anarchy79

anarchy79 , 2 months ago

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/5a5386f4-f09a-4c2f-acac-b66a7365984d.png

anarchy79 , 2 months ago

This really depends on

A) Which country you're referring to

and

B) How good your accountants are.

Do you think that Bill Gates invests billions in "philanthropic offerings" out of his love for humanity, too? You do get that donations are a massive scam opportunity for rich people, right?

Let's put it in this perspective:

"I am so rich! Wooohooo! Wololo! So so SO rich! What to do with all my riches? What's that, IRS? You want me to give YOU some of my grillions of dollars? Well how about I set up a foundation, which invests in philanthropic businesses like, say, MacroHelp Inc.? What if I gave away ALL my wealth to a holding group consisting of only such companies, like MacroEquality, MacroDemocracy, and MacroDelight that promote economic growth in third world countries, FREE OF CHARGE? Clearly I don't have to pay taxes on THAT, I mean, that's just pure goodwill, what kind of monster would punish goodwill??"

anarchy79 , 2 months ago

No you don't understand, this is exactly how capitalism is supposed to work! Once you get rich enough (and everybody gets rich under capitalism, that's the beauty of it!) then you can spend as much money you want on things like "helping the poor", and "food", and since everyone becomes richer under capitalism, it's inevitable that the poor will get rich, just like you will be one day! So skip the donating part, invest in stocks, and then when YOU are back on your feet, THEN you can help the poor, so that they TOO can get back on their feet! It's the perfect system, as long as you don't donate your money!

anarchy79 , 2 months ago

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/8aae3182-a5e0-4267-96b7-a5926f38232a.png

anarchy79 , 2 months ago

this is based on a true story

anarchy79 , 2 months ago

Not credible. The nymphs in the background would be making out in real life.

anarchy79 , 2 months ago

THE CUDDLIES! GIVE THEM!

anarchy79 , 2 months ago

Except the woman inside.

anarchy79 , 3 months ago

It's "extra", not "extro". They're "extra-terrestrials", not "extro-terrestrials". Extro is not a latin word, extra is.

anarchy79 , 3 months ago (edited 3 months ago)

Oof, shove a bat up your ass! Do governments perform extrojudicial killings? Do we extrodite prisoners, and extropolate data, too?

Extra means "without" or "outside". Extro has no definition, because it's not a word. It is in opposition to "intro" which is also, GASP, a latin word, meaning "within", or "inside". How is this hard to understand? God I hate throngs of people being wrong at the same time.

"Extrovert" was introduced BECAUSE uneducated people used the wrong word so much they had to.

anarchy79 , 3 months ago (edited 3 months ago)

No, extravert is the correct psychological nomenclature. Extraversion. Extroversion was not a thing until everyone got it wrong and it had to be shoved into dictionaries. Doesn't change a thing, "extro" is not a word. "Intro" on the other hand, is. As in "introvert".

What, do mutants have extro-sensory perception now, too? Is there extroneous information? Extrovehicular? Extrovagance? Extrovaganza?

"Extraversion" is correct.

anarchy79 , 3 months ago

That's what I have been saying all along!

anarchy79 , 3 months ago

extrovert

I am on a crusade since about twenty years about this, and the war, well, it's not going well....

anarchy79 , 2 months ago

Deus Vult.

anarchy79 , 2 months ago

Now you're really rustling my jimjims.

anarchy79 , 2 months ago

That's my uncle!

anarchy79 , 2 months ago

And the feeling of love is "just a bunch of chemical interactions" too, right?

Edit: Oh, and by the way

Why is extrovert sometimes spelled extravert?

Carl Jung based the two terms on Latin, in which "extra" means outside and "intro" means inside. A psychologist named Phyllis Blanchard later changed the spelling of the term in a paper, which played a role in the extrovert spelling becoming the predominant form.

Today, the extravert spelling is still widely used in psychology, while the extrovert spelling remains more common in popular usage.

Kaufman S. The difference between extraversion and extroversion. Scientific American.

See, that's not "lankuake cheinkcsh", that's degradation of language because Phyllis got it wrong, and now everyone is.

anarchy79 , 2 months ago

I actually read Old English without much effort, as well as the languages it originated from, particularly Old Norse, French, and Germanic.

Degradation of language: misuse of language due to lack of education, erudition, or inclination. I can forgive some misinterpretation and adaptation, but that's my issue. "Extro" does not make sense, unless someone got it wrong that one time and then spread it around until everyone was saying it wrong. That pisses me off, not to mention it makes me question Phyllis's judgment on Jung's corpus of work as a whole, she clearly didn't read much of it.

There is a difference between a language evolving in response to changes in the environment or the human condition, and a language degrading into "barbar" because nobody bothered to learn how to speak, and thereby write, correctly. I believe that there are no 1:1 transmutations of words in such a manner which wouldn't remove some amount of information, and the degradation of information is kind of a massive deal to humanity right now.

Let me ask, what does "begging the question" mean to you?

anarchy79 , 2 months ago (edited 2 months ago)

That's why I wrote it in quotes. 'Germanic', and you can fuck off now if you want. Extrovert... lol

Edit: "actual linguistics science" 💀

Here's something topical, why don't you read that and get back to me when you finish high school:

Gattir allar,
aþr gangi fram,
vm scoðaz scyli,
vm scygnaz scyli;
þviat ouist er at vita,
hvar ovinir sitia
a fleti fyr.

Egredit: That was a weird flex, I'll compose myself and write you a proper answer instead because I'm a bit cunty like this and I should really stop belittling people's intelligence, they are also people in a way.

anarchy79 , 2 months ago (edited 2 months ago)

Christ man you’re such a liar lmao. GERMANIC ISN’T A LANGUAGE. And certainly not a WRITTEN one. And English didn’t “originate” from French. Old English is unintelligible to Modern English speakers because it’s a completely different language, you are straight up lying through your teeth when you say you can read it fine, much less understand it. 85% of vocabulary in Old English isn’t even present in Modern English. Even more so with Old Norse lmao. French is very clearly unintelligible with English as well. French is literally my second language, so I can very easily tell you that. Why do you feel the need to blatantly lie about being able to understand other languages, including ficticious ones?

I'm sorry but this is lazy. I missed the quotes, as in 'Germanic', denoting exactly the thing that you said- it's a multitude of languages and dialects and ursprungs or herkünfte. Once you understand a lot of languages, a lot of languages become quite understandable.

English, hahaha, I'm sorry to offend your nationalistic sensibilities, but this is the Bayeux Tapestry: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Bayeux_Tapestry

You know, of course the story, as the Normans, who would become the ruling dynasty thenceforth until present day, were Norsemen right? Not "Norwegian" (although actual Norwegians too, this was of course before nationstates were a thing)(thing, by the way, is Old Norse for, well, "Thing". It is what they would call a Råd, or Råth, or in German "Rat", perhaps in France it would be 'le tribunal' or something gay like that- a public and intermittently recurring assembly before which one would lay various legal matters, in to what amounted to jurisprudence at the time in circa AD 800 (although in fact ridiculously much older but I digress) like who stole whom's cow or who raped and pillaged whom's village et cetera), but Norsemen, or Nordmen, or Northmen, or plain and simple "Vikings", were the de facto rulers of the land at the time, not whatever the French were, apart from being murdered a lot by pillage massacres.

The Føroyar islands north of England (well technically the UK/Scotland but whatever)(technically technically an autonomous and self-governing entity under the control of the state of Denmark, I felt like you would have mnjehhed that one if I didn't explain it) have spoken their version of Old Norse mixed with local dialects and natural, organic evolution of whatever Celtic remnants remained from pre-glacial times. I can read that out of the box, because it is so ridiculously similar to modern Scandinavian languages. But this has derailed to the point I don't know what I am schooling you on anymore.

That entire take is just silly. “Language degratation” is a lie sold to you by shitty middle school English Language Arts teachers.

By who? This is very much my 100% own opinion on the matter, I assure you. Fuck arts teachers, art is useless.

“All living languages are continually undergoing change. Some commentators use derogatory labels such as “corruption” to suggest that language change constitutes a degradation in the quality of a language, especially when the change originates from human error or is a prescriptively discouraged usage. Modern linguistics rejects this concept, since from a scientific point of view such innovations cannot be judged in terms of good or bad. John Lyons notes that “any standard of evaluation applied to language-change must be based upon a recognition of the various functions a language ‘is called upon’ to fulfil in the society which uses it”.”

Nice, but I'm more a Chomsky kind of guy. I was going to get into Derrida, but I will NOT deal with another headache right now.

Again, your stance is seen as completely stupid in the realm of actual linguistics science.

Well, in the realm of real life, you're completely stupid!

There isn’t a difference. How do you think sound change and many other forms of language change occur without this ““degradation””? Do you think that the transitions between languages just happen because God willed it and everyone just accepted it? No, people back then complained about language change in the same exact way that you are now. You are speaking a “bastardized” form of language by your own logic. Every word you speak is completely different from the “educated” proscribed speak of before. Almost none of the words you’re saying are being used in their ““original”” sense.

If I change the course of a stream because I want it to flow in another direction, will it flow in the same direction if I simply just threw rocks at it?

And I will have you know that the extent to which I speak a bastardized form of language then that is because I am a bastard, coming from a long and illustrious line of bastards. Hey that's a French word! But of course they would invent that, you really need words for things you see everyday.

According to your anti-scientific logic, it should mean to approach a question and start begging to it.

Antiscientific logic! 😘🤏

So you think that whatever things sound like, that's what they mean? Words are all a guesswork that starts anew every time we speak to one another? I would presume some more structure to language than that.

Also consider this:

"BARBARBARBARBARBARBARBARBARBARBARBARBARBARBARBAR".

Surely you understand what I mean by that? It's only natural evolution of language.

I want to ask you again, do you think AAVE, Scottish English, and all other large dialect groups of English are incorrect? Do you think you’re better at linguistics than a majority of professional linguists?

I would love to debate you on this, but I'm literally (literally literally) in the process of composing my book on this subject, which I did out of a need to be able to point to it as a source of reference, because it takes too long explaining my position every time it comes up, and the time I would spend on discussing it with you would take time away from that effort, not that that is how I would spend that time, because that time is better spent on hookers and cocaine, and constitutes a thoroughly self-defeating proposition.

I mean all of the above tongue in cheek and with good sportsmanship just fighting you with words, no harm meant, nothing personal, you loveable French bastard. :) <3

anarchy79 , 2 months ago

Ok, when I get back from the store after getting a shitfuck much more alcohol, I'll treat you to a personal recitation and upload it to you, to calm your nerves, how about that? Would that assuage your doubts? Hey, assuage, that shit's French too!

I'm gonna do it for you buddy.

anarchy79 , 3 months ago

Yes but not with the same bear.

anarchy79 , 3 months ago

Plain concrete, just pour concrete over the whole planet. No insects, not even the scary ones!

anarchy79 , 3 months ago

That man has the patience of an angel.

anarchy79 , 3 months ago

Ambien Walrus for me.

anarchy79 , 3 months ago

He soundsexactly how you think he does.

anarchy79 , 3 months ago

Everybody loves guns!

anarchy79 , 3 months ago

Not exactly an indictment on the hacker as much as it is one on these predatory online psych dealerships.

Once again we're seeing deregulations leading to McSolutions that A) are of lower quality, and B) more expensive than what we had.

anarchy79 , 3 months ago

Whu? No, that's not right.

anarchy79 , 3 months ago

It's actually a Russian sponsored non issue to pit us against one another. Sadly the conservatives bought into it hardstyle because they smell money and power to be made from the controversy.

anarchy79 , 3 months ago (edited 3 months ago)

In fact words all those words are a bunch of gibberish and neither the world nor reality works like that. I can just question the vague and often circular premises of that argument and we're back to square zero.

Not against the sentiment, but you're never going to get anywhere with that pseudoacademic bullshit.

Edit: hahaha just keep proving my point. You're the same as them- dogmatic fanatics with no arguments that hold up for shit.

anarchy79 , 3 months ago

Sounds like you're simplifying the issue just as much as they do.

anarchy79 , 3 months ago

It's fucking stupid, they're doing the same as their detractors. It's just bullshit slinging on both sides. Of course only one side are bigoted cunts, which makes it easy to see who's on the right side, but going just by the rhetoric on "our" side is fucking sophomoric at best.

anarchy79 , 3 months ago

Nothing is anything, did people forget that these are all completely nonsense words with no connection to reality? No matter how scientific and very legal very cool semantic concepts you come up with it won't change reality one fucking bit. Non binary.. Nobody gives a FUCK, it has no correlation with ANYTHING in the Universe, it's just another shit pseudophilosophical concept being shoved down everyone's throat like it's some kind of objective reality.

It's metaphysics, and "you people" (yes, YOU PEOPLE) suck at it.

The shit you find in your belly hole while navel gazing is not worth shit.

anarchy79 , 3 months ago

100% goes for the other side as well. There is zero arguing at any side, everybody just shuts down and becomes a fucking retard. Don't pretend like anything on either side makes sense.

anarchy79 , 3 months ago

Oh my fucking god is that another fucking acronym that the pseudohomos came up with? No wonder people get tired of hearing it..

Jesus christ the whole planet has just gone into retard overdrive.

anarchy79 , 3 months ago

"Am I out of touch?
No, it is the users who are wrong!"

anarchy79 , 3 months ago

My friend says the same thing. I would welcome the change honestly, Ive watched these videos already, Youtube, I will take anything new at this point.

anarchy79 , 3 months ago

"Let's Play Dumbcraft! Ep. 1"

Then get every other Episode except Ep. 2 listed, so you have to go to the channel and manually find it...

anarchy79 , 3 months ago

I've tried so many times. I went ahead and checked out feedly right now just to have them change my mind, and they failed miserably. You run into paywall issues right away, they don't list pretty major newspapers I would assume to have rss, and adding something like business insider or the independent gives you so much dung mixed with the things you are actually interested in.

Let's say I'm into business, but don't want car related news? What if I'm into investing yet don't want to hear about Trump?

If there was something like "more like this"/"less like this" function, then maybe, but just at a glance, one of many, I don't see how it could present me with the info I want in the structure I want.

Global events and news
Economical trends on both macro and micro level for specific domains
Exclude entertainment, sports, fashion, drama
Update every hour
Total headlines max 30 per day
Max visible 7 at a time.

I've tried, and it's not worth the hassle even trying to set that up. For me, at least.

Adding any RSS feed is like getting an information enema with raisins sprinkled in.

anarchy79 , 3 months ago

This is a common logical fallacy known as "argumentum ad populum" (appeal to popularity). You equate the popularity of the idea as a basis for determining its validity.

Compare, "if cars are so great, why is everyone still riding horses?"

anarchy79 , 3 months ago

I find RSS is always either too little or too much. It is almost impossible to get it "just right", at least for me, especially taken into account the time and labor it would need to set up "just right".

anarchy79 , 3 months ago

RSS is great, but often contains a lot of noise

I think you nailed it there. Curating is too much of a hassle.

anarchy79 , 3 months ago

I would argue that you can't do better for help and support than for old niche technologies and frameworks, because things like that always have a vibrant community of enthusiasts ready and eager to help.

Compare eMacs. Why isn't everyone using eMacs? It's basically superpowers for any client you install it on, and it installs on everything. Ridiculously hardcore fanbase, we're talking original flame wars on Usenet levels supporters.

Usenet, apropos, is quite topical on this matter. You should look it up. Fuck it here's the robot for ya:

Usenet is a global discussion system where users can post messages and read responses in subject-based forums called newsgroups. It's decentralized, meaning there's no central server or authority, and it operates across many different servers worldwide. Users can participate in a wide range of discussions, from technology and science to hobbies and arts. It's text-based and functions somewhat like a precursor to modern internet forums and social media, but with a more straightforward, less graphical interface.

Original RSS, from back in the day. Still active.

If you're interested: https://techjury.net/blog/what-is-usenet

anarchy79 , 3 months ago

I have one word for you:

Service Level Agreement.

anarchy79 , 3 months ago

What about this, if you buy a product, you no longer have to watch their ads. Anywhere.

anarchy79 , 3 months ago

Let's start with this and then we'll do those in order.

anarchy79 , 3 months ago

Call it whatever you like, it's a pretty damn powerful tool.