If you put an electric motor on a bicycle, shouldn't that make it a motorcycle??

>>38831
I think electric bikes differ from electric motorbikes in that the former might have restrictions on horsepower and weight, while the latter doesn't.

>>38831
There's still pedals a person can use to move the bike "manually". The motor on electric bikes is mostly to help with steep hills traditionally(gas based motors). Now, pedaling can actually charge the battery on some electric bikes.

Electric bikes are for people who want the same use case as a bike, but more advanced. Motorbikes are strictly a car alternative.

I tried to come up with a "Buffalo buffalo buffalo" or similar kind of sentence. Here's my attempt:
"Will Will ever will to will a will?"
Is it grammatically correct? The "will x ever will" sounds very pleonastic, but is it incorrect? Google show some uses of this expression.
If that's correct then we can have:
"Will Will ever will to will Will to will Will to will a will that Will will will Will to will Will to will that Will will will Will to will a will." This could on for longer.
If not, then at least:
"Will Will will Will to will Will to will a will that Will will Will to will Will to will that Will will will Will to will a will." This could go on forever.

>>38839
I read that there's a neat corollary to the buffalo thing where no matter how many buffalos you add it remains a semantically valid senence.

>>38840
There seems to be a record of a similar sentence.
>Will, will Will will Will Will's will? – Will (a person), will (future tense helping verb) Will (a second person) will (bequeath) [to] Will (a third person) Will's (the second person) will (a document)? (Someone asked Will 1 directly if Will 2 plans to bequeath his own will, the document, to Will.
Also as long you keep "Buffalo buffalo", you can repeat that N times them add a "buffalo" and then a "Buffalo buffalo", and the sentence will have the same meaning of the first one, only extended to N Buffalo buffaloes.
However it is also important to note that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo
>Thomas Tymoczko has pointed out that there is nothing special about eight "buffalos"; any sentence consisting solely of the word "buffalo" repeated any number of times is grammatically correct.
Really interesting.

>>38843
This is actually really fun. I came up with another such sentence:
"Can candid Candid can candid Candid?"
This is very repeating and has a hypnotic sense to it, but it could be expanded further at the expense of it's dreamy repetition.
"Can candid Candid candidly can candid Candid?"
Both of these sentences could also be expanded into infinity, as follows:
"Can candid Candid can candid Candid, can candid Candid and can candid Candid?"
"Can candid Candid candidly can candid Candid, candidly can candid Candid and candidly can candid Candid?"
The previous sentences mainly use "can" as a verb for all except the first use, but they could become more byzantine. Here's an example:
"Candid can can candid Candid, can can candid Candid, can Candid, candidly can Candid, can Candid."
And another:
"Candid Candid can can candid Candid, can Candid, candidly can candid Candid. Can Candid?"
Then, we can step up the rhythm.
"Candid Candid can candidly can candid cancan Candid, cancan can candidly can candid cancan Candid."
"Can can can candid Candid, can can can candid cancan Candid, can can can cancan."
"Can can can candid Candid, can candid Candid can can?"
"Cancan Candid can can candid Candid, can can can can?"
"Can can can can, can can can can?"
"Can can can cancan, cancan can candidly can candid cancan Candid."
"Can did can candid Candid, candid Candid did can cancan Candid."
Now I should add that there's another sentence here just like "Buffalo buffalo buffalo". It's the "Can can can can." Just like the "buffalo" sentence, the "can" sentence uses only one word and can be repeated indefinitely. Also the word "can" can appear any number of times, and the sentence still works.
"Can" is a noun phrase.
"Can can" indicates that a can is able to do something.
"Can can can" indicates that a can is able to do the act of canning, or alternatively to put a stop to something.
"Can can can can" indicates that a can is able to do the act of canning upon another can, or just put a stop to another can. Hence, we can add commas as we see fit.

>>38844
I wonder if there's a japanese equivalent where you just write a single kana again and again and it parses as something valid. I know there's the sumomo tongue twister, but is there one that's like the buffalo thing?

>the sumomo tongue twister
Oh, I did not know about the twister, I knew there was the famous manga, but the origin of the name was unknown to me so far.
>but is there one that's like the buffalo thing?
Yes, there is one that dates back a few centuries. In japanese it's 子子子子子子子子子子子子, which translates to neko no ko koneko, shishi no ko kojishi.
You can read more here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ono_no_Takamura#Takamura_in_later_literature

>>38846
That's awesome, should have expected something like that in the literature. Where does the "の" come from though, since I don't see that as a valid reading for "子" (then again, my knowledge of JP is limited enough that I didn't realize "ne" was a valid KN reading either).

Amusingly (or expectedly) mecab handles "sumomo mo momo..." pretty well but falls flat on 子x12.

>>38847
>Where does the "の" come from though, since I don't see that as a valid reading for "子"
They're omitted from the text but still implied. I have seen this happening especially with historical Japanese names. In fact, if you look at the author's name closely, you see it's written as 小野篁（おのたかむら） but pronounced as おの の たかむら.

>>38850
Got it, that makes sense. I wish the translation had used the convention of putting implied text in brackets. I also found this note for particle conventions for old japanese [1]

>The idea that everything has a particle in theory, which is either "dropped" or not, is actually relatively modern. In earlier forms of Japanese, there were many cases where "no particle" was most correct, particularly marking subjects and direct objects: 花咲く都, 兎追いし彼の山, etc. Thus: (1) The modern "use ALL the particles" written style is not the Ideal form from which particles are dropped, but an artificially hypercorrected form; (2) Writing quoting or emulating older forms of Japanese may, grammatically, omit particles that would otherwise be expected.

Although as some of the other comments there note, even in modern japanese dropping の would serve to make it a compound-noun. And I guess "neko ko" also makes sense in that light (with some poetic license for the non-standard compound).


[1] https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/3151/what-are-the-guidelines-of-omitting-particles

The Latin word "patria", meaning fatherland, is somewhat ingenious. It suggests the duty of obedience towards the fatherly authority's will; the grammatical gender connotates the female object of this will, the passive principle of the earth which is the fruitful source of life itself; it also sounds a bit like "per terram".

I dont know if this too /tat/y, but I deeply admire Germany (mostly non politically, they tend to fall into extremes, that's all I'll say about that) but the more I interact with German culture such as film and literature there is something not quite right and makes me feel uneasy. I really dont know why.

I wonder how big of an influence India is to whatever gets popular online. When usernames are available it sure seems like they are the vast majority.

I wrote out a long doompost about how I think 2D is the least healthy it has ever been since the bubble economy popped, but it basically boiled down to idols, mobage, vtubers and the like abusing the medium to sell their CDs or retarded gambling but you could argue anime is mostly just a commercial for the manga it is adapted from, so I don't know what to say about it really.

>>38924
Very little artistic endeavour is free of commercial intent. It's mostly a bunch of studios with overworked staff trying to sell you something. If that fact makes you feel like the art they produce is tainted or an "abuse", then you're certainly in for an awful time. It's all a matter of how much you want to accept or ignore that fact.

The way I see it, commercial intent doesn't taint art. I don't think it less of Michelangelo's David just because it was a commission for the pope. It's still a masterpiece of Renaissance art. The same goes for the stuff you don't like. There's no "abusing a medium" the way I see it. You're trying to create something that will sell and that's the truth for mostly anyone trying to live off their trade, from manga artists to game designers and vtubers.

>>38925
I have come to realize that it is what it is, and as an anime fan its hypocritical to complain about such things because many consider adaptations inherent advertisement. Even worse if its something like mecha where people consider it a blatant toy commercial, when I was deeply into that genre I used to intensely dislike that label and considered it dismissive. I similarly am not being fair to things like idols and vtubers, honestly.

You also have to admit there are levels to this, Chinese gacha is worse than most things in the greed and commerciality of it, and people handwave it off because "cute girls" or "good designs", I realize I sound like that "I have to assume everyone saying it's the new Touhou replacement is joking." guy so I'll stop now.

Thank you for the self-reflection opportunity.

>>38928
The way I see it, there _are_ many shows which are just formulaic cash-grabs (e.g. KF2), but there are also some where you can immediately tell that it's a passion project with a lot of care put into it (e.g. KF). While it's true that the former is usually pushed forward by commercial interests, the latter isn't always.

>>38928
>"good designs"
And funnily enough, most of them don't have good designs.

Sometimes I worry I'll die in the same place I started, and the world wont ever change. So because of that and boredom, I hope bad things will happen and things will change. It's a selfish way of thinking, but that doesn't matter.

>>38999
So why not move?

>>39000
I don't mean the same physical location.

I was wondering about the VRket. I remember some posts being made here about VR comiket lookalikes, but I can't find them anymore. Anyone knows if considering the current situation of comiket there will such a VRket this winter?

>>39014
https://winter2021.vket.com/
Comiket is scheduled to return at the end of the month but there is indeed a winter vket that has been ongoing until the 19th. Glad that you'd mentioned it since I've completely forgotten about it.

The vket discussion you are looking for is on this thread >>31969

I just had an in depth conversation with someone on color that revealed to me that I dont use the word "brown" the same way everyone else does. I always considered brown to be the range of color between that of chocolate and tan or sandy colors, but apparently most people only refer to the darker color with the term "brown"

>>39027
I call really light brown beige.

>>39028
They all have different names to me, of course, but I still consider them all to be shades or tints of brown. Apparently this is not a normal phenomenon.

Why do people pronounce Christmas as Chris-mas with a silent t? Why not call Jesus "Chris" while they're at it?

>>39111
Probably because it's easier to just treat the t as silent when slurring words together. Plus I don't think most people pronounce "Christ" in "Christmas" the same way they do it by itself ("kraist" vs "kristmas").

>>39112
Etymology seems to be "christ mass" (which I never noticed until now) and it's not too hard to see that if you say it quickly it sounds like "christmas"

God will allow billions of people to burn in hell forever because of mistakes made over a ~70 year lifetime. What kind of twisted perverted justice is that. He is also omniscient, so he knew from the start just how many billions of people he would doom to eternal suffering.

>>39227
"Hell" is only a thing under the judeo-christian framework. As far as I'm aware none of the eastern religions have an equivalent, although you're not completely out of the woods I suppose since some do have reincarnation.

I like this quote from Wikipedia
>The concept has been intensely debated in ancient literature of India; with different schools of Indian religions considering the relevance of rebirth as either essential, or secondary, or unnecessary fiction.[10] Hiriyanna (1949) suggests rebirth to be a necessary corollary of karma;[33] Yamunacharya (1966) asserts that karma is a fact, while reincarnation is a hypothesis;[34] and Creel (1986) suggests that karma is a basic concept, rebirth is a derivative concept.[35]

Also that image would make a nice banner for TC. Just need to resize it a bit and add "Tohno-chan" somewhere in there

Post edited on 14th Feb 2022, 8:09pm

>>39227
Yes, it's dumb and makes no sense. I'd rather ignore Christianity because I think the topic has long been exhausted.

Post edited on 14th Feb 2022, 9:02pm

>>39227
>because of mistakes made over a ~70 year lifetime
Actually no, you can make all mistakes you want or even be an asshole willingly, if you regreet your actions and believe in Jesus Christ, even if it's in the last second of your existence, you'll be saved. Which is unfair in it's own way. The japanese used to complain to missionaries about how all their previous generations would have been punished for not believing in the christian God while they could not have possibly known about him.
Also, since Origen of Alexandria and later with universalism there's also this idea that everyone will end in heaven at one time or another. Still, yeah, Hell has always been problematic, like many monotheistic ideas, and there has been many attempts to circumvent that; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_Hell

>>39227
If they are bad they are bad, it does not matter how long they have lived for. I don't have an issue with it. Even with billions of people, that was always going to happen because people are always going to reproduce, though maybe you could argue that he should have stopped it all by now and judgement day should have come or something(I'm not Christian and I never read that book so I don't know how that works or what his goal was in creating people in the first place).

>>39230
That's something I do have an issue with, sure, if somebody knows the moral rules and does not follow them then he is bad, but if somebody was never taught them then it cannot be there fault and in fact it could only be Gods fault. Because if he is an omnipotent being he could have made it so that they were taught it. But there are holes like this all over religion so I will not dwell on it.

>>39227
It's on the same level of telling kids santa will give them coal if they aren't nice, or how the boogie man will take away bad little children. Hell is how religion tries to scare dumb people into being good. Which of course doesn't work, because I think deep down no one really believes it exists, and if they're that delusional they've undoubtedly convinced themselves they're going to the other place in spite of how horrible of a person they are. Not that it's hard to get in. From what I've gathered you can be an absolute monster, scum of the earth, and still get a golden ticket as long as you have Jesus in your heart~

That's not to mention the really bizarre rules/sins that people conveniently forget about, like how cutting your beard or damaging your testicles can get you a ticket to hell. I think you're also expected to kill your wife if she cuts her hair short or gets tattoos or something like that.

>>39232
I agree on the tattoos bit.

>what his goal was in creating people in the first place
Christians don't know this either. If you ask, they'll ramble incoherently about glory and love.

>>39233
Oh don't get me wrong I think they're hideous and it's mildly depressing to see women ruin their bodies like that. The point is simply the disproportionate response along with the many other unreasonable and down right silly sins in the bible.

>>39232
>>39236
It's not actually silly at all. According to Christians, God made us as a reflection of himself, our body is God's body. So if you tattoo or mutilate your body, you are actually vandalising Gods body. Also what it actually says is 'You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves: I am the LORD' there is nothing about killing your wife there nor actually does it specify what the punishment should be.

Additionally, even if there are parts that do sound silly, you have to remember that this was written in a completely different time. What they wrote may sound silly but it probably was a reaction to something that was causing an issue somehow at the time, or even thought to be causing one.

>>39241
And yet circumcision is heavily practiced?

>>39242
That's fairly recent(and American I think). They actually used that as a call to arms during the Crusades, priest would fire people up by saying that Christian boys were being circumcised by Muslims in the Holy land.

>>39242
The New Testament explicitly speaks out in multiple places against the circumcision of non-Jewish Christians, and Christians outside of North America (and Korea, who took the religion from their American overlords after WW2) generally do not practice circumcision.
There are at least 4 distinct influences that brought about the American practice of circumcision among Christians:
1. British Israelism (read up on it; to this day, the British royal family has all of its newborn males circumcised by Jewish mohels)
2. American cosmetics corporations make anti-aging creams out of stemcells from baby foreskins and pay hospitals shitloads of money for them, which is why many American hospitals are very aggressive in their promotion of circumcision to mothers (Oprah and Kate Beckinsale used to advertise for these)
3. The influence of sickos like Dr. Kellogg, who popularized cornflakes with the goal of lowering the sex drive of children by giving them bland food, and advocated circumcision for boys and the destruction of the clitoris with acid for girls with the goal of making it harder for them to masturbate.
4. The simple fact that there are a lot of Jews working in health-related professions in the US. As a coping mechanism, some secular Jews invent supposed medical reasons for circumcision in the same way they invent reasons for why kosher food is supposedly really healthy. "Mainstream" religious Jews tend to look down on this as they correctly point out that the evidence for those supposed health benefits tends to be flimsy at best; and insist that HaShem commanding His people to eat kosher and to get circumcised is reason enough to do it. But among some religious Jews, promoting circumcision to non-Jews and Christians in particular may also hold some religious significance. I can think of one or two instances of non-Jews undergoing circumcision in the Torah, the first one is when Abraham is commanded to circumcise his slaves (I do not know if there were non-Jews among the slaves) and the second one is in Genesis 34, where Sons of Jacob/Israel trick an entire citystate into having their men circumcised in order to genocide them while they were in pain and subsequently loot their possessions. So perhaps they see circumcising non-Jews as a mark of dominance (as over a slave) or as a kiss of death given to a people they revile, I can't say for sure because my Hebrew/Aramaic isn't good enough to read all the influential commentary on these issues.

"Giving" your software a license, legitimizes a system that doesn't deserve respect. Those laws, as they are implemented now, exist for the sake of corporations, and corporations generally treats laws as business expenses.

Microsoft pirated QuickTime code, Trump's dumb twitter "alternative" possibly violates Mastodon's license, and Nintendo has used code from the same emulators they condemn. Why? Because they have enough money and power to brush off the repercussions.

For hobbyists or anybody producing software they don't intend to profit from, licenses are worthless decorations. If a company doesn't make their software foss, pirate it and or reverse compile it, and then do whatever you want.

Freetardism is obsolete in my opinion. Useful at first, and up until a certain point. The path forward, is to ignore the concept of intellectual property, which the internet has provided a means to do.

Post edited on 5th Mar 2022, 11:56am

>>39313
I mostly agree, but I still like to give credit to the people involved in the programs and libraries I use. Other than that, however, forcing one to upstream your specialized changes, for one, is retarded, or arbitrarily restricting a user's application of licensed software is dickish to say the least.

I've been thinking that this thread has already reached bump limit and someone should do another one, but I realized the OP image will be sticking around for quite a few years, likely, and now I feel that I'm not up to the task.

So as far as I know, japan doesn't ground their power outlets and electronics. Is this why they freak out so much in anime during power outages and warn each other to stay still?

>>39429
That's interesting, I didn't know that. I guess at least one country manages to be even less-safe than the US in terms of receptacle design. As I understand, the purpose of the ground is two-fold: 1) to provide a return path for leakage current (this is usually designed to be negligible, so it's often not even necessary for most appliances) 2) Ground pin is connected to the casing of an applicance, so in the case of abnormal operation where somehow hot gets connected to the casing, it provides a return path that immediately trips the breaker.

Neither of those would make any difference during a power outage. I wonder if all their appliances that would usually require 3-prong are double insualted or something. Or if they have residual current detection at the breaker level.

Also in more Japanese electricty madness, did you know that Japan has two separate power grids for each half that run at different frequencies?

>>39912
Looks like I posted in the wrong thread. How embarrassing.
Please, mod-sama, delete my foolishness.