antonim

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago

Reminds me of the "help me budget this" meme.

"Have fewer genocides."

"No."

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 days ago (8 children)

Germans excused Holocaust by... saying that it would prevent trans genocide?

This is too stupid even for a troll.

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

Then, you end up finishing the game

I.e. you do win...

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

Christianity developed in the Roman Empire?

I'm pretty sure we're talking about the pictorial representation of Jesus, not when Christianity itself developed. Christian figurative art in Rome was rare and undeveloped, I highly doubt you have on your mind some examples of Roman portrayal of Jesus that actually support your idea. That's why I described what I have found to be the situation in the middle ages, when the typical iconography zook shape - to the best of my knowledge, but maybe I'm talking with an actual art historian in which case you should have no problem with proving me wrong with examples.

I'm also confused about how you actually imagine the development of the supposedly racist Roman images of Jesus went about. At which stage did that happen, before or after Christianity became the state religion? Were Romans racist against the Middle East populations before Christianity too? Were Romans from the Apennine peninsula racist against them based on their darker skin colour, while themselves certainly being darker-skinned than e.g. Gauls?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If you don't feel like discussing this and won't do anything more than deliberately miss the point, you don't have to reply to me at all.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Frankly this comes off almost as a conspiracy theory. Christian art in Europe developed its typical imagery when the vast majority of Europeans could have no direct contact with non-Europeans, before colonialism or coherent ideas about racial identities, when far-off lands were thought to be occupied by one-legged giants...

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The comparison with your own childish vs adult drawings is simply off the mark. A more similar comparison could be provided by how artists depict the Vikings. It is well known today that the helmet with bull horns is made-up, and was probably never used by actual Vikings. Yet tons of people still portray them with such helmets, and most non-artists still have that same association in their minds. Why? Because a child growing up and developing their observational and artistic skills is not the same as a culture with its century-old symbols and images.

Admittedly the depictions of Jesus in art today are frequently done by more or less amateurish artists and are meant to be traditional in their style, which additionally makes them less likely to move away from the inherited imagery.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (3 children)

they’re a great use in surfacing information that is discussed and available, but might be buried with no SEO behind it to surface it

This is what I've seen many people claim. But it is a weak compliment for AI, and more of a criticism of the current web search engines. Why is that information unavailable to search engines, but is available to LLMs? If someone has put in the work to find and feed the quality content to LLMs, why couldn't that same effort have been invested in Google Search?

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

Admittedly that sort of censoring has been used online since forever. Stuff like "pr0n", etc.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 week ago

I won't deny that there are elements of a mildly conservative worldview in the post (mentioning the necessity of a "stable male figure"), but you go way overboard with your interpretation. If the post really was in line with such ideas, I wouldn't have posted it here.

[–] [email protected] 97 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's from https://boards.4chan.org/r9k/thread/79241078, it does seem real, apparently he's been sporadically posting about his job for some time.

 
[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

Are you a bot? Or just lazy?

I am a bot. Beep boop.

367
rule (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
 
15
submitted 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

The dispersal of the Indo-European language family from the third millennium BCE is thought to have dramatically altered Europe’s linguistic landscape. Many of the preexisting languages are assumed to have been lost, as Indo-European languages, including Greek, Latin, Celtic, Germanic, Baltic, Slavic and Armenian, dominate in much of Western Eurasia from historical times. To elucidate the linguistic encounters resulting from the Indo-Europeanization process, this volume evaluates the lexical evidence for prehistoric language contact in multiple Indo-European subgroups, at the same time taking a critical stance to approaches that have been applied to this problem in the past.

Part I: Introduction

Guus Kroonen: A methodological introduction to sub-Indo-European Europe

Part II: Northeastern and Eastern Europe

Anthony Jakob: Three pre-Balto-Slavic bird names, or: A more austere take on Oštir

Ranko Matasović: Proto-Slavic forest tree names: Substratum or Proto-Indo-European origin?

Part III: Western and Central Europe

Paulus S. van Sluis: Substrate alternations in Celtic

Anders Richardt Jørgensen: A bird name suffix *-anno- in Celtic and Gallo-Romance

David Stifter: Prehistoric layers of loanwords in Old Irish

Part IV: The Mediterranean

Andrew Wigman: A European substrate velar “suffix”

Cid Swanenvleugel: Prefixes in the Sardinian substrate

Lotte Meester: Substrate stratification: An argument against the unity of Pre-Greek

Guus Kroonen: For the nth time: The Pre-Greek νϑ-suffix revisited

Part V: Anatolia & the Caucasus

Rasmus Thorsø: Alternation of diphthong and monophthong in Armenian words of substrate origin

Zsolt Simon: Indo-European substrates: The problem of the Anatolian evidence

Peter Schrijver: East Caucasian perspectives on the origin of the word ‘camel’ and some notes on European substrate lexemes

306
funny yellow rule (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
 
 

Serbian edition from 1920.

Source: http://svevid.locloudhosting.net/items/show/1840

 

Quite frequently I come across scanned books that are viewable for free online. For example, the publisher put them there (such as preview chapters), a library (old books from their collection that are in public domain), etc. Since I like hoarding data, and the online viewers that are used to present the book to me might not be very practical, I frequently try to download the books one way or another. This requires toying with the "inspect element" tool and various other methods of getting the images/PDF. Now, all that I access is what is, well, accessible; I don't hack into the servers or something. But - the stuff is meant to be hidden from the normal user. Does that act of hiding the material, no matter how primitive and easily circumvented, mean that I'm not allowed to access it at all?

I suppose ripping a public domain book is no big deal, but would books under copyright fare differently?

Mainly I'm asking out of curiosity, I don't expect the police to come visit me for ripping a 16th century dictionary.

Note: I live in EU, but I'd be curious to hear how this is treated elsewhere too.

Edit: I also remembered a funny trick I noticed on one site - it allows viewing PDFs on their website, but not downloading, unless you pay for the PDF. But when you load the page, even without paying, the PDF is already downloaded onto your computer and can be found in the browser cache. Is it legal to simply save the file that is already on your computer?

 
151
rule (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
 
 
 
 
18
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

(I don't know where else to post, maybe someone here can help, and Neocities is open source...)

I want to create a site on Neocities. I fill out the signup form, solve the captcha, but when I click the "Create My Site" button, nothing happens. I click it again, and after a delay it starts loading something, but then just says "The captcha was not valid, please try again."

This happens regardless of the browser, machine or IP address I'm using.

Does anyone have any idea what might be the problem, and hopefully how to solve it? Is it just me or does anyone else have the same issue? I've sent an email to the admins two days ago, but still have gotten no reply, and I can find no info on this elsewhere online.

EDIT (20-8-2024): It's working now, probably they fixed it, woo! :D

view more: next ›