I have two chimps within, Laziness and Hyperactivity. They smoke cigs, drink yerba, fling shit at each other, and devour the face of anyone who gets close to either.
They also devour my dreams.
Cool! Does it have AI? Also I want it to connect to a phone app, do not bring me an actual program, or a website (I don’t understand what’s a “browser”, is it Google?), bring me an app! I’m fine with a subscription model, or if the cube starts leaking ooze onto the counter without it. It’s also fine if the cube is expected to leak ooze two years from now, because some server thingamajig is gone.
/s obviously.
The -ard is basically “fucking” + nominaliser (if necessary):
The “nominaliser” part is an artefact of the borrowing, the suffix is from French. Romance languages often use adjectives as if they were nouns, but that doesn’t quite roll in English. In turn French borrowed it from Frankish, it’s apparently cognate of English “hard”.
The etymology of “mustard” is disputed. The first part is likely from Latin “mustum” must; it used to be prepared with young wine. The -ard is typically explained as ardens (fiery, hot). So basically “mustum ardens” hot must. …Capsicum peppers are from the Americas, black pepper and long pepper were expensive, European mediaevalards didn’t really have a lot of spicy flavours to work with, so… I guess mustard was spicy for them?
Temporal: that would explain it. But it still sounds funny.
Copromorphidae: I stand corrected. Shit-shaped moths!
I also found a frog called Allobates niputidea. That’s from Spanish though, not Latin. (ni puta idea = no fucking idea.)
I have no idea on why they decided to call the common European frog Rana temporaria, but “temporary frog” sounds really funny. “Eh this species name is just temporary, I swear”.
I’m also kind of surprised I couldn’t find a single species called merdicula (little shit). Seems like the sort of humour some would have.
Time to be[an] yourself!
Who knows? Definitively worth trying! (…I’m not trying it.)
indications.
Yes but the text omits what is being indicated: directions. In Spanish I bet this is clear by context, but since I was trying to parse it from other Romance languages, the result was weird:
Just small language differences, you know.
“it’s what he did”/“it was her heart what he stole” - works like this.
Is it common to say that “que” in Spanish without any verb, like they did there?
I’ve seen people preparing sweet cakes with Parmesan cheese. I’ve eaten it. It’s actually really tasty, so… I hope the person who took this pic tasted their tea/chocolate/whatever before throwing it away.
I can kind of parse Spanish from other Romance languages, but some stuff throws me off track. Like that indicationes for “directions” (I had to check it in a dictionary), or the verbless que’s in the third panel.
But yeah, the joke is really clear.
Relevant to note I don’t speak Nahuatl. I parsed this info from Wiktionary + Wikipedia, it’s surprisingly easy to follow.
(For the non-possessed form, as in “a penis is an organ”, use “tepolli” instead. Wiktionary also mentions “tototl” bird being used with that meaning, kind of like English “cock”.)
That’s a language-dependent ambiguity; this sort of “noun¹ noun²” construction in English is actually rather vague, and it can be used multiple ways:
As such I believe that in at least some languages it’s probably clear if you refer to chicken egg as “an egg coming from a chicken” or “an egg a chicken is born from”. Not that they’re going to use it with this expression though.
For reference. @cuerdo@lemmy.world used as an example “my penis”:
If I say “my penis”, it is likelier that I am talking about the one attached to me rather than the one I bought in the market.
In Nahuatl both would be distinguished: you’d call your genitals “notepollo” (inalienable possession), and the one you bought “notepol” (alienable possession). (Note: “no-” for the first person. For someone else’s dick use “mo-” when speaking with the person, i- when talking about them.)
Just language things, I guess.
You know what? That’s a great idea, I might actually try it. At least teach them how to meow in a specific way to ask for their treats.
If the parking was obstructing something else you can report it to enforcement for towing/ticketing or the owners of the lot.
Let’s say this was a public place. Now you need to go through all the bureaucracy to contact the relevant law enforcer. There’s a good chance they won’t fucking care, even if parking the car that way violates some law. Or alternatively there might be no law in place (even if there should be one), so there’s genuinely nothing you can do.
Now let’s say this was a privately owned place, like the parking lot of a supermarket. Do you genuinely think the owners care if their “esteemed customer” Karen’s car gets in the way of “some fucking cripples”? (Note: this sort of arsehole really, really likes to park their cars in spots for people with disabilities. Or often half of their car.)
In either case: congrats for wasting your time and solving jack shit!
And in both cases you’re relying on some higher up to do shit, when it’s actually more civil to tell the owner they’re doing shit wrong. As in, you know… leaving some message.
If it was not obstructing something else
i don’t reasonably expect someone to reach for pen and paper to leave a message in this case.
I read this reply as nothing but ego and lots of assumptions (shooting my brains out, wtf?)
If that’s the case you should at least try to develop basic reading comprehension.
I was clearly listing possible ways to handle this, and the possible outcomes. No, the odds the car owner is a violent piece of shit are not zero; waiting for them to say tête-à-tête “don’t do this, please” is not reasonable. And this is fucking obvious dammit.
I also genuinely think you don’t know what “ego” and “assumption” mean, otherwise you wouldn’t use either here. Just like you don’t know what “passive aggressivity” means.
Besides what Grumpy said (I agree with it): I think leaving a mildly rude written message was the best approach here, once you put yourself in the shoes of whoever wrote the message.
Odds are the car owner parked their car in a really obstructive way, making shit worse for everyone else. It got in your way, and it’ll most likely get in the way of other people too. So, what are you going to do?
So you leave a mocking message. That makes the person feel bad about themself, and highlight people dislike them because of their actions. That’s exactly what the person who wrote the message did.
No condom. I’d sub the “please don’t reproduce” with “I’m glad people like you don’t reproduce” or something like this. To add injury.
My cats, in the meantime: train themselves to know when humans dispense food, everything else be damned!
Nah. The guilt by association fallacy is more like:
That is not even remotely close to what the DinoCon is doing. If we interpret their actions as an argument, it’s more like:
You might disagree with the first premise (it’s a moral premise, so it depends on your values), but the argument is perfectly logical.
Moral standards matter; even if you never met the victim, or saw the abuse happening, and the source is (like you said) “professional rabble-rousers”.
I think the DinoCon is doing the right thing.
Sure thing, buddy. Whatever you need to tell yourself.
…since you’re insistently lying (yes) about what I need: I don’t “need” him to be innocent, and I don’t “need” him to be guilty. From my PoV he’s simply some old guy, with a bunch of hypotheses that range from “this is interesting” to “nah, bollocks”, always backpedalling when proved wrong. That’s it.
Is this clear?
(Also take a clue from the fact I was the one bringing him up, even if the thread is about the DinoCon.)
We all knew who Epstein was by that point. He should know better.
Yes, and? Myself said so in another comment dammit. The question here is how much he should be blamed. Should we blame him for:
Are you getting the picture? It’s a fucking gradient of shit. Both #1 and #5 are likely bollocks; but from #2 to #4 it’s all “maybe”. We don’t know what he did, and we don’t know what he knows.
And before some muppet says “but you said «I guess he’s still in the “when in doubt, treat them as innocent” category for me.»!!!”: I was clearly talking about what I formalised as #3. This is bloody obvious by context dammit, check the comment I was answering to!
How self deluded do you need to be in order to convince yourself that Chomsky reached out to the most notorious convicted pedophile in American history for some help with his taxes?
That is not even remotely close to what I said.
You don’t even know what you’re screeching at.
At this rate it’s safe to ignore you as dead weight and a noise. Feel free to keep screeching at your own assumptions, as if you were screeching at what I said, but don’t expect me to read it.
I’m not sure but I think the suffix in this case would yield “fuckard”. With “fucktard” being interpreted as “fuck [re]tard”. And given “retard” is nowadays interpreted as a slur, I’d discourage it.