cave lion from prehistoric planet compared to neolithic cave lion art

ellievsbear

pixel skylines

Love Begins

@theartofmadeline
will byers stan first human second
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year
taylor price
Monterey Bay Aquarium
Claire Keane
YOU ARE THE REASON
tumblr dot com
almost home

祝日 / Permanent Vacation

No title available
Peter Solarz
NASA
Stranger Things

No title available
Today's Document
AnasAbdin
seen from United States
seen from Singapore

seen from Malaysia

seen from Venezuela
seen from Malaysia

seen from Singapore

seen from Peru

seen from United Kingdom

seen from United States

seen from Germany
seen from Venezuela

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from France
seen from Vietnam
seen from Australia
seen from United States
@earth-stepper
cave lion from prehistoric planet compared to neolithic cave lion art
can you curry anything else or is it just favor
So "currying" a furry animal means grooming or brushing it with a currycomb, which in turn comes from the Old French correier meaning "to prepare [something]", because you prepare a horse for riding by brushing it; it's most commonly applied to horses but you can get e.g. currycombs for dogs.
If I understand correctly, medieval French folk tales considered chestnut-colored horses to be deceitful and tricky; the Old French word for a chestnut or dun horse was fauvel, and so the Old French expression correier fauvel, literally "to brush the chestnut horse", meant lying or being hypocritical for personal gain. This turned into "curry favel" in 15th-century English, and then mutated into "curry favor" over the next few centuries as people forgot about the horse.
So "currying favor" is really "brushing the Horse of Lies", and the reason you can't curry goodwill, or love, or hatred, or even disfavor is that we didn't have Horses for those.
And it follows that we can gain the ability to curry other things by assigning them to Horses.
#google is backing you up on this (via @oldguardians)
I realize, looking back on this post, that regular readers of my blog may have thought I made this up. Making up a ridiculous etymology is certainly the sort of thing I might do; in fact I've been meaning to start a sideblog dedicated solely to sufficiently accurate etymologies, and have a notebook with dozens of them jotted down, I just haven't had the time to do anything with them.
But I want to stress that this is not one of those cases. This is, to the best of my knowledge, the very real etymology of the phrase "curry favor".
The Old French fauve or falve referred to the light-brown color that's sometimes called "fallow" in modern English, but since it also sounded similar to faux, meaning "false", it was also associated with deceit and trickery ; the idiom estriller Fauvel literally meant "to groom the fallow one" but idiomatically meant "to lie or trick people".
Then in the 1300s we get the French poem Roman de Fauvel, a satirical poem about a fauve horse, whose name is derived both from the color and from the fact that FAVVEL is an acronym of Flaterie, Avarice, Vilanie, Varieté, Envie, Lascheté (Flattery, Greed, Vileness, Fickleness, Envy, and Cowardice) - all the different vices that this horse embodies.
Fauvel (purportedly modeled after Enguerrand de Marigny [source], an advisor to King Philip IV) is a sinful, conniving, and very rich horse who has various religious and secular leaders fawning over him and brushing him; it was well-known enough that "grooming Fauvel" came to mean "sucking up to someone powerful" more than just "being evil", and when it was translated into English the grooming was translated as currying, which specifically is grooming a horse with a curry comb [wiktionary]. From this we got the Middle English expression "currying Fauvel", which then mutated via folk etymology (in the "reinterpretation of unfamiliar words as more familiar ones" sense, not the "people are wrong about etymology" sense) into "currying favor".
Curry favor in:
Wiktionary: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/curry_favor
Merriam-Webster: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/curry%20favor
Etymonline: https://www.etymonline.com/word/curry
"the reason you can't curry goodwill, or love, or hatred, or even disfavor is that we didn't have Horses for those."
Okay, so what I've decided to take away from this post, incorrectly or no, is that we can curry anything there's a horse for.
So in addition to Favor, we can curry Conquest, War, Famine, Pestilence, Polution, Death, and various other horses.
my favorite medieval manuscript! a real tour de force of artistic media (plural). and it's all online
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8454675g.image
look at him
Reblog if you’re hoping 1848 will be a fresh start
getting lost in boston is fun because I turned around on a street corner three times and some guy yelled "hey stupid! the bus is that way!" very helpful interaction and accurate insult, 10/10 no notes
one time I walked around a building a couple times looking for a bathroom and this guy went "this bitch thinks she's on a merrygoround, where the fuck are you tryna go? bathroom? one floor down to the right behind the door that says bathroom."
My very first time in Boston. I was absolutely miserable, trying to drag my giant suitcase up a lengthy set of stairs in the pouring rain. This guy who had already reached the top looked back at me with the most pure expression of disgust I’ve ever seen in anyone’s eyes, marched back down the stairs, grabbed my suitcase, carried it to the top, left it there for me, and walked away without ever saying a word. I think about him often.
For the people in the notes going "why is Boston like this": a) the insults are a way to show you have no ulterior motives when helping someone (and don't need to be thanked or repaid), and b) Boston was settled by the Irish
i miss my people, it's too hard to be nice all the time
we’re about 60 days away from 2013 just think about that for a sec
anyway re: the second to last reblog it is genuinely crazy how the default position in america is the sense that the military is inherently deserving of admiration and respect and early boarding on planes and discounts at fucking applebees or whatever just on the basis of being In The Military. they don't even have to do anything, fucking tyler who's 18 and just enlisted yesterday in a Brave Warrior of Democracy now and he deserves our respect. and this shit is bipartisan. you have to be soooooo far dirtbag left before it's okay to even lightly suggest that Maybe The Military Shouldn't Do All That, let alone that it shouldn't exist and that you don't think people should get any kind of hero worship for signing up to occupy a foreign country and kill civilians on demand. and it's doubly insane because the government so badly doesn't give a fuck about actual veterans, like so so so many of them are disabled or addicted or unhoused or whatever and they receive like. little to no support for it. but the CONCEPT of someone being in the military is supposed to make you nut with patriotism and if you hate the military it's obviously because you're commie scum. stupid ass theme park of a country.
pourquoi du pain est masculin mais la baguette est féminine....... la baguette est transgenre ?
je vais laisser la communauté parler:
la baguette, icône trans?
oui
non
eh bah
10k notes pour un post francophone sur tumblr macron où est mon poste de ministre de la culture
i don’t understand why several people have said to me “even if you dislike her music you have to admit taylor swift is a marketing genius” as if that’s something i’m seriously meant to value in my songwriters
we used to call these people sellouts
“God is dead” -Zendaya
Zendaya is Nietzsche???
And LeBron James is Zhuangzi???
Danny Devito's Adorno 🎶🎶🎶
A group of little red flying foxes (Pteropus scapulatus) roosting together in Nitmiluk National Park, NT, Australia
by Julien NKS
And I worked with a man called Squidward. And he was a Protestant man, but we were the best of friends. But by God, he was crabid as a bag of cats. He was an auld grump. And he'd be big into the flutes and the Oboes and things like that. He lived in a big stone head.
you really do have to watch the video, it's everything
"i don't care if they make their whole way though uni with chatgpt" i think you guys are so internetpilled that you have forgotten there are actual jobs out there that require people to know what they are doing in any way possible or else people die
i know a lot of people study just to get paid well but girl this is engineering be for fucking real take this seriously
114 people died in the Hyatt Regency collapse, and in the US it's the third largest structural collapse fatality count, behind 9/11 and the Pemberton Mill collapse in 1860.
I've learned about this tragedy in my physics classes, to demonstrate tensile strength, and as a reminder about the importance of calculations being done right. I've also learned about it in my legal classes as an example of construction defect lawsuits. I've seen it referenced in disaster response classes.
Between AI and the current Presidential administration, we're barrelling right back towards this nightmare.
There are multiple errors that resulted in this collapse, but these stand out to me:
1. Kansas City was facing high unemployment and needed to attract jobs and business into the city. So the planning and inspection departments may have looked too closely at the designs.
2. An engineering firm too lazy to double check their designs or design changes by the manufacturer before approving them. The error that resulted in the collapse was one that the owner of the engineering firm said that a "first year engineering student" would spot.
3. The steel manufacturer treating preliminary plans as final plans, not verifying the math on their end.
The bridges' original design could only hold 60% of the minimum load required by city code. The design changes recommended by the manufacturer halved that. Less than a year and 3 weeks from opening to the public, the whole thing collapse.
Articles about the collapse say that everyone "trusted" the other party to have done the calculations correctly.
A significant portion of the population trusts what the computer or AI tells them, without checking. Imprecisely calibrated AI hallucinate information. The US economy is going into a downturn and federal regulatory agencies are being gutted.
We are going to see the Hyatt Regency Collapse repeat over and over for decades, not just in buildings, but in medicine, manufacturing, the environment, etc.
Some of this we're just going to have to weather, but the message for AI users comes straight from IBM (once the world's leading computer manufacturer) back in 1979:
"A Computer Cannot Be Held Accountable. Therefore A Computer Should Never Make A Management Decision."
The owner of the engineering firm that designed the Hyatt Regency spent the rest of his life lecturing on the disaster, to serve as a warning to his fellow engineers about the real-life consequences of sloppy design.
I don't think Sam Altman or Mark Zuckerberg or Elon Musk will have the courage or the honor to do that when OpenAI / Meta / xAI are responsible for getting people killed.
So if you're going to blindly trust the AI to do critical work tasks, I hope you're prepared to be making an apology tour for the rest of your life if it all goes wrong.
I work in healthcare.
I recently was seen by a nurse who provided medication. Gonna be as vague as possible here, you'll forgive me.
Based on my age she wasn't sure if I would require a repeat prescription.
I sat and watched her, a nurse with presumably decades of experience, read Google AI results and say she couldn't find the right answer.
She later texted me and told me she would need to see me again some months down the line.
I work in the field that produces and manages that medication. I read the government guidelines and guidelines laid out by my country's healthcare system.
Both sources with the most reliable information that my organisation offers in regards to this treatment.
She "looked" and texted me the wrong info. Five seconds of reading through the official channels would have shown exactly what I needed in plain and clear writing.
I believe she asked Chat GPT.
I have friends whose collegues work with people from privelleged categories and when trying to discuss how to work with their information all of the staff, save him, are advocating for AI to be used. He's the only one pushing back because of safety concerns about their patient's data. None of the other professionals had even considered that AI could be fallible or untrustworthy.
One of his collegues couldn't find an email for a doctor's surgery. She asked Chat GPT. It made one up. It wasn't a real email. A two minute search found the right one, alongside a phone number to double check with the surgery's reception to see if another number would be suitable.
These are two small mistakes, with healthcare. With people's lives.
People are going to die.
If I wasn't in my field I could have suffered through unecessary treatment. If that email Chat GPT imagined had been a real, unrelated email address, then that patient's information could have leaked had my friend not stopped their coworker.
People are going to suffer.
People are going to die.
All because someone was lazy and trusted something without taking a second to think about it themselves
The Lutherans should have been cave mystics. Their focus on the supremacy of the word and individualist soteriology would be perfect for caves. The Lutherans should have taken their Bibles and their printing presses and sealed themselves within the earth with several tons of canned peaches. They would've learned to eat olms and drink from underground springs and read their Bibles with their newly evolved huge eyes. I want them pious and salamandrine.
i know no one will see this here or care, but we as a society simply must resist the idea that llms offer any additive value to the practice of knowledge acquisition. using an llm sidesteps all thinking and critical engagement. if a specific field use algorithms, they use real algorithms tailored to their work, and people worked hard to develop them. you can, in fact, think for yourself!
i feel terrible for anyone who thinks that chatgpt is giving anyone "access" to fields of inquiry. demand more from yourself and the world. be in community, even if it's more work.
it is not bullying to criticize llms and the people who use them. if you want to participate in a professional discourse, you have to be willing to be criticized! fucking hell
My toxic trait is that I am far more interested in the socio-economic and geopolitical implications of ABO settings than the smut.
For example: I can't read any ABO AUs set in England or France because while I can suspend my disbelief far enough for a gender trinary set up, I can't suspend it enough to believe those two countries would still be distinct entities in a alternate history where Richard the Lionheart could have impregnated Philip II.
If there was a viable dynastic future with Richard, Philip would have climbed him like an oak and dragged him to the altar if he had to. It's a match that makes perfect sense from both their point of view: Philip gets Aquitaine back under French rule, the best general in Europe on his council, and powerful check on the Angevians....and unexpectedly (after Henry bites it) the entire Kingdom of England for his Capetian dynasty. Richard meanwhile gets to stick it to his father, secure Aquitaine's prosperity, and gets the leverage to start pushing for his mother's release. Then when Henry kicks the bucket Richard doesn't actually have to be King of England in anything but name: Philip can run the countries and unify the Crowns and what not while Richard runs off to go Crusading.
Plus they also like, loved each other and stuff and being able to get to be together long term instead of being torn apart by politics would have been cool. But I'm mainly obsessed with the historical implications and dynastic implications.
All this to say any ABO au set in England or France should mention that doesn't have them united as a singular Anglo-Frank empire is doing it wrong.
Watkins has traced [masturbárí] to a Proto-Indo-European *mostr̥gʰ-, extended and metathesised from *mosgʰos (“marrow”), also found in Avestan 𐬨𐬀𐬯𐬙𐬆𐬭𐬆𐬔𐬀𐬥 (mastərəgan, “brains”) and Tocharian B mrestīwe (“marrow”). The semantic relationship is due to the widely attested belief that semen descends from the brain through the bones and is the same substance as brain matter and bone marrow; compare “the symbolic autofellatio of Finn mac Cumaill's gnawing his thumb to the marrow” and the obsolete meaning of marrow (“semen”).
lmao i know exactly where that organ is