![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/d3d059e3-fa3d-45af-ac93-ac894beba378.png)
So, uh, what is the difference?
old profile: /u/antonim@lemmy.world
So, uh, what is the difference?
Here’s half an hour of reconstructed dinosaur sounds.
An ongoing study utilizing the most recent scientific data on dinosaur vocalizations. Sounds are produced by myself and digitally workshopped from modern non-syrinx based avian reptiles. Using skull and olfactory cavity proportions, one can attempt to recreate the flow of sound, frequency, and volume of each animal. Much study is required for each particular species, and often several phases are trashed due to general unlikelihood. The final results are based on acute representations of what sounds would be most comfortable and base-line for each animal. Video also includes other reptiles, even though they are much more difficult to produce accurately.
At this point I doubt tankies should be much of a concern. What are they, 1-2% of the potential Dem voter base? I’d sooner worry about the indecisive ones who have seen the performances in the debate.
Is this how you get boipregnant??
Idk I just thought those goth wristbands look cool
I don’t think this is the exact cause for the situation, but having more book related forks would probably just do harm by splitting up the audience. The book reading trackers are absolutely dominated by Goodreads, and any alternative desperately needs as much user concentration as possible.
BookWyrm was my first dip into the Fediverse, back when I was looking for an alternative to Goodreads.
Tbh if there’s a musician that deserves this sort of comments, Eno is definitely one of the best candidates.
Right, that’s why I listed several languages where the surname is gendered, and people who are native to those languages (including their naming conventions) also live in Germany. Especially today, considering the exodus of Ukrainians.
For example, the current president of Ukraine is called Zelensky. His wife, who took up his surname, is called Zelenska. Or, there’s Putin, and his mother/sister/wife/daughter have or would have the surname Putina. The -y and “null” endings are masculine, -a is feminine.
Thank you, it’s possible he or his gf misunderstood some aspect of the law. I pretty much just retold what my friend told me. I’ll definitely ask them both for details when I get the opportunity.
A friend of mine has a trans gf from Germany so he explained this quite nicely to me today. There are still two relatively peripheral issues. One is that surnames can’t be changed, which is a problem for anyone from a language with gender-marked surnames (e.g. Russian, Ukrainian, Czech). It’s not an acceptable situation neither with regards to gender nor to grammar (masculine name + feminine surname is just… wrong). The other is that apparently when transitioning you have to change your name, which shouldn’t be necessary for those with gender neutral names that they’d prefer to keep.
Still, it’s a big and nice step forward.
This has to have some weird ass allegorical meaning.
EDIT: So apparently this is a picture from a “Stammbuch” (“friendship book”) by some Ludwig Hetzer, from 1620. The scan of the book can be found here: http://digital.wlb-stuttgart.de/purl/bsz475519329 (at 12 recto; has lots of other fascinatingly weird drawings and miniature paintings).
The lower part of the page seems to be a dedication from a friend in Latin (seems to be referring to a birthday?), and above might be the text (probably a proverb) that explans the image but it’s in Greek and I can barely decipher cursive Greek, much less figure out the meaning. The first word seems to be θεος (god), the last might be διχαζει (divide?).
Tbh just going off my intuition and the themes in other pictures in the book… the woman is poking the man with a stick with a heart-shaped ending, which could symbolise love/sexuality/marriage. So it could be like a caricature/“warning” showing a wife controlling her husband, literally pushing him around through emotional influence.
To add to my other comment, I noticed I failed to address this earlier comment of yours: https://kbin.social/m/science@lemmy.ml/t/954121/-/comment/6137667
Here you do exactly what Haidt criticises, IMO entirely correctly - focusing only and exclusively on the situation in the USA. Which absolutely looks narrow and reductonist.
I’m not downplaying its existence but its wider social effects. If a society of two thousand people is racist against two members of that society, that is not likely to affect the mental health of dozens of members of the society - at most only those two who are the direct victims and those who are close to them.
What are some of those assumptions? Maybe it is reductionist, but I haven’t seen you or the Nature article present a more nuanced approach (or an approach at all). And personally this isn’t a topic that I find myself emotionally very invested in, and I’m far from an expert on sociology, so I really would be interested in learning about better approaches. Do your and the Nature article make fewer assumptions for your framing to work?
Haidt articulated his points and methods very clearly and you shifted away from them without any explanation, as far as I can see. This isn’t just disagreement within the conversation, but a disagreement on what the discussion is supposed to be about. Only now have you actually addressed what is an essental part of Haidt’s argumentation, but still very vaguely.
As opposed to ignoring a whole sentence that I wrote in order to make me come off as if I deny the existence of racism?
You’re ignoring the fact I wrote “which is not to say that those areas can’t be or aren’t quite racist”. The racism, no matter how heinous, if it can only affect a smaller percentage of the population, or those who aren’t even the citizens of the country (as it happens with migrants from the Middle East and north Africa), cannot have much to do with the mental illnesses of European teenagers accross all social and ethnic groups.
I do not get the impression you’re even trying to argue against my or Haidt’s position at this point, you’ve simply waved away all the arguments he has brought up, and now are ignoring entire sentences from my comments.
You’ve forgotten what we’re talking about in the first place. To explain the rise in mental illnesses, you have to find what changed in people’s environment that could affect the health situation. If nothing in the environment has changed, the expected result would be that there would be no change in the outcomes either. If the discrimination has been roughly the same for the last few decades, why would it suddenly start resulting in different rates of mental illnesses?
Yes, Google Docs exports to ODF.