Formerly /u/Zagorath on the alien site.

  • 47 Posts
  • 1.54K Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 15th, 2023

help-circle
  • Zagorath@aussie.zonetoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldSilver
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 days ago

    edit2: actually looking at the first pic again that footpath isn’t bricks; that’s the shadow from the railing; it’s just concrete

    Yeah I noticed that too after writing my own comment. But still, the railing sits on a big concrete foundation, and it’s pretty clearly right on the water. Near Mrs Macquarie’s Chair the railing doesn’t have the metal wire, doesn’t sit on the concrete foundation, and is notably raised up above the water.




  • Zagorath@aussie.zonetoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldSilver
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    4 days ago

    I’m embarrassed to say that for me it took until the H in Human. It’s clearly an “It”. Which, considering how incredibly meticulous the rest of the sign was (itself quite suspicious in retrospect) is very jarring and out-of-place. The fact that the H is transformed not just into mess, but into a perfect rendition of two other valid characters is a very AI type of mistake to make.

    There’s also, in retrospect, the question of where the photo was taken from. The photo shows an angle of the Sydney Opera House and the Sydney Harbour Bridge that I don’t think is possible, especially when you add in that brick footpath and metal railing. It resembles, perhaps, parts of the railing from Circular Quay, which is west of the Opera House, and thus cannot show both Opera House and Bridge in the same photo. The angle appears to be from near Mrs Macquarie’s Chair, but here’s what the view looks like there:

    There’s also something just a bit “off” about the whole text. It looks digitally super-imposed. I’d be prepared to believe it was Photoshopped in over a blank board (or a board with a different message) even if it isn’t AI, long before I’d believe it’s 100% genuine.


  • Zagorath@aussie.zonetoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldSilver
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    It’s set in Sydney Harbour and it’s so Shit I can smell it here in Gosford

    No offence, but in the grand scheme of things, that’s…not very far.

    Still, I can smell it here in Brisbane. Which is still not that far on a global scale, but it’s a fair bit further. (Brisbane the city, that is, not the Brisbane Water that Gosford sits on.)




  • they are suing and therefore need to provide prove

    What are they suing for? Defamation? Truth is a defence to defamation. That is: you need to prove that what you said was true. Burden of proof is not on the defamed.

    If untrue (or not proven to be true) the burden of proof is (usually—see: defamation per se) on the plaintiff to prove that the statement was actually damaging to them. But that’s a separate issue from the truth.





  • Zagorath@aussie.zonetoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldSalmon
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    16 days ago

    As a native English speaker, I like that our language is fucking insane and it just owns it. No attempt, ever, to actually be consistent or logical.

    French, on the other hand… It’s technically consistent, but it’s consistent in the most bizarre, wild, nonsensical way. “Mangeaient”, “mangeais”, and “mangeait” are all pronounced exactly the same. And all very similar to manger, mangez, and mangé.

    Oh, and “mangerai” and “mangerais” are pronounced the same as each other, will frequently be used in completely interchangeable sentence structures, and mean notably different things. “Je mangerai”: “I will eat”. “Je mangerais”: “I would eat”.







  • Zagorath@aussie.zonetoRPGMemes @ttrpg.networkSending 101
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    20 days ago

    So for example, “an ewt” became “a newt” or “a eke-name” became “a nickname”.

    I think you might be right about what agglutination is in your description, but not in this example. Examples I’m seeing are more like “-s” to make something plural, or “anti-” to say that something is against something else.

    Some Wikipedia:

    Analytic languages contain very little inflection, instead relying on features like word order and auxiliary words to convey meaning. Synthetic languages, ones that are not analytic, are divided into two categories: agglutinative and fusional languages.

    So unlike what I thought previously, agglutination vs fusion is not what we care about here, synthetic vs analytic languages is. English’s practice of creating compound words like “cellar door” is analytic. A more purely analytic language would probably not say “two cellar doors” but merely “two cellar door”. And an antihistamine would be a “histamine opposer”. And German’s famous “words created by shunting other words together” is not really agglutination, but morphologically the same as what English does (seemingly called “inflection”, if I’m reading this right), just with different orthographic rules.

    Which I guess brings us back to the question: what does Sending count as a word? My instinct is to say that the way English puts spaces is a good baseline to follow, not least because the creators of D&D are anglophones. What, then, would Donau­dampfschifffahrts­gesellschafts­kapitän be? Probably 5. But if you asked the average German speaker (non-linguist) “how many words is Donau­dampfschifffahrts­gesellschafts­kapitän?” what would they say?


  • Zagorath@aussie.zonetoRPGMemes @ttrpg.networkSending 101
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    20 days ago

    I’m not a linguist so I could be wrong, but I think that they would tell you that there is a difference between agglutination (what German does) and adding adjectives as separate words (what English does), even in spoken language. But I also know that even defining “word” in a strict linguistic sense is difficult, so 🤷‍♂️