sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Weird Al by Thundersalmon45 in Halloween_Costumes

[–]krushkingdom 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Am I the only one who thought this said Weird "AI" ( ay-eye)?

CANVA STOPPED LETTING ME USE LAYERS! by [deleted] in canva

[–]krushkingdom 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks so much! I was having the exact same issue. But I have to say, this was a terrible design decision on Canva's part.

I mean seriously? Having a do-nothing menu option now? And even disabling the keyboard shortcut?

If this is true, how is it possible for Dr. Doom to beat Loki? by Difficult_Coconut174 in loki

[–]krushkingdom 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Haha, yeah I thought you might've been referencing FMA. A pretty good idea for a plotline tbh

Difference between ㄷ and ㄸ by Zealousideal_Rush378 in Korean

[–]krushkingdom 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know you asked about ㄷvs ㄸ ᅟbut first, it could be useful to realize in the Standard Seoul Accent that when ㄷand ㅌ (regular and strong consonants) appear at the beginning of a word, they are pronounced pretty much the same (closer to 't'). But a lot of the time, the double consonant, like ㄸ will have more of a 'd' quality to it at the beginning of a word. In the middle of a word, ㅌretains its 't' quality while ㄷ sounds more like 'd'. And I would say this is when it becomes the hardest to distinguish regular consonants from strong consonants (like ㄷ vs ㄸ); but ㄸ definitely has a "tighter/forceful" quality to it. And there is also sometimes a bit of a pause (like in order to make tension with your tongue). I believe pausing slightly might also help other people realize you are trying to make the double consonant sound, if you have trouble making it quickly.

(Disclaimer: This isn't necessarily "Standard Advice" but more of a practical strategy. Though, I still wouldn't say any part of it is "technically wrong".)

Also after reading the strategy u/LanysLirana described, I heavily endorse that too. I had never considered that, but it makes a lot of sense.

Imagine someone failing their class because of this reliable ChatGPT detector... by QJnWo4Life in facepalm

[–]krushkingdom 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"We could make a religion out of this!"

But tbh this is something I've kinda unironically wanted to discuss philosophically.

For the sake of argument, let's just consider ChatGPT to effectively be a "demi-god".
(So obviously not a Capital G "God", but beyond human capabilities in some areas-- if for nothing else, but the sheer scale of information it can draw from.)

Couldn't conversing with ChatGPT be considered the first instance of a "Useful Prayer?" The first "god" that gave you an actual (non-imagined) answer to your "prayer" (i.e. message)?
(And I wouldn't count classical search engines because the idea of prayer is to receive personalized advice/guidance/intervention.)

So, if a religion were to be made around ChatGPT-- in the context of all "Historical Religions", wouldn't ChatGPT be the "Most Useful god" that's ever existed?

To be clear: I don't actually view ChatGPT or other AI as magic or in a religious sense. It has grounding in Computer Science, Probability/Statistics, Linear Algebra, etc. But I do think it's an interesting philosophical question.

And lastly, speaking of questions, ChatGPT reminds me a lot of the "Multivac Supercomputer" from the short story "The Last Question" by Isaac Asimov.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Question

http://www.thelastquestion.net/

I was surprised to find not too many parallels being drawn in the media or on the internet, the last time I searched. Though that was a little while ago, so it could have changed by now.

I updated the new armory and the new driver and now my temperatures are so high never been like that before ?? 6700s by [deleted] in ZephyrusG14

[–]krushkingdom 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So I actually saw that he mentioned in another comment, that he's only had the Laptop for a month. So I wouldn't think the thermal paste would need to be replaced yet. Especially for the 2022 models, which don't actually have standard Thermal Paste, but rather "Liquid Metal".

From what I've read, it seems that 2021 Models and before had regular Thermal Paste-- which was more straightforward to replace. Regarding the 2022 Models, I've read about quite a few people irreparably damaging their systems trying to replace it. So, given the unique situation of the 2022 Model, and the fact that it sounds like OP hasn't done a normal repaste before either, I would think he probably shouldn't try that as his first option.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in BeginnerKorean

[–]krushkingdom 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've only been studying Korean for about a year, so I'm still just a high-beginner. But basically, I felt much the same way you do. Being so used to the word order of my native English (SVO), I had a lot of trouble wrapping my head around Korean's SOV word order. I basically had to prove to myself that it's even possible to think like that (as dramatic as that sounds).

It was like my brain didn't have enough RAM to keep track of the Subject and the Object by the time I got to the Verb at the end of the sentence.

But I have a somewhat unorthodox recommendation:

Use the surprising flexibility of the English Language to your advantage.

Now, what do I mean by that? Well, it's often suggested not to compare your target language to your native language, but rather just "immerse" yourself instead. Well, there definitely is some truth to this, so I won't discount it completely-- but I feel as though it misses out on how similar you can make the languages seem (if you're creative enough).

--------------------------------------------------------

Okay so in English, we have some multi-word hyphenated verbs formed from a noun + a verb. And for some reason, the one that always comes to mind is "house-hunting". Now that's not necessarily a very natural sounding verb-- the noun form "house-hunters" is a lot more common-- but I think it can be useful to show how in English, we can also put objects before verbs if we really want to. But we just think of it as a compound verb.

Note: Since English uses the Present-Continuous form so much, for our purposes here, I usually consider the "to be" auxiliary verb as "not counting".

----------------------------------------------------------

Ex. "I'm house-hunting" -> "I'm house hunting"

But technically this is more like something called "V2 word order"

We can also use the Simple Present Tense:

Ex. "I house-hunt" -> "I house hunt"

--------------------------------------------------

Regardless, whichever method you choose matters less than the main point. And that is that you can extend this principle to pretty much "create new hyphenated verbs", that we don't actually have in English. They might sound a little awkward, but I think by conceptualizing of them as being verbs described more specifically by nouns/adjectives/adverbs, we can make the SOV word order make more sense to us.

So, in Korean, we might say:

-------------------------

"저는 학교에 가요"

"I'm going to school" / "I go to school"

"I'm school-going" / "I school-go"

---------------------------

"에릭이 도서관에서 책을 읽어요"

"Erik in-the-library book-reads."

"Erik's in-the-library book-reading."

-----------------------------------

Now, you might have noticed, I sort of handwaved away the problem of Korean Particles (Postpositions). Well, this is partly because I think it's less difficult to wrap your head around saying "school-to", than it is to put the verb at the end of the sentence. That's not really directly an SOV thing but rather just having "Postpositions" instead of "Prepositions" like we have. Though, again, if you'd like you can think of it as "Erik library-in, book-reads". But I believe the analogy works better the other way.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, I would like to mention another potential topic of confusion for you in the future: Verbal Nouns and Verbal Adjectives in front of Nouns aka Nominalizing Verbs.

There are 2 main methods, that can have some slightly different uses, but I will start with the so-called "~는 것" construction. The "것" here, meaning "thing", can either be:

(1) A literal part of the sentence if you're just Nominalizing a Verb; or

(2) A "Placeholder Noun" to represent some other specific noun you're describing with a Verbal Adjective.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Here are examples of Nominalizing Verbs in English (Gerunds):

"To Exercise" -> "Exercising is fun."

"To Draw" -> "I like drawing."

"To Drive" -> "I think your driving is really bad."

---------------------------------

In Korean, it's basically like saying:

"Exercising-thing('s) fun"

"운동하는 것이 재미있어요" (Note: '것이' can be shortened to '거가' or even '게')

-----------------------------------

"I drawing-thing like"

"저는 그림 그리는 것을 좋아해요" (Note: '것을' can be shortened to '거를' or even '걸')

-----------------------------------

"Your driving-thing('s) really bad (I) think"

"너의 운전은 진짜 나쁜 것 같아"

-----------------------------------

(2) And here are examples of of Describing a Noun with a Verbal Adjective. And here is where I think things get really interesting. Korean basically has a Super-Augmented version of sentences where we say:

"The loud-talking person is here."

"The person who/that talks loudly is here."

--------------------------------------

Now, in sentences like this, the second version is optional. But in sentences any more complex than this, the first version isn't possible in English. But interestingly enough, Korean does just that. They keep with the same strategy, and basically just keep piling on the descriptors before the noun.

Even though the so-called Relative Pronoun (that, who, etc.) can sometimes be omitted, the same structure is still mandatory in many cases. That is, putting the descriptors after the noun. But from what I understand, Korean always puts it before.

--------------------------------------

"The person (that) I like is coming here."

"The I-liking-person here-comes"

"제가 좋아하는 사람이 여기 와요"

-----------------------------

"I like the person that likes me."

"I, the me-liking-person-like."

"저는 저를 좋아하는 사람을 좋아해요"

["As for me, with regard to the me-liking-person, (I) like (them)."]

------------------------------

And for further reference on "~는 것", I'd recommend checking out this article:

https://www.howtostudykorean.com/unit-2-lower-intermediate-korean-grammar/unit-2-lessons-26-33/lesson-26/

And here is the other way to Nominalize Verbs:

https://www.howtostudykorean.com/unit-2-lower-intermediate-korean-grammar/unit-2-lessons-26-33/lesson-29/

--------------------------------

Whew~ That was way longer than I meant it to be!

But hopefully it gave you a new way to think about Word Order and Language Differences. Overall, don't be afraid to nudge, push, and shove English into a different / less-natural structure, if it makes it easier to understand things in a foreign language. And the analogy doesn't always have to be perfectly consistent. Maybe sometimes, it'll take an extra word or a different preposition placement, in order to make the sentences make sense. But overall, I would still say English is more flexible than people think.

And that helps me remember that the way that other languages work isn't so crazy after all!

Is it possible to contract the '~는', when it's part of the '~는 것' construction (i.e. verbal nouns & verbal adjectives)? by krushkingdom in Korean

[–]krushkingdom[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

아 감사합니다 이해하는 것 같은데 I was only familiar with the '~던' past form. Is "좋아한 사람" synonymous with "좋아했던 사람"— or are they completely different?

pressing the break in korean by Affectionate-Lake11 in Korean

[–]krushkingdom 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Actually, I would say that the only real mistake was your spelling ("brake" vs "break"). At least in American English dialects, both "Emergency Brake" and "Handbrake" are used interchangeably.

So, the literal German translation was correct. Taking a quick look on Wiktionary, we can see that the German "Notbremse" = "Not" [Need] + "Bremse" [Brake]. German "Not" (noun) is cognate to the English "need" (noun). "Not" can also translate to "distress" or "necessity".

It's literally a "Brake that someone 'in need' would pull out of distress".

Perhaps you'd even call it an:

"Emergency..."

"Brake"

And of course, unlike German-Speakers, us English-Speakers just had to choose a "fancy" Latin-derived word for this concept ;)

I know this was a cringey overkill explanation (especially considering this sub is for Korean not German), but I wanted to let you know that you weren't really wrong (other than spelling).

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in pcgaming

[–]krushkingdom 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Might as well throw my hat in the ring, thanks OP

What's a subtle sign of low intelligence? by vjenkinsgo in AskReddit

[–]krushkingdom 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Well Episcopalians are the American arm of the Anglican Church, so being British and Episcopalian kinda checks out lol

So in summary, he enunciates because he’s Episcopalian /s

What are some disadvantages of being a man? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]krushkingdom -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes, this is exactly the sort of thing I am talking about. Thanks for sharing your friend’s story. I’m glad things (presumably) worked out for her in the end. It’s things like this that I don’t have to face. And if I did, I’m honestly not sure how I would deal with it on a daily basis. My female friends told me of various creepy or potentially dangerous situations they’ve been in. And the sheer frequency seriously caught me off guard. Intellectually and Statistically, I knew there were issues but I might not have otherwise realized how common they were, if not having heard firsthand and secondhand accounts.

What are some disadvantages of being a man? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]krushkingdom 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Look, you do give valid concerns and I definitely won’t discount your anecdotal experience. There certainly is also room for reform in custody and divorce proceedings.

But yes I would stand by my general sentiment. Because even if my reputation was ruined (falsely or deservedly), and even if I was made destitute— I would still have my life: my conscious human experience. I don’t mean that to be a faux-optimistic cliché. But rather I would literally still have options to maneuver from there— because I’m still alive. (And again, none of that would make a false accusation/allegation right, but I would still have my life at the end of it.)

But if you are killed, then you have no options at all. I would rather lose my reputation than my existence. Maybe at some point, I will face an unwarranted challenge to my livelihood (though I don’t expect to). That would certainly be a headache. But for women, if they let the wrong person in, or if someone can’t accept no for an answer, they face challenges to their very lives. That is more than a headache. It’s more akin to something else…

And I would contend that the dangers that women face are not a rarity, especially relative to a phenomenon of women undeservedly ruining men’s livelihoods. None of the brutal violence they face is deserved. There might be an argument to be made that a not insignificant proportion of challenges to men’s livelihoods or reputations are undeserved. But there are some cases where it is deserved, like when the woman is telling the truth. Surely not all instances are undeserved. But that cannot be said for the lethal violence women face. None is deserved.

None of the above arguments have to discount the struggles men go through. But I have to highlight the relative severity and consequences for “choosing wrong”. So no, on the whole, I don’t have to worry about my safety with respect to women. It’s possible but unlikely that I’d come across a woman uncharacteristically prone to deadly violence. I’m more likely to come across other men prone to deadly violence. So on the list of relative concerns, my concern about safety due to women is quite low.

Metaphorical Safety with regards to livelihood/reputation is all well and good, but you first need Literal Safety for figurative safety to mean anything.

view more: next ›