is defined based on the uperturbed ground-state hyperfine transition frequency of a caesium-133 atom being 9192631770 Hz)


  • Trap is a slur, especially used often by weebs. Describing gender non-conforming characters who look feminine as “traps”, including many canonically non-binary and woman characters, is pretty fucked up when you think about it. To them, “traps” and genderqueer people in general are sex objects, not characters with respectable identities. Most of the weebs that throw that word around are also the ones to do trans erasure, like denying that a character is transgender or otherwise gender non-conforming, instead treating any character implied not to be AFAB as a man; and then often ironically going crazy defending it as “not gay” because that’d be bad – there’s a reason “traps aren’t gay” is a meme, and it’s an unironically defended position by these people. They convince themselves it’s not gay by reducing queer people & characters down to sex objects, things to masturbate to, rather than people. If you don’t see them as an equal person, it’s not gay or immoral, is how they process it. Obviously they won’t say that explicitly if you ask them though, they’ll just say it’s not gay because being attracted to things that look like women is straight or something.

    That’s why it’s used a shit ton in, you know, porn. Not just hentai, but actual real porn. Usually in place of “bitch”, “whore”, or some other word used to dehumanize women. They’re used in the same derogatory manner. It’s pretty disturbing when men use “bitch” or “whore” to refer to women and female characters, it’s dehumanizing. And it’d be pretty disturbing to well-adjusted people if someone described anyone feminine genderqueer as “a trap”, but this is a slur that weebs are fine using amongst themselves.

    This problem is made worse by the fact that generic animes started to play into this, that is, they created “trap” tropes (with a lot of objectified/token otokonoko or josoko characters popping up because weebs like it).

    You would think those people wouldn’t equate anime characters with real people, but this mentality transfers between fiction and nonfiction unfortunately. Often times the way you feel about character identities in media is representative of the way you feel about the identities of real people – just look at the backlash of the gamergate people about the woke “ruining games and movies” by putting minorities and women in them.

    Now, I’m not saying everyone who’s ever used the word “trap” is a bigot or anything. People use words without realizing the way others see it, and the impact it has. I used it in my weeb phase. But undeniably, “trap” is a derogatory word and a slur used to objectify queer people, and it always has been – it originated in 4channers & internet weirdos getting mad over trans people being at gaming events, posting pictures and labelling them “traps” (“they’re trying to trick you into thinking they’re a woman to trap you into having sex with them, when they’re really not a woman”). It’s no different than other slurs for queer people (like “fag” or “sodomite”). It’s harmful and shouldn’t be used. Persistence on using it shows a lack of respect for (or just plain ignorance of) genderqueer people and their identities.






  • sparkle@lemm.eetopics@lemmy.worldNeighborhood [OC]
    link
    fedilink
    Cymraeg
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Suburbs with cookie-cutter houses where everything looks eerily identical are everywhere around here in the south – or at least my part of it. Mostly in newer developments. They’re so ugly, and I have to see them any time I’m on the road unless I’m in an urban area.

    The worst part is the people who live in those places (mostly white flight descendants) are always the ones who complain about housing projects and get zoning reforms & mixed-use building plans shut down because efficient land/property use looks “ugly” to them, and they think it’s bad for property value or something. Like fuck off, you literally live in the neighborhood from The Lorax, your opinion on what acceptable housing is is worthless.