I mean, it could be a manual photoshop job.
It could, but the double spiral in the shell indicates AI to me. Snail shells don’t grow like that. If it was a manual job, they would have used a picture of a real shell.
Edit: plus the cat head looks weird where it connects to the head, and the markings don’t look right to me.
Then it might also be useful to know that in these cases, it’s also correct to say “den är halv tio” which might be a safer route for non-native speakers.
Kudos on you learning swedish though, it’s not always easy or completely logical but coming from English a lot of things should come for free.
Swedish used to have masculine and feminine gendered nouns historically - and some dialects still do - but they were simplified into two grammatical genders, utrum and neutrum, just as your link says. (There are remnants though, for example “vad är klockan?” “hon är halv fyra”). Masculine and feminine were just squashed into the “utrum” gender, basically, and neutrum is neuter.
Lots of languages have gendered nouns, though. Three genders isn’t uncommon in European languages and in most cases you just have to learn the nouns with their genders.
Well, all this feels a bit weird to me as a european. Americans and british pronounce it as f-you-g, but it’s a french loan word, in french /fyg/ (y as in the last letter in particularly). The word itself however comes from the latin fuga, and in german and a lot of other languages the word is fuga or fuge. Fuga is of course pronounced foo-gah (well, not exactly, but close enough) so…I wouldn’t laugh that hard at someone mispronouncing the word in “English” if I were them is my point I guess.
We need to stop calling these sites and services “free”. Anything that’s financed by ads, spying and profiling is not free, the user is paying with their attention, integrity and right to privacy. This is not nothing.
Presently, it’s a shady and dishonest practice since the terms of the transaction are rarely transparent to the consumer; in other words, it’s a scam.
For our younger audience: this is from when the show Cheers was popular, that’s why there’s a “Norm” setting.
Idk, I liked the Black Panther uniforms better.
Antiracist and leftist is kind of an exaggeration; rather an apolitical subculture of the British working class up until the late 70s/early 80s when the National Front infiltrated the scene. This was during the second wave of the skinhead movement, the original skinheads in the 60s were influenced by West Indian immigrants to the UK, and listened mainly to ska and jamaican music, but generally not very politically conscious or involved. Kind of a rougher offshoot of the mod subculture.
The second wave of skinheads came out of the punk movement. A lot of skins were into Oi!/streetpunk and the NF made their own version which was then called RAC (Rock against communism) but is better known these days (at least in Europe) as White Power Music.
I’m not saying there weren’t leftist skinheads (Redskins and Angelic Upstarts would be a good place to start) but as a subculture, the common theme is rather working class identity and pride - which unfortunately, as we’ve seen, can be exploited by fascist movements as well.
Well, It also works as a nice allegory for climate catastrophe.
I have done plenty of research, thank you. Of course even more research never hurts.
The hides of giant mutated squirrels
Us guitarists call them blues lawyers.
Er, that’s what I am saying however is that you can observe and measure consciousness.
Going with any definition of consciousness relevant to this discussion, say phenomenality and/or awareness, no.
I am not sure why it’s hard to accept that some living things may not be conscious. Viruses propagate “mindlessly”, they’re neither living nor conscious.
That’s not really the point - I don’t claim to know what entities possess consciousness. The point is that you don’t either.
I also don’t understand why you think emergent properties are a hypothesis. Emergent properties of biological processes are fact
Obviously I’m talking about Emergentism as it relates to consciousness, and the idea that consciousness is an emergent property is not a fact, no. And there are perfectly valid reasons - for example, the “explanatory gap” - why someone might find it unsatisfactory.
So, I’m guessing everyone in this thread has a different conception of what “consciousness” actually is and what we’re talking about here, which makes it difficult to discuss casually like this. You seem to have a very exclusive definition of consciousness, which only serves to avoid the argument, really. “It’s possible that same organisms exhibit some parts of consciousness as we have noticed till now, but if those organisms do not exhibit all parts of consciousness then they’re not conscious”…you’re splitting hairs. If plants could be proven to be aware, have subjective experience, a sense of self, it would be reasonable to change our definition of consciousness to be more inclusive - simply because such a concept of consciousness would be a lot more useful then.
Emergentism is a popular hypothesis, not a fact. Christof Koch lost the bet, remember? The idea that “all organisms which are conscious have to exhibit the same properties” and “you cannot pick and choose” does not logically follow from anything you’ve said. These are criteria that you set up yourself. Take the idea of qualia as an example, how could we ever observe that an animal or a plant does or does not experience qualia? Nobody solved the problem of other minds.
Consciousness is nothing like a heart; the function of the heart can be observed and measured. How do you know that you possess awareness? You can only experience it. (Actually, that we are aware is the only thing we can know with complete certainty.)
which we don’t observe in those which lack consciousness.
See what you did there? You assume a priori which entities lack consciousness, and then motivate this by claiming they lack traits that can be observed in conscious entities. That is very neatly circular.
Food service and retail needs to exist, (commercial sales) call centers should be banned and their owners shunned from polite society.
Best and easiest way is to reverse image search from a photo, it’s easy to look through the results for yourself and see what actually matches (it’s frequently not the first search result). Perhaps there’s some kind of AI involved in reverse image search, but searching like this is infinitely preferable to me instead of some bot telling me an answer which may or may not be correct. It’s not “convenient” if you actually care about the answer.
I think the brain is only where the concentration of prions is highest and therefore the most dangerous part of an infected person to eat, but you can also get it from other body parts. But I’m no expert… haven’t eaten anyone in years actually.
Even cnailshells would have to adhere to the basic laws of conchology though