blake kathryn
No title available
PR's Tumblrdome
noise dept.
🪼
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
roma★
Janaina Medeiros
taylor price
Product Placement
Cosmic Funnies
AnasAbdin
Game of Thrones Daily
Cosimo Galluzzi
KIROKAZE
dirt enthusiast
Three Goblin Art
h
❣ Chile in a Photography ❣
Love Begins
seen from India
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from North Macedonia
seen from North Macedonia
seen from North Macedonia
seen from North Macedonia
seen from North Macedonia
seen from North Macedonia
seen from North Macedonia
seen from North Macedonia
seen from North Macedonia
seen from North Macedonia
seen from North Macedonia
seen from North Macedonia
seen from North Macedonia
seen from North Macedonia
seen from North Macedonia
seen from North Macedonia
@intimate-mirror
month starting on a monday we have no excuse guys lets get to work and lock the fuck in
yk its actually very chic and avant garde to start on tuesday the second
many claim theres nothing more subversive and revolutionary than starting on wednesday the third
got confused about how to interpret a particular clause in the aeneid and accidentally stumbled into a ~1000 year old philological debate oopsies!!
i'm glad you asked! the clause in question is from book iv line 11, quem sese ore ferens. most of the sources I can find treat this as describing aeneas's physical beauty (e.g., pharr glosses it "how noble in appearance") but the tiered reader I'm using equates it with quam bene loquitur, i.e., "how well he speaks"
the literal sense of the phrase is something like, "how he carries himself by his os"† with the difficulty that os can refer either to the mouth specifically (and, therefore, metonymically, speech) or to one's mien or countenance. so there's a genuine ambiguity in how to interpret the line
or at least, that was my crude understanding; but since every other source I could find took this to be talking about aeneas's physical beauty, I started to get worried about the scholarly authority of the (relatively minor) text I was using, and asked claude how marginal the "speech" interpretation was, who pointed me to pease's stunningly thorough commentary on the poem
(seriously, click through that link—there's a full page or more of commentary for each single line in the aeneid)
and pease has this to say about quem sese ore ferens:
the Scholia Danielis are in doubt whether this refers to speech or appearance, yet if we have the same idea as in 3, 490: sic oculos, sic ille manus, sic ora ferebat (cf. Sil. 8, 72 (of Aeneas): noto sese ore ferebat) it seems likely that the appearance is intended; cf. also 1, 503: talem se laeta ferebat.
the scholia danielis of course (obviously!) refers to the ~11th century expansion (see servius's wikipedia page for some context on the manuscript tradition here) of the roman grammarian servius's commentary on the aeneid, which says: (§ 4.11 at the link)
QUEM SESE ORE FERENS cum eum ob virtutem laudet, addendo tamen os nec pulchritudinem denegaverit. 'ore' autem 'ferens' utrum oratione, an vultu, dubium est.
or (my translation)
QUEM SESE ORE FERENS while she praises his character, by adding "os" she does not deny his beauty. whether, though, 'ore ferens' refers to his speech or his countenance is unclear.
so: while the modern consensus (n.b.: I say "consensus" but it's not like I've checked that many independent sources) seems to prefer the "by his countenance" reading, there has been doubt over which reading is licensed for at least the last 1000 years
honestly, just the fact that both readings are possible suggests to me that the ambiguity itself is intended. we're talking about about one of the most highly acclaimed classical poets, after all. but I haven't really seen anybody taking this tack
†in fact the word that I'm translating as the verb carries is a participle, carrying. however, the combination of the participle with the exclamatory quem ("who") is difficult to render in english—with a selection of the previous line, it's something like "what guest has come among us, carrying himself in what way!"—and I have the impression that even in the original latin this is pretty contorted syntax
"it's a buffalo, it can't look that much like him-"
holy shit
talking about film stuff alone to the exclusion of book elements for a minute: it really reads to me that the thing actually getting to stratt in her last scene with grace isn't that she has to ask him to die for the cause, we've already established that it's not difficult for her to do that under these circumstances, it's that she has to do it against his will. her voice doesn't start going thin like she's holding back tears until she starts to explain that that they're going to force him despite his refusal, and three times over she asks him to stop fighting back, escalating to violence against him is the specific part she doesn't like. if he stays then he dies in thirty years with everyone else, if he goes then he dies in thirteen years as part of saving everyone else and also probably goes out less painfully, the death is broadly the same either way so it's not part of her arithmetic, but she didn't want to have to make his last memories on earth so distressing.
I saw a post around somewhere that I wish I'd saved about how it might have been less painful for grace if stratt had just told him from the get-go that he didn't have a choice about getting on the ship, and I think I agree; subjectively I feel like having a "no" ignored rather just being ordered into something in the first place is a worse experience. stratt not being upfront about it contradicts her usual "you now live on a boat" modus operandi, it prolongs the process and adds extra steps when they're already running on so little time, and I think it might be the one genuinely selfish decision she makes, letting grace believe he has a say in the matter for those three hours gives him time to agonize about it in his Dish Antenna Array Of Despair and opens him up to really feel that betrayal and removal of autonomy as hard as possible. and, let's be real, she goes into that meeting 99% sure he's not going to agree, that's why she has a doctor on standby and guards ready to give chase, but up until his last "you just can’t talk me into it" she's hoping that maybe he'll just say yes and she won't have to do something awful to someone she likes. keeping the opportunity open for the easy way instead of immediately taking the hard way also leaves the door open for the significantly more likely hardest way.
orpheus and eurydice really does go so hard. like yeah what if checking to see if your lover was still with you really was exactly the thing which drove them away...
Adoptables culture seems fine to me under the condition it doesn't become the main culture.
It is great for a bunch of people who all care a lot about intellectual property to intentionally spend time in a subculture which follows strict IP rules.
If these OCs get big and movies or books are made for a general audience, then I will be on the side of the general audience's right to write fanfic about them. But in the meantime, I will just stay out of that space.
Adoptables culture seems fine to me under the condition it doesn't become the main culture.
It is great for a bunch of people who all care a lot about intellectual property to intentionally spend time in a subculture which follows strict IP rules.
If these OCs get big and movies or books are made for a general audience, then I will be on the side of the general audience's right to write fanfic about them. But in the meantime, I will just stay out of that space.
I have not read and have no opinion on starship troopers, and I am not a star wars fan at all,
but it seems to me that Star Wars focuses on action scenes, postcard-memorable locations, and magic that works arbitrarily depending on what the plot needs
It would do a quite poor job if the intention were training people to expect coherent worldbuilding
I often have a lot of sympathy for the Lame Stodgy Sensible Center-Left types, but - it is hard to maintain much of that sympathy when I see them posting sneering takes about how only an idiot could fail to support important ideas like (ahem) "teen curfew zones."
pears are just good apples
Update: OP invited me to her wedding. I should have guessed what fruit was going to be in the salad course that they served
Evaluating the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox:
A -5 point starting credit.
1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction. (Bohr-Einstein debates)
5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment. (Empirical tests of Bell's inequality) (in fairness nobody knew this at the time)
5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).
5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann". (his name is on the paper)
10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.
10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you worked on your own.)
10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.
10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.
10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.
10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations". (Einstein came up with the core thought experiments, and Rosen did most of the work formalizing them)
10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.
10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism". (he claims QM is correct but incomplete, and so it does not provide a mechanism for how entangled states collapse while preserving angular momentum)
10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence). (he did think he was on Einstein's level. in fairness he was right.)
10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".
20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index. (E.g., saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I misspelled "Einstein" in item 8.)
20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize. (Einstein had one and presumably thought he deserved it)
20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.
20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.
20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.) (it's called the EPR paradox)
20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.
20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".
20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".
30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)
30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate. (he was)
30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).
30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.
40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts. (the nazis did actually really hate his ideas, it was a whole thing)
40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.
40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)
50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions. (Bell figured these out later but it took a while)
total: 210 einstein was a fucking hack
embroidery samples, silk and metallic thread on felt; french c. early 1800s.
look i'm just not convinced that the TERFs three key positions, "we hate men," "we hate trans women," and "we believe trans women are men" are unrelated
FAQ for this post and similar in the discourse:
So you think trans women are men?
No, this post describes a position that TERFs hold. This post is anti-TERF.
Do TERFs actually hate men? It seems like they just hate trans women.
You may be confusing a more garden-variety reactionary for a TERF. I encourage you to search the word "moid" on this site to gain a better understanding of how the average TERF feels about men.
Does this imply trans women and men are under similar levels of threat from TERFism?
Not even a little bit.
What's the point of making a post like this?
Generally it is good to develop a theory of mind for your political enemies and to say true things instead of false things.
It's weird that the "physicalist" view of consciousness is the one which involves magic.
Creators being coy about the intended interpretation of their story is tedious. It's like buying an ice cream sunday at an ice cream shop and instead of putting a cherry on top they put a note card there that says “We have cherries, but we're not giving you any. If you have some cherries at home in your fridge maybe you can have one of those later if you want.”
People are going to come up with new & different interpretations of your story regardless of whether you reveal yours! You're withholding information that might add depth to the experience for no actual reason.
Anyway, Mulholland Drive is a really good movie.
I agree with this much much more than the average lit person does, but:
1. sometimes (and, imo, particularly often with good fiction writing) the "intended interpretation" is too large to fit within the margin, sometimes to the point where the least lacking expression of what is meant is the book itself
2. sometimes an official answer will in fact serve as a thought-terminator
3. sometimes the process of the reader puzzling something out is part of the "point", not just instrumentally for the purpose of suspense and keeping the reader's keen attention to details, but "terminally", for its own sake
That said, I do agree the ignorance and Ambiguity TM fetish that a lot of writers have is pointless. "There is more gain in wisdom than in folly, as there is more gain in light than in darkness."
Heart of the Scorpion
There is a quality of books (or movies or shows) that I can best describe as “stickiness,” which is separate from being good or even enjoyable: a sticky book is one I just keep thinking about. Sometimes it’s because a book is very good (e.g. The Locked Tomb), and sometimes it’s because a book is very bad (e.g. ACOTAR), but there are also very good and very bad books that are slippery, such that when I’m done reading them they slip from my thoughts like water from a hydrophobic surface.
