- lemmynsfw.com - there's [email protected] but only mods can create posts. I couldn't find any direct equivalent to a support comm.
- lemmygrad.ml - [email protected] ; there's also [email protected] for official content
- lemmy.eco.br - support strictu sensu is done through Matrix, https://matrix.to/#/#lemmyecobr:matrix.org . But there's also [email protected] to talk about the server.
TL;DR: I don't care about rabbits or hares. I'll focus on the goddess Ēostre, linguistic reconstruction, and the work of Jacob Grimm. I don't know if Grimm's prediction was right or wrong, but I do know that neither his work nor his prediction deserve the disdain this youtuber shows.
Check around 8:00~9:00 for context.
[...] but no direct evidence exists for Ostara, Grimm's argument was entirely linguistic
[...] then 1000 years later, Jacob Grimm makes a linguistic conjecture, "Ostara", based on the unsupported assumption that if the English had a goddess Ēostre, the Germanic peoples [SIC] must have had their own version
The youtuber is equating "no direct evidence", "linguistic argument" = "unsupported assumption".
Grimm's prediction is backed up by the comparative method, so neither "unsupported" nor "assumptive". (Also note the misuse of the word "Germanic", as if it excluded English speakers - it shows the youtuber doesn't know what he's talking about.)
you're not relying on actual historical evidence, you're echoing the creative speculations of 19th century German folklorists
Okay, this guy needs to shut up and sod off.
The plural shows he's assuming Holzmann was a folklorist; he wasn't. He was a philologist transparently talking about something outside his field of expertise, as it was related to his own field.
Grimm however was a folklorist, plus philologist and linguist. And what Grimm did in Teutonic Mythology was to apply the comparative method to a bunch of words:
- German: Ostern (Easter), Ostermonat (April, archaic)
- Frankish: ôstarmânoth (April; lit. "eastermonth")
- Old English, Northumbria: Ēastro (the goddess), ēastermōnaþ (April)
- Old English, Mercia: Ēostre (the goddess)
- English: Easter
- Old Norse: austr (east), Austri (a dwarf; more on that later)
- etc.
Proto-Germanic *au becomes Old High German /o:/ ⟨ô, o⟩ and Old English /æ:ɑ/ ⟨ēa⟩ or /e:o/ ⟨ēo⟩ depending on dialect, but it's kept "as is" in Old Norse. Those words are clearly cognates, so at least the name of the goddess was inherited by Old English from Proto-Germanic, it's not some random word borrowed from Brittonic or Latin.
Some could say that the word was inherited, but the concept of the goddess wasn't. So let's look at the semantic scope of those words:
- April; roughly the start of spring (Northern Hemisphere), when the Sun appears more often.
- a goddess, whose name is clearly associated with #1.
- East; i.e. where the Sun rises
- an immortal dwarf from a set of four (Austri, Vestri, Norðri and Suðri; guess what their names mean), who were tasked by the gods to hold Ymir's skull (the sky) in place.
All those have to do with the Sun appearing in the sky. With #2 and #4 being clearly religious and related to primordial beings.
Now let's look into other Indo-European branches:
- (Italic) Latin "aurora", both "dawn" and its goddess personification. Note that Latin often converts PIE intervocalic *s into /r/.
- (Hellenic) Greek Ἠώς/Ēōs, attested in the Aeolic dialect as Αὔως/Aúōs; note the diphthong. Also "dawn" and a goddess.
- (Indo-Iranian) Vedic Sanskrit उषस्/Uṣás, a goddess. Of dawn.
...isn't "dawn" when the Sun appears?
There's an obvious pattern here: Indo-European religions deifying when the Sun appears, often into a goddess. By Ockham's Razor, the only sane conclusion is that the concept of the goddess Ēostre was inherited by OE speakers from PIE. And if it was inherited, it was present in Proto-Germanic.
So it's present in the ancestor (Proto-Germanic), one descendant (Old English, North Sea Germanic), and it pops up partially in the religion from speakers of a different branch (Old Norse, North Germanic). Given Grimm's focus on Germanic languages spoken in the continent, it was only natural to predict that some reference to the goddess would pop up in Old High German (Elbe Germanic). And, if it does, he predicted the name for that goddess through the comparative method - *Ôstara.
All that shit that I said shows that what Grimm did was not unsupported or assumptive. It wasn't even "creative". It's a lot like the predictions Mendeleev was doing with chemical elements following specific patterns based on weight - if you know enough about something in a nascent science, you're bound to find patterns.
Perhaps Grimm's prediction was wrong, like Mendeleev claiming that iodine was heavier than measured. Perhaps Elbe Germanic speakers ditched the myth too early to be attested. Or perhaps it's correct, like Mendeleev's prediction of gallium, and somewhere in the continent you'll find a reference to some *Ôstara goddess.
By the way, plenty Germano-Roman inscriptions were found in Germania inferior, containing references to some "Austriahena mothers". You can find the inscriptions here, look for the text "austriahe". This (~200CE?) is from Proto-Germanic times, not any specific branch, but it does give some weight to Grimm's prediction.
It refuses to generate it!
- [Input] Generate a picture containing a mason jar full to the brim with wine.
- [Output] I'm still learning how to generate certain kinds of images, so I might not be able to create exactly what you're looking for yet or it may go against my guidelines. If you'd like to ask for something else, just let me know!
I'll try to summarise it but the text is long and messy, so watch out for potential inaccuracies from my part. TL;DR:
It starts off with a group from Siberia and another from East Asia merging into a new group. The new group then re-splits.
One side of the split stays in Siberia. The descendants of the other half then settle the Americas, in three separated waves, in 23~20kya:
- a "ghost" population, not directly attested.
- the "main" ancestors of the Native Americans (ANA)
- Ancient Beringians.
All three crossed the strait and arrived in the Americas, but separately, between 20kya and 23kya. The Mixe people have some partial heritage from the "ghost" population, but the past that the "ghost" population died off.
The Ancient Beringians didn't go too far, they only reached as far as Alaska. ~7kya or so they died off.
One of those populations also made its way into Japan, but the text doesn't specify which.
Around 21~16kya, ANA split, but the text doesn't mention how. Then around 15.7kya, it split again, into two new groups:
- Northern (I'll call them NNA) - ancestors of the Algonquian, Salishan, Tsimshian and Na-Dené. More on the Na-Dené later.
- Southern (SNA) - they spread like crazy, being the ancestors of most Amerindians except the above.
There was also some backmigration of NNA back into both northern China and Siberia. There's some linguistic evidence of that in the Dené-Yeniseian language family; if I got it right the Yeniseians are descendants of the backmigrants.
Further on the text details the further Amerindian genetic pool splits, but I didn't read it so far.
From a linguistic PoV this reinforces the Dené-Yeniseian language family hypothesis, but more importantly: it shows that Joseph Greenberg's proposal of an "Amerind language family" is likely true. Sadly our current methods are rather shitty to deal with such old stuff, even Proto-Afro-Asiatic is a bit of a stretch of the method.
So many nice details:
- the pig bathwater gets piped down as broth
- one of the pigs from the bath gets piped down into the oven
- the pigs running on belts move the cogs pulling the noodles from the machine
There's no previous context to speak of; each screenshot shows a self-contained "conversation", with no earlier input or output. And there's no history to clear, since Gemini app activity is not even turned on.
And even with your suggested prompt, one of the issues is still there:
The other issue is not being tested in this shot as it's language-specific, but it is relevant here because it reinforces that the issue is in the training, not in the context window.
Why & When Is This Happening?
To make Reddit faster, simpler, and easier to use, we needed to unify our messaging platforms. This consolidation helps us focus on improving one system instead of maintaining multiple. Plus, Reddit Chat's infrastructure is built for the future, unlike the PM system which is about as old as Reddit itself.
We’re sharing this change early because we want your feedback! We've spent months talking to mods, developers, and users to ensure this migration works for everyone (shoutout to u/RemindMeBot fans). But there might be scenarios we've missed, and we need your input to address them. You can share feedback directly with the team working on this project in the comments below.
My sides went into orbit. They aren't even trying to come up with believable lies any more, right?
- If the concern was to make Reddit "faster, simpler, and easier to use", they'd ditch chat and keep DMs
- "muh futchure" fallacy (appeal to novelty)
- pretending that they want/care for user feedback
...I think that the reason is twofold: 1) it's easier to plug advertisement into the new chat system, and 2) chat only works in new.reddit so they can use it as an excuse to deprecate yet another old.reddit system.
Can someone from USA explain to me what's up with fentanyl, and why is your government so obsessed with this specific drug?
Bingo - this tree is non-existent outside my homeland, so people barely speak about it in English - and odds are that the model was trained with almost no pictures of it. However one of the names you see for it in English is Paraná pine, so it's modelling it after images of European pines - because odds are those are plenty in its training set.
I have considerably less experience with image generation than text generators, but I kind of expect the issue to be only truly fixed if people train the model with a bunch of pictures of glasses full of wine.
I'll run a test using a local tree, that is supposed to look like this:
@[email protected] draw for me a picture of three Araucaria angustifolia trees style:flux
Yup, the commenter raised the same points - but in a clearer way. (He even mentioned the matrons!)
This is sounding a lot like a telephone game, to be honest:
Partially off-topic, but Interesting tidbit from the article:
Bede's hypothesis is clearly false: if Old High German borrowed the word for Easter from Anglo-Saxon dialects, the modern German word Ostern (Easter) wouldn't start with /o:/, but rather some front unrounded vowel; it would be **Estern /e:/ or similar. That *au → ēa~ēo change you see in Old English is so old that it was certainly present in the speech of the Anglo-Saxon priests, OHG speakers would likely simplify the odd cluster into a simple /e:/ and call it a day.