computational linguist more like bomputational bimgis

  • 0 Posts
  • 180 Comments
Joined 6 months ago
Cake day: April 2nd, 2024
  • sparkle@lemm.eetoNews@lemmy.world•Police release bodycam from outside Uvalde classroom shooting
    7·
    1 month ago

    Daniel Shaver?

    Bodycam video: https://youtu.be/VBUUx0jUKxc

    In August 2018, Brailsford was reinstated by the Mesa Police Department, staying for a further 42 days in what the department described as a “budget position”. The department agreed to reimburse Brailsford for medical expenses related to his post-traumatic stress disorder – the result of his shooting of Shaver and the resultant criminal trial. The reinstatement allowed Brailsford to apply for “accidental disability” experienced during the course of work. As a result, Brailsford was unanimously approved to be retired on medical grounds. Brailsford was also given a pension of $2,500 per month. The fact that Brailsford was ultimately medically retired instead of remaining fired was only revealed to the public in July 2019.

    He just fucking executed him in the hallway and walked over his body, and he gets rewarded?

  • sparkle@lemm.eetoWorld News@lemmy.world•Baby twins killed in Gaza as father registered birthsEnglish
    9·
    1 month ago

    The past participle of a verb is used as the passive participle (e.g. indicates the passive voice, where the patient of the verb is the subject and the agent is the indirect object). “She was killed” or “He was eaten” is in the passive voice, while “I died” or “I killed” is in the active voice. It’s normally supposed to be preceded by an auxiliary verb (in this case “be”), but news titles omit the copula among other things.

  • sparkle@lemm.eetoProgrammer Humor@programming.dev•no amount of documentation can save users from themselves
    121·
    1 month ago

    For a lot of English speakers, the “had” and “have” in contractions is completely omitted in certain contexts. It’s more prevalent in some dialects (I’m in the south US and it’s more common than not). Usually “had” is dropped more than “have”.

    Also, English can drop the pronoun, article, and even copula for certain indicative statements. I think it’s specifically for observations, especially when the context is clear.

    looking at someone’s bracelet “Cool bracelet.” [That’s a]

    wakes up “sigh Gotta get up and go to work…” [I’ve]

    “Ain’t no day for picking tomatoes like a Saturday.” [There]

    “No war but class war!” [There’s]

    “Forecast came in on the radio. Says there’s gonna be a hell of a lot of rain today.” [It said -> Says/Said]

    “Can’t count the number of Brits I’ve killed. Guess I’m just allergic to beans on toast.” [I; I]

    “House came tumblin’ down after the sinkhole opened up” [The]

    “I’d” can be “I would”, mainly if used with a conditional or certain conjunctions/contrastive statements (if, but, however, unfortunately). Also when preceding “have” – e.g. “I’d have done that”. Because “I had have” doesn’t make sense, nor does “I had <present tense>” anything. “I’d” as in “I had” is followed by a past participle.

    “I’d” is usually “I had” otherwise, forming the past perfect tense. But in “I’d better”, it’s a bit confusing because “had better” is used in a different sense – the “had” here comes from “have to” (as in “to be necessary to”) and can be treated as both a lexical verb and an auxiliary verb. “had better” is a bit of a leftover of more archaic constructions.

  • sparkle@lemm.eetoNews@lemmy.world•US abortion numbers have risen slightly since Roe was overturned, study finds
    3·
    1 month ago

    He said, specifically, people who already have it firmly established in their belief system that abortion is child murder will almost entirely be unswayed by data showing that the current bans aren’t effective enough at preventing abortion. They only see it as meaning “the current bans aren’t strict enough, and in order to prevent child murder, there needs to be a full nationwide ban”.

    These people aren’t just uneducated on biology and human reproduction (even though that applies to most of them). They for the most part understand that a fetus isn’t actually a person in the way a newborn/child is. But that doesn’t affect them because the belief is entirely emotional, not scientific – people have a fundamental, irrational moral belief that an unviable fetus is worth more than a living human being. How exactly do you prove that a fetus isn’t part of their vague and subjective concept of what a “person” is, if they already won’t take biological and psychological evidence as proof? And, following that, do you expect to be able to convince someone that child murder (in their eyes) isn’t bad?

    I get your reasoning that surrounding them with people who believe actually rational things, and who refuse to tolerate irrational beliefs like “abortion is child murder”, will pressure them to also start accepting those things, but that misses the point of what the person you’re replying to said. He said that data like the one in the post won’t change their mind – and, imo, it still applies when considering how it might affect the beliefs of others since it’s not a matter of effectiveness, rather a matter of emotion; a fundamental belief that parents and doctors who go through with abortions are child murderers and bad people. Mature people are just bound to eventually realize that abortion isn’t at all even close to comparable to murder, if they have basic knowledge of reproductive biology, and immature people are bound to stick with whatever beliefs they had since they were a child, most often anti-choice in a conservative society.

    It’s something that changes peoples’ minds on drugs, but not abortion. One of the most common insane things is conservative people going to a clinic to get an abortion (or get their kid an abortion), the same people who take part in and sometimes even organize the protests against places that offer abortion services, and get the abortion all while insulting the other people in the clinic and saying how they’re evil people who should be ashamed of themselves. They literally can’t see the hypocrisy in it, they have an ever-present belief that they’re the exception, that their abortion is the only moral abortion. Even when you confront them with the fact that many of the other people getting abortions have similar or the same reasons, they just have this innate visceral reaction to the fact that you’re comparing them (or their actions) to her (or her actions). Out of the dozens of cases of this I’ve heard of, only like 2 of them had someone that changed their mind eventually. And this is the absolute most extreme scenario that one could see an anti-choicer being confronted with in order to change their mind.

  • sparkle@lemm.eetoNo Stupid Questions@lemmy.world•Why are people downvoting the MediaBiasFactChecker bot?
    82·
    1 month ago

    Well for the most part if we want to have a less context-dependent measure, with some caveats – “left” is advocates of a socialist (or communist if you wish to separate them) economic system and social equality, and “right” is advocates of a capitalist or fascist economic system and social hierarchy. Around the center would be where social democrats/capitalists who want strong social safety are, or in other words people who want a mixed-economy/regulated capitalism and are for the most part socially progressive.

    Also it’s hard to tell what you mean by “pure libs” but in most of the world that implies extremely free-market capitalist and pro-discrimination under the guise of “free speech” – very to the right. They’re usually called “libertarians” or “ancaps” in the US.

    If by “pure lib” you mean a principled American “liberal” then there’s not really much to differentiate that from a social democrat – in practice America’s liberal politicians are either social democrats, or corrupt politicians who suck up to corporate money and stand in the way of social democrats – the latter definitely not being centrists. Same goes for “social liberals”.

    Either way there is no chance that democratic socialists are as extremist as national conservatives. Democratic socialists are barely left of social democrats, so much so that social democrats label themselves democratic socialists all the time. The ideology is dependent upon reforming a fundamentally capitalistic system in an attempt to achieve socialism, while more lefty ideologies are focused on forcing the ruling/regressive capitalist class to comply (and some just outright skip to purging all the aristocracy who are anti-worker).

    An accurate-ish description may be “socialist” and “syndicalist” vaguely can be anywhere on the left, so 5.5 to 10; “communist” and similar adjectives like “ararcho-communist” encompass 9 to 10; “anarchist” contains ideologies between center and fully left, so 5 to 10 (although most anarchist ideology is very far to the left, a lot of them are communists); “democratic socialist” is 5.5 to 7; “social democrat” is 4.5 to 5.5; the American “left” is mostly anywhere between 4 and 6.5 nowadays, although a decade ago it’d be more like 3 to 4.5, with actual social democrats being considered fringe or “extremists”. US “conservativism” (or “conservatism”, pick your poison on the spelling) is pretty much entirely “sounds kinda like fascism” to “fascism” at this point, so 1.5 to 2.5, with some politicians in the faction maybe squeaking it out to 3 or 3.5. Full-blown Nazis are 1. Libertarians/classical liberals are harder to classify in this sort of system, as in practice they’re usually as right-wing and reggressive as American conservatives, but their ideology is theoretically supposed to be more like a 3.5. Ancaps are just straight up 1 to 2.5 though, a complete lack of law applying to corporations & companies in general, being anti-government funding except when it’s military or police (except some of the farthest right of them believe even those should be completely private). They’re on par with fascist in terms of the scale from left to right.

    Assuming decimals are out of the question, let’s just truncate everything higher than 5 and round up everything lower than 5.

    Generally, the American public (or rather, the white majority) hovers at 3 to 4, with younger people being more like 4 to 7.

    What’s fucked is most people think of prominent historical figures like Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela as at a similar position in a political spectrum as American liberals, when in reality they were literally full-blown revolutionary socialists/marxists and belonged to communist organizations. And figures like Gandhi and Orwell were openly reformist socialists. I mean it’s intentional rightwashing by the government to get rid of any and all semblance of left ideology from now-near-legendary people, and it’s not surprising at all, but it’s still fucked. This is the framework of thinking Americans have when they try to categorize ideologies on a left-to-right spectrum; the most leftist historical figures they know that aren’t Stalin or Mao or something are all rightwashed into oblivion, portrayed to be liberal in the American sense, which tricks people into believing the farthest left you can go before you cross the centrist line is Bill Clinton or something.

    If we take “left or right” to “how far one acts to accelarate towards progressivism or regressivism”, though, then I could see your proposed comparison working decently, with the caveat being that democratic socialists wouldn’t be anywhere near communists in that regard either.