The CEO just influences PR decisions and says stupid stuff online, they don't actually do anything for the company
- Posts
- 1
- Comments
- 169
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- Posts
- 1
- Comments
- 169
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
The vowel sounds in "près" and "pré" are very clearly different, and the sound in "prêt" changes from "è" to "é" when in liaison because it always sounds like "è" at the end of words (and separately, in closed syllables) and always sounds like "é" in open syllables otherwise (liaison triggers a change in the syllable structure which changes the vowel here). This does not contradict what I said. You said "(pr)é" and "(pr)è" sound the same, nothing about "(pr)ê".
Yeah in Japanese a few consonant sounds like 'r' and 'l' sounds or 'h'/'f' or 's'/'th' or 'z'/'ð' are basically heard as the same (an American 'r' might even sound like a weird 'w' to Japanese), and English has around 17 to 24 distinctive vowel sounds generally (based on quality) while Japanese has 5 plus vowel length and tones (pitch accent). As a result of the phonetic differences between the languages, it can be hard to hear or recreate the differences in sound quality (especially when it's Japanese on the speaking/listening end, but Americans also sure have a terrible time trying to make Japanese sounds like the "n" or "r" or "ch"/"j" or "sh"/"zh" or "f" or "u". they just perceive it as the same as the closest sounds in English)
In my experience, only God can hear the difference between Polish "dż" and "dź" / "cz" and "ć" (and the others)...
"Pré" and "prè" consistently sound distinctly different in most, dare I say almost all, accents in mainland France. The difference is the same with basically all words spelled with those vowels. "Ê" also sounds like a long "è" in most words for most people. "e" also sounds like "é" when before silent letters except for "t", and sounds like "è" when before multiple letters or before "x" or before silent "t" or if it's the last sound except for open monosyllabic words, and it sounds special or is silent elsewhere. "-ent" is always silent too. Obviously doesn't apply to "en/em", also special exception for "-er/-es".
I approve! Perfectly stated.
Well yeah, the problem is a large portion of tradesmen are often misguided or just wrong on like every topic in the first place. My experience with welders and specific types of electricians, for example, is mostly filled with extremely misogynist people who take pride in ignorance. They aren't very reliable for opinions on education or even common sense. Of course, this doesn't apply to all tradesmen by any means, but those who aren't like this are likely to get strongarmed into acting the same or just get bullied out of the field. Like these are professions where employers will decide to not hire you based on the vehicle you drive, you have to conform to this "culture" of theirs in order to be taken seriously.
Something which doesn't really apply to "lower" skill welders, but I've heard from some "higher" skill (pipe/aerospace) welders, is complaints about not being able to do basic arithmetic&algebra or understand trigonometry... I'm not ripping on them, but they've seemingly had a lot of annoying situations and wasted a lot of time because they don't know multiplication well, and don't understand the logic behind the mathematics that they frequently encounter in their job. Sure, a lot of times the mathematics in trades can just be measuring and reading schematics and nothing else, but some work needs that kind of education and most tradesmen just seem to not have it.
Other types of education involved with communication, psychology, sociology, etc. can be extremely important for these professions, even if they don't affect the manual labour itself. A job is usually a lot more than just doing the work you were tasked to do, you have to actually discuss with people, and a lot of tradesmen completely lack skills in that department to the point it frequently causes issues...
Dude wtf you're all over this site, are you John Lemmy or something?
Anyways, Japanese uses different writing systems – the first two that people usually learn (Kana) are basically just symbols for syllables (also called "mora"), Hiragana and Katakana. They use a different set of "letters" which represent the same sounds (you'll find a "ka", "m/n", "fu", "o", etc. in both, but they look different). There's also Kanji, which is an umbrella term for the various usages of characters which were adapted from Chinese, this includes Kana but generally people don't mean to include Kana when they say "Kanji". One Kanji can have MANY meanings and pronunciations, due to many multiple ways in which the character was adapted from Chinese, so the writing is extremely contextual. You can generally "spell out" a Kanji with Hiragana or Katakana, often times this is used when learning new Kanji or to disambiguate meaning. It's also one of the ways you use to type Japanese on a device/keyboard (the characters can be converted to a Kanji using software where you can pick based on a list of most common Kanji which are pronounced the way you typed).
Since Japanese doesn't use spaces or dots or anything usually, you'll often see all three mixed together in order to separate different words, although in modern times Katakana has especially been used for borrowings from foreign languages.
There's also Rōmaji, which is a term for the various romanization/latinization systems for Japanese. This one is also commonly used to type Japanese text.
The JLPT is the Japanese Language Proficiency Test, you take it to get a certificate stating your Japanese language abilities and the results are ranked from N5 being the lowest (correlates to A1-A2 CEFR, slightly more than beginner knowledge) to N1 being the highest (B2-C2 CEFR, high level of abilities in the language)
The "alphabet" is generally the easiest part of learning a language, and an obviously important part, so the person being unwilling to put the time into it means he probably isn't serious enough about learning the language to actually follow it through.
Apologies if my explanation is off, I don't speak Japanese.
- Jump
Do you often hear the ringing of switching power supplies and devices when you are in a quiet space?
It's especially common among people with Autism/ASD and ADHD to hear noises other people often don't hear. Like those LED light bars, or coffee pot crackling, or electricity from appliances. For ADHD I've seen a few people claim that those sounds are just as audible for everyone else, but everybody just subconsciously filters it out and doesn't notice it, while people with ADHD are easily caught by it. I assume for ASD it would be somewhat similar – plus Autistic people are a lot more susceptible to sensory issues, although people with ADHD also often have fucked up senses, which can make noises like that a LOT more noticeable (and even problematic/headache-inducing/stressful/painful).
i'm pretty sure most plastic isn't even recyclable
edit: relevant link
Yeah I mean that's what happens when a new innovation threatens to replace (or reduce/minimize) peoples' jobs. Especially in a society where your job equals your ability to survive & live, people do NOT like getting their jobs "taken away" from them.
Yea I'm "anti-Israel" by many metrics but this is just a misleading and seemingly propagandic take... Judaism comes in many different forms and can range from extremist, highly conservative-orthodox beliefs which believes itself to be the superior race and all the others go to some burning hell (as seems to be described in this post which represents a minority of jews in the US at least), to any of the apolitical beliefs that lack any sort of hell-equivalent or even afterlife at all in some cases, where the entire point of the religion basically boils down to "be a good person to everyone around you". Judaism is an extremely diverse religion, hell you could even make an argument about Christianity and Islam just being highly derived forms of extremist Judaism (since Christianity originated as an offshoot of fringe jewish beliefs and Islam developed most of its unoriginal beliefs from Judaism and Christianity). Very few Jews actually have extremist/Christian-like beliefs about their religion (I don't know about in Israel though, they very well could)
Sorry but this comment is completely ignorant of the chemistry & manufacturing... you can make some shitty unusable glass with it, but unless you waste an unsustainable amount of resources to try to make the problems less apparent, a majority of desert sand is too low-silica to work. It's a problem with the material, no new glass processing method will change that.
And if you do decide to use desert sand, it's practically a logistics nightmare, especially considering you'll likely have to be centered in one of the few deserts made of sand (most of which are in North/South-East Africa and the Middle East, but also Central Asia, Australia, some parts of the Americas). But even if you did it's not sustainable or practical, and it most probably won't be in the future, there's a reason glass manufacturing plants smack dab in the middle of sandy deserts have to import their sand.
There are plenty of browsers. Dillo, NetSurf, surf, w3m, Lynx, Links, Via, Midori, Pale Moon although it's based on a fork of Gecko, Tunnel, qutebrowser. And there are even options for a search engine, although the only one worth considering that isn't just a layer on top of other search engines is Kagi which costs $10 a month, and I wouldn't exactly call it minimalist.
The problem is that no browser can allow you to escape the horror that is web standards & practices that have been developed over decades and are almost unchangeable, without sacrificing basic web functionality and just making it a worse experience than it needs to be at least. The fact is that practically the entire web is reliant on JavaScript, on top of HTML and CSS which take a lot more resources to utilize/display than it looks, meaning 3 interpreters constantly running that must be sandboxed to each tab you have open with a lot of overhead to manage security.
In an ideal world we'd all just be using provably-safe high-performance compiled WASM-but-stronger (from functional languages or more likely Rust or something less boiler-platey but similar), without having such a complex and fucked dependency situation, where we wouldn't need to sandbox interpreted languages and slaughter performance. Of course, in an ideal world, we also wouldn't have to be concerned about aggressive tracking, ads, clickbait, SEO abuse, scams, or even malware, so there's not much use in imagining a reality where we actually have quality web browsing.
The actual answer to using the web without the fucked-ness of browsers is to not use a web browser at all for sites you use frequently. Use stuff like this instead.
seriously, you can write the most basic website with JavaScript and it'll probably rely on tens of thousands of expressions of code which realistically should just be expressable in like a small page or two, you do webdev and you'll probably accidentally be implicitly committing a sacrifice to some Aztec God in order to check if a number is even or odd
Also just imagine if all of web dev was just ML/Scala/Rust/Swift/Erlang without compiling to JavaScript 🤤 That is the definition of a perfect universe
everything. everything about it sucks. it's like the chastity cage of OSes, even moreso than Apple OSes
Okay, you're just copping out of the conversation and ignoring pretty much all the points you don't like but I'll give you what you want.
You fucking shut the conversation down any time it goes there. You define men's issues as being impossible to discuss.
No, we just have the reaction anyone would have if we were talking about problems we face and someone else was like "yeah but what about these other issues I face". You're honestly telling me you think someone who just says "oh yeah your broken leg is bad but what about my broken arm? that's bad, if not worse, and i'm tired of people talking about your leg when nobody is talking about my arm" is doing so in good faith? When do feminists shut down such conversations about men? Why do you insist on just making shit up about feminists saying not to discuss men's issues?
You seriously believe that never once in the history of any of these discussions, somone saying "but what about men" has wanted to add to the conversation rather than derail it?
I don't know every person in history who has done that, but when you respond to literally anything discussing women's struggles with "but what about men who have X bad" it is more often then not a quite obvious attempt at diminishing the issue at hand. There are people who say "I'm not a woman but here's my perspective as a man who's faced similar issues", who are adding to the conversation, and then there are people who instead take the opportunity to try to find some way to frame the problem as not as serious as men's problems, and then often devolve it into blaming women for men's problems and try to say "well actually women are privileged" to completely avoid the point. Feminists do not get in the way of issues affecting men and are usually the primary proponents of solving problems faced regardless of gender – most are not ones to go into discussions about how young men are facing loneliness to say "but loneliness isn't just a men's thing, women also face record high loneliness! and in fact women have it worse because nobody acknowledges their loneliness epidemic!" yet this is exactly the reaction you see droves of which are highly popular on social media every time women's issues get brought up.
Show me the feminist initiatives to get women into trades.
Yeah this is how I know you're talking out of your ass. How did you go through the entire 2000s-2010s without seeing all the initiatives to get women to work in traditionally male work places? Regardless I'll give you what you want, talking about the issues faced with women not working in traditionally male-dominated workplaces and encouraging women in trades and many others:
"The U.S. Department of Labor's Women's Bureau has awarded $7.4 million in active grant funding to help recruit, train and retain more women in quality pre-apprenticeship and registered apprenticeship programs as well as nontraditional occupations."
https://www.usaid.gov/engendering-industries/gender-equality-best-practices-framework
Show me the feminists working to get more male teachers.
Literally this entire Reddit thread is full of feminists discussing exactly that, and quite clearly having a higher amount of male educators than we currently have is pretty important to them, with the reception to the topic being overwhelmingly positive and linking many resources on the matter: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/1776kfn/what_is_the_impact_of_the_lack_of_male_teachers/
Show me the feminists funding scholarships for men.
The origin in scholarships for historically disadvantaged groups is based in the fact that they faced many significant barriers in the past to attending college, and these scholarships were crucial to getting e.g. women, black people, to attend. Your question is a bit like asking about racial minority rights movements creating scholarships for white people. That being said there are a TON of scholarships for men (and for specific groups of whites), here's a list:
https://scholarships360.org/scholarships/scholarships-for-men/
https://www.aamn.org/scholarships
Plus you have things like this which are supported by people who think like you: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimelsesser/2022/04/13/womens-scholarships-and-awards-eliminated-to-be-fair-to-men/?sh=519c6bd87fe2
Your point is assuming that men have disproportionately higher of a financial burden to going to college than women. Which they don't. In fact, women have significantly more student loan debt than men and are generally less financially independent in our society so it's the other way around. Men's college problems are more skewed towards the various other social issues that feminists work to improve, i.e. access to mental health services (which often disproportionally affects men) and harmful gender norms, like once again causes men to be perceived as not fit for child-related activities (like teaching). The result is that, in general, scholarships are a lot more effective for women than for men, so there is more initiative for scholarships for women, while college health resources are more directed towards men.
In general feminists aren't very pro-gender based scholarship to begin with, although there are a lot of scholarships for both women and men (for example MenTeach which is made specifically to get men teaching) which are supported by many feminists.
Also things like this are mostly just an American thing, scholarships like that are generally rare outside of the US... but in the US, Feminists are a LOT more concerned with completely reforming the broken education system that requires you to have to have scholarships to go in the first place.
Because not only have I never seen anything like that, I've never even HEARD of anything like that. And I've gone looking.
Lmao you obviously haven't. I was able to find all of these with actual seconds of searching. You are a liar.
But that IS part of feminism. Who is putting these women in check? Serious question. Link me to some of these good feminists please.
The entirety of the internet is putting people in check. You don't even have to go to specific feminists to see it, any times a misandrist freak-out goes viral there's immediately a visceral reaction to it by even the "woke" parts of the internet and a bunch of feminists being like "yea s/he's not one of us". Anyone can call themselves anything, and every movement has radicals, but every feminist knows that those radicals are a joke and just easy bait for anti-feminist rhetoric.
yeah this whole giant movement that says it's about women is actually about men...come on bro get over yourself lol. I think feminism is about raising women up.
Jesus christ you really did filter out literally everything you just read didn't you... every time "feminism" comes up it's literally feminists telling you "it's not just about women" but people like you just completely ignore it. What entity exactly is "this whole giant movement" that's saying it's about women? I explained where the gendered terms of the movement come from, the historical reasons why they're called that, so I would hope you're not just taking the name at face value. There is literally not a singular feminist that says "yeah this movement isn't about men at all, we only care about women". Many issues in this world primarily screw over women though, and those are often talked about, which I assume is where your confusion comes from.
It just doesn't have any mechanism to (1) say "hey we did it! We achieved equality in this area!" (college admissions for example)
What is this even supposed to mean? You think feminists aren't happy and don't take pride in when a goal like more equal treatment in something based on gender or sexual orientation is achieved? That literally proves that you don't actually pay attention to anything that has to do with the movement and you're just making rage up lol.
(2) strive for equality in areas where men are at a disadvantage (dirty, dangerous, physical jobs for example)
Except they do. Literally one of the most important parts of the feminist movement is encouraging people to pursue career choices that societal perceptions discourage a specific gender from doing. Especially when it comes to dirty, dangerous, physical jobs. Do you know just how much women working trades/physical labour is talked about in various feminist groups? It is one of the primary workplace issues, generally women are completely bullied out of working such jobs and are seen as "incompetent" when it comes to professions like welders, mechanics, electricians, or any other form of physically demanding jobs. I have witnessed this firsthand, as well as my former best friend literally being a welder and constantly describing how awful women are treated by the people working these jobs, how they're constantly sexualized/objectified and harassed, how they have to always be afraid in their own workplace because of this. This is one of the most important things feminists are actively working on, equalizing trades and making it so both men and women are treated fairly and well. Feminism is also often intertwined with worker's rights, guarantees to employees, safety in the workplace, etc. which fits into this excelently.
address societal problems that uniquely affect men (lack of role models, for example).
What? I'm mentally facepalming right now... feminists are constantly encouraging positive role models, educators, leaders, etc. for everyone (including men), what are you on about? Additionally one of feminists' primary concerns is access to healthcare, and especially relating to feminists' concerns is mental healthcare, something that affects men a lot. They recognize what causes many of these problems, and they work to fix them. Feminists fight against negative influences like Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tate.
Many role models for men were/are feminists, and feminists actively are engaged in propping boys up and encouraging positive traits in them (as well as girls). I think one everyone can relate to hearing is Mr. Rogers.
This is the WHOLE POINT of "what about men?"
It really is not. The point is to say "women's issues don't matter because men also have other issues". It is a way to detract from any discussion about women's rights, to try to take over the conversation to say "we have it worse in some different way", to try to emphasize the idea they have that women are privileged and men are the ones that really have it bad. It is never done to add to the conversation, but to change the conversation.
Feminists do not care about male struggles. And I'm not talking about the ivory tower theorists that no one listens to. I don't know what they think because it doesn't matter. What matters is what everyday feminists think and do and say.
You are straight up just constructing a strawman and beating it to death. What feminist discussions have you attended? Any at all?
If feminism is about equality, then for the love of God please help men a little.
That is quite literally what we are trying to do. But people like you refuse it and try to turn it around as a way to disparage other groups and diminish discussions about women's struggles and gender in society. And you make strawmen constructed of some 2014 internet perception of a "feminist" pretending feminists actually believe in that, meanwhile "men's rights activists"/anti-feminists are represented by literal far-right sex traffickers (as opposed to the many positive role models who are feminists). Like can you name any popular, modern-day, prominent-among-feminist influencers that are even a small fraction of the absurdity of that? Feminist role model influencers are random often apolitical chill people like Technobladelmao.
Can you name the actual feminist(s) which you're referring to..? You won't really see feminists doing feminist things if you're not going out of your way to participate in the feminist movement. I'm pretty sure most people's entire idea of "feminism" is youtube videos from 2015 complaining about dumb misandrists with colorful hair screaming "kill all men" or something.
Feminism isn't about "men bad, women good" or "women need to be more privileged in society", it's about minimizing or erasing gender norms/stereotypes, even if those perceptions sometimes benefit women. Gender/sexual equality is the point of the movement, it recognizes that women are favoured by the judicial system when it comes to cases related to violence & domestic disputes, and that society thinks that men should be big and strong and scary and that society shuns men who face problems in life or are wronged as "weak", and that young people (especially men) are lonely, and that women are unlikely to receive as much benefit from the same labour (e.g., promotions/raises, perceived expertise) compared to men, etc. etc.
And the movement recognizes that those problems are often mostly or entirely caused by fucked up perceptions about gender that our society has built over an inconceivably large amount of time, and that we still apply to the modern day, that women are weak and beautiful and pure and dumb and dependent and subordinate to men and nurturing and need to be protected, and that men are strong and smart and do all the dirty work and independent and providing and commanding and need to protect women. That women and men are treated certain ways in some areas and get certain privileges over the other because of the way society views the concept of/separation between "man" and "woman" (and pushes against the view or "neither man or woman") in the first place.
Too many people think, because of few reactionary misandrists being significantly more publicized than actual gender equality movements, that feminism is about "we need to make men 2nd-class citizens", rather than "these artificially constructed and inaccurate ideas of differences between men and women are harmful to society and cause us to force certain perceptions on people, making us be biased against a certain gender in many areas or shun those of a certain gender who don't fit into certain stereotypes". Also some people don't really care either way and want to be mad, but that happens with everything.
Another thing that is always spammed every time anything related to women's struggles or just general women's rights (even if feminism isn't mentioned) is "but what about men?" which is ignoring the entire point... we're in a collective struggle, we should talk about all of our issues, even gender issues, and not be out to try to 1-up each other every time one of the "other" groups have their issues talked about. And we can recognize that women often face issues men don't face as much, and men often face issues that women don't face as much, and we can recognize that often times the difference of magnitude of struggles based on gender is caused by the fact that society treats different genders so irrationally different in the first place.
Some want to throw away the concept of "feminism"/"gender & sexuality equality" and instead exclusively use "egalitarianism", but I think that's kind of just trying to detract from the issue and is as absurd as saying we shouldn't think about "racial equality" as its own concept either, and saying "women have all the rights men have, but they're just greedy and want more" is as dumb as saying "racial minorities have all the rights that white people have, but they're just greedy and want more". Also because of this exact idea the term "egalitarianism" is generally associated with libertarians which is just... eugh... no thanks.
BTW this is tangential to the topic, but when people say "toxic masculinity" or "patriarchy" the idea isn't that it's mens fault and everything would be so much better if they just drop their toxicity and masculinity. It's more generally referring to how historically, in societies where men were at the "top" of the social hierarchy, created were the perceptions that men are supposed to be a certain way, and that women are supposed to be a certain other way, based entirely around the most idolized men of the times having certain characteristics/powers that dictated their place in society. These ideas still, for the most part, persist to the modern day in an altered & tamer form, and they still affect how all of us who are raised in these cultures perceive gender identity. That's why it's said men are victims of "patriarchy" or "toxic masculinity" too, because modern gender perceptions/issues are tightly tied to where they originated, and those societal/governmental structures are still "here" in a very warped but slightly recognizable form.
You are... trying to use random medical conditions as an insults? Are you 12?
can't wait to use templates and have the compiler spit out a 120 page autobiography
Yeah, if he took over Kazakhstan tomorrow the US would leave it at writing a strongly worded letter...