aiislove
1d ago
Gender identity immediately breaks down outside the context of the narcissistic modern west. Everyone else who's ever lived has lived in direct relationship to those around them. Placing the onus of deciding the gender for ourselves leads to strange or ridiculous outcomes some percentage of the time. Traditionally you are just whatever gender the people around you assign to you which would correspond to genitalia nearly all the time.
If someone asks for my pronouns I am irritated that I have to decide for myself because I think it should be designated by someone outside of myself in relation to the averages and experiences of society. If they assign an exogonous gender to my imagined self then it will tell me something about me, or them, but at least it relieves me of the pressure of having to assert something about myself.
Picking your own gender and asserting its correctness is dumb and ridiculous but completely consistent with the dumbness and ridiculousness of the modern west.
aiislove
5d ago
According to English grammar and logic, if you say "There's not nothing," you are saying that there is something. According to Spanish grammar, if you say "no hay nada," you are asserting that there is nothing. But within Spanish logic, should "no hay nada" mean that there is nothing, or that there is something? I understand the level of "logic" of Spanish that dictates that the "no" must agree with the "nada" but in English the "not" cancels out the "nothing" and makes it something (even though most people who use double negatives- "ain't nothing" for example- are implying the Spanish "logic" of matching.)
In other words, if you have grown up speaking only Spanish your whole life, would you believe that the "no" SHOULD cancel out the "nada," in the way that English speakers often understand that "I could care less" is used to mean "I couldn't care less," or is it completely logical within the language of Spanish for the "no" to match the "nada"?
aiislove
6d ago
Does anyone else ever watch/listen to Glenn Diesen's "The Greater Eurasia Podcast"? The tone of the show is rather dry and boring but many of his guests seem to talk about Europe getting nuked like it is as inevitable as the weather forecast.
I am no geopolitical expert by any means so my first reaction was that this was just a tactic to kick Europe/NATO into action to better defend itself against Russia, but one of the main guests proposing the nukes is Stanislav Krapivnik, (who sometimes seems slightly drunk in my opinion,) and apparently is on Russia's side in the Ukraine conflict. Since that's the case I suppose he might be exaggerating Russia's power boastfully or trying to instill fear into the West but he is not the only guest who seems to treat nuclear action as an inevitability. And it is not that Russia would nuke Ukraine, but rather they mention targets like Germany or Finland or other NATO nations.
Can I get a sanity check on this? Does anyone on this board share the view that Russia is going to use nuclear weapons on Europe in the next year or two?
I am not a math person at all but I believe you could interpret 2rafa's wording in two different ways. She said:
This either means that you went from, say, $100 and ended up with $400 (a four hundred percent return) or you started with $100 and ended up with $500 (a total return of 400% on top of your original principal).
The first gives you 12% the second gives you 14.34%.
More options
Context Copy link