The coin evidence dates the sanctuary to between about 80 and 171 AD, during the period of the Roman cohort fort in Kumpfmühl and the associated Danube settlement, before the establishment of the legionary camp at Regensburg.

This is interesting because it shows how widespread the “mystery cults” (like Mithraism) were back then.

Originally the Romans built a small fort in the place, near the Celtic settlement of Radasbona. But then by 171 Marcus Aurelius had it rebuilt to host the Italic Third Legion. And given legions back then had 5200 soldiers, this means the fort was considerably smaller than the necessary to hold 5k people; if it was just a bit smaller, they’d extend, not rebuild it.

For reference: in the 1st century it’s believed the city of Rome had ~1M inhabitants, and Alexandria had ~500k. The empire as a whole had, like, 60M? 75M? inhabitants. So even for the standards of back then, this sanctuary was found in the middle of nowhere, and yet there was social pressure to build a shrine for Mithras there.

the sanctuary provides valuable new evidence for the rituals and material culture of the enigmatic Mithras cult across the Roman world.

That’s important because we know practically nothing about the cult. The initiates swore an oath of secrecy, so written info from those times is rather scarce.

Who knows? Definitively worth trying! (…I’m not trying it.)

I’ve seen people preparing sweet cakes with Parmesan cheese. I’ve eaten it. It’s actually really tasty, so… I hope the person who took this pic tasted their tea/chocolate/whatever before throwing it away.

Relevant to note I don’t speak Nahuatl. I parsed this info from Wiktionary + Wikipedia, it’s surprisingly easy to follow.

(For the non-possessed form, as in “a penis is an organ”, use “tepolli” instead. Wiktionary also mentions “tototl” bird being used with that meaning, kind of like English “cock”.)

Araucaria araucana Monkey puzzle tree nuts

There’s also Araucaria angustifolia (aka Paraná pine). Dunno if it counts as either a separated entry or same entry as the A. araucana, both are phylogenetically close to hybridise, and the genus as a whole is what’s dino food.

Some pics:

(Yup, it’s my cover picture. See the big tree?)

(Open and closed pines, full of edible nuts.)

(Pine kernels with and without the shell.)

I go crazy for those once May* hits — they’re delicious even simply boiled, but they can be also prepared into dishes. (I even adapted Roman burgers to use those.)

*They actually start producing in April, but as there’s a non-zero chance the pine nuts from April are from felled trees, I avoid it. The species is critically endangered; eating some nuts is not a big deal, but falling the tree is.

That’s a language-dependent ambiguity; this sort of “noun¹ noun²” construction in English is actually rather vague, and it can be used multiple ways:

• material - e.g. fish fillet (the fillet is made of fish)
• purpose - e.g. fish knife (the knife is made to handle fish)
• destination - e.g. fish food (the food goes to the fish)
• inalienable possession - e.g. fish tail (the tail belongs to the fish, and removing it means removing part of the fish)
• alienable possession - e.g. fish bowl (the bowl “belongs” to the fish, but you could give it another bowl)
• etc.

As such I believe that in at least some languages it’s probably clear if you refer to chicken egg as “an egg coming from a chicken” or “an egg a chicken is born from”. Not that they’re going to use it with this expression though.

For reference. @cuerdo@lemmy.world used as an example “my penis”:

If I say “my penis”, it is likelier that I am talking about the one attached to me rather than the one I bought in the market.

In Nahuatl both would be distinguished: you’d call your genitals “notepollo” (inalienable possession), and the one you bought “notepol” (alienable possession). (Note: “no-” for the first person. For someone else’s dick use “mo-” when speaking with the person, i- when talking about them.)

Just language things, I guess.

If the parking was obstructing something else you can report it to enforcement for towing/ticketing or the owners of the lot.

Let’s say this was a public place. Now you need to go through all the bureaucracy to contact the relevant law enforcer. There’s a good chance they won’t fucking care, even if parking the car that way violates some law. Or alternatively there might be no law in place (even if there should be one), so there’s genuinely nothing you can do.

Now let’s say this was a privately owned place, like the parking lot of a supermarket. Do you genuinely think the owners care if their “esteemed customer” Karen’s car gets in the way of “some fucking cripples”? (Note: this sort of arsehole really, really likes to park their cars in spots for people with disabilities. Or often half of their car.)

In either case: congrats for wasting your time and solving jack shit!

And in both cases you’re relying on some higher up to do shit, when it’s actually more civil to tell the owner they’re doing shit wrong. As in, you know… leaving some message.

If it was not obstructing something else

i don’t reasonably expect someone to reach for pen and paper to leave a message in this case.

I read this reply as nothing but ego and lots of assumptions (shooting my brains out, wtf?)

If that’s the case you should at least try to develop basic reading comprehension.

I was clearly listing possible ways to handle this, and the possible outcomes. No, the odds the car owner is a violent piece of shit are not zero; waiting for them to say tête-à-tête “don’t do this, please” is not reasonable. And this is fucking obvious dammit.

I also genuinely think you don’t know what “ego” and “assumption” mean, otherwise you wouldn’t use either here. Just like you don’t know what “passive aggressivity” means.

Besides what Grumpy said (I agree with it): I think leaving a mildly rude written message was the best approach here, once you put yourself in the shoes of whoever wrote the message.

Odds are the car owner parked their car in a really obstructive way, making shit worse for everyone else. It got in your way, and it’ll most likely get in the way of other people too. So, what are you going to do?

• Nothing? You’re giving a free pass to some fucking Enzo/Valentina Karen, who’ll likely do this shit again, and again, and again, because they don’t fucking care about other people.
• Wait until the car owner arrives, and tell them something? You don’t know the owner. It’s possible they simply say “oh, I see, sorry!”, but the risk of actual violence is non-zero, they might pick up a gun and shoot your brains out.
• Leave a polite message, like “please don’t park your car this way, it inconveniences other people”? Remember, there’s a big chance the car owner is a Karen, they don’t give a fuck about other people.
• Leave a message telling them to off themselves? Now you’re going too far; not even a Karen deserves that.
• something else? Feel free to point it out.

So you leave a mocking message. That makes the person feel bad about themself, and highlight people dislike them because of their actions. That’s exactly what the person who wrote the message did.

No condom. I’d sub the “please don’t reproduce” with “I’m glad people like you don’t reproduce” or something like this. To add injury.

AFAIK all modpacks are made for specific versions of Minecraft, so the current modpacks are completely unaffected. And even for future modpacks, the modpack creator doesn’t need to care too much about this, since it’ll affect the mods directly. (A modpack is, like the name says, just a pack of mods stitched together and glued with some configs.)

Plus popular modpacks are often for extremely old MC versions; for example a lot of people still run modpacks made for 1.16.5 (4yo), 1.12.2 (8yo), or even 1.7.10 (12yo).

“Switching from OpenGL to Vulkan will have an impact on the mods that currently use OpenGL for rendering, and we anticipate that updating from OpenGL to Vulkan will take modders more effort than the updates you undertake for each of our releases,” explains Mojang. “To start with, we recommend our modding community look at moving away from OpenGL usage.”

Question: how much does your typical content mod decide what’s going to be rendered? Is this something typically handled by Fabric/Quilt/[Neo]Forge?

Because I can quite guess OptiFine and the likes will need a lot of elbow grease, but I’m not sure about the rest.

Sorry in advance for the political topic, but it’s directly related to the info in the OP.

Is the bar for causes of death roughly similar across social classes? As in: are rich/poor people more/less likely to die from certain causes than others? I’m asking because I’m wondering if news coverage isn’t a bit closer to “reasons why rich people die” than to “reasons why your typical person dies” there (in USA). Just a hypothesis, mind you.

I can’t rule out some might have “good intentions”. But more importantly, their intentions don’t really matter — it isn’t like you or me are going to know them.

Most of the people using AI to contribute are probably like the guy who got so upset his pet AI wasn’t allowed to contribute he likely promoted it to write a hit piece on the person who rejected it.

You’re talking about the guy in charge of the slopbot who wrote shaming Shambaugh, right? Even in the hypothesis the tool misbehaved and wrote that hit piece by itself, instead of him prompting it to write the hit piece, that guy should be still blamed for libelling someone else. He was the one in charge of the tool.

I apologise beforehand for the wall of text. To be frank I’m enjoying this discussion.

You know, I don’t think the “temporarily embarrassed millionaires” thing is true anymore. […]

I still notice a fair bit of that “we’re the best Nation! Gott mit uns [sorry, wrong Nazi country] God Bless Amurrrca! Everyone else is a bloody shitskin living in a mud hut” discourse when interacting with United-Statians online. Perhaps it isn’t as strong as before, like You said, but I don’t think it’s gone.

Then again I’ve lived in a homeless shelter and surround Myself with antirealists, so what do I know about the consciousness of white suburbia?

I live in a mostly-white suburbia but it’s in Latin America, so… take what I say about USA’s youth with a grain of salt. As in, I’m throwing in what I think, but I’m fully aware it might be wrong. Still worth saying IMO, though.

“you” as the pronoun for hypothetical people […]

Got it. I’ll do as You said and use “one”. (To be frank I used “one” for some time, mostly to distinguish between the personal and indeterminate, but plenty native speakers screeched at it, so… I kind of gave up. But it’s good to know I can use it with You, and potentially with other people who capitalise pronouns.)

I confess I don’t fully understand how increased assumptiveness should lead to an increased value placed on intentions as excuses for wrongdoing.

Let’s say intentions exist as an abstraction for a bunch of mental processes, related to planning and the predictions of the outcome of one’s own actions. For example, when someone plans to do something, the person has the “intention” of doing it. Or (reusing the example from Your blog), “author intent” as the set of experiences, thoughts, emotions etc. the author is trying to provoke on the reader. In practice that’s really close to what most use the word “intention” for.

But that’s all internal to someone’s mind. Only the person themself sometimes know their own intentions; nobody else does. At most others can guess it, based on what the person’s words or actions.

So, for one to act based on someone else’s actions, or to say something about them, one needs to either

• create multiple, mutually exclusive guesses about the other’s intentions, and carefully weight the odds of each being true; or
• act as if they knew the other’s intentions.

Your typical person won’t do the former. But they’ll do the later — and the later is what we call “to assume”, it’s to take what one doesn’t know as if one did.

So there’s where assumptiveness kicks in; for most people, it’s what even enables them to talk about intentions. Without assumptiveness, the value of intentions is the same of a ghost, it’s zero.

Granted, someone’s guesses might be more or less accurate depending on how much the person guessing knows the person they’re guessing the intentions off. But when you’re dealing with vulture capitalists across the globe, one knows as much about the person as one knows future lotteries, practically nothing. They’re a stranger, but they’re still talking carefully crafted words about their own intentions, and what they talk about their intentions is the only actual piece of info you have to guide your guess them. With the wrongdoings becoming more of a “no, I didn’t have the intention! My intentions was another!”

The result is that you have a bunch of bourgeois people likely bullshitting about their intentions, and people eating it for breakfast.

Pronouns fixed! (I hope. Let me know if I fucked it up. Also, just to be sure: You’re okay with indeterminate “you” being still in minuscules, right? As in, only capitalising it for the personal pronoun?)

I don’t have data to decide between my hypothesis (biological phenomenon) versus Yours (meme). And it’s possible it’s both things at the same time. So I think I’ll roll with the idea of it being a meme.

Perhaps what the bourgeoisie is selecting for isn’t intentionalism itself, but “assumptiveness”? I’ve been noticing people are becoming increasingly eager to voice certainty based on little to nothing; “what’s inside someone else’s head” is just a consequence of that. For the bourgeoisie, this would be useful for a lot more things, for example it makes people more vulnerable against advertisement.

On USA, another factor is false consciousness. (I know You aren’t Marxist, but I think the concept is useful to Anarchists too.) The United-Statian population sees itself as part of the “ruling caste”, as opposed to “the brown people” (…like me), and in the process they subject themselves even more to the actual ruling elites there.

*slow clap*

International games were supposed to be about fraternisation and camaraderie across borders. There’s no place for people representing genocidal states in those. USA itself is a problem, but Israel (and Russia!) up it to eleven.

You’re confusing “lemmy.world” with “Lemmy”.

Lemmy itself doesn’t “allow” or “remove” shit, because it’s just software. lemmy.world is an instance (server) running that software; some people administrate lemmy.world, and they decide the rules of that place.

Other groups of people do the same. But their rules might be completely different. For example, this post is in a Lemmy instance called lemmy.dbzer0.com; the admins here have completely different views on what’s OK or not to post here. Same deal in lemmy.ml, mander.xyz, sh.itjust.works, so goes on.

Later on you mentioned PieFed. PieFed is simply another software alternative to Lemmy. It won’t “allow” or “remove” shit either, but instances running PieFed will.

Additionally, each instance has its own communities (“subreddits”). Each with their own moderators, that might decide on the local rules, as long as they don’t contradict instance rules. For example, your comments were removed from !showerthoughts@lemmy.world and !unpopularopinion@lemmy.world because they were against the rules of those two communities, but I bet that if you posted the exact same things in !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world instead, it would stay.

Side note: I hate with how they phrased that rule (no politics), but I do agree with the spirit of the rule, and the fact they removed your comments from those two communities. A lot of the Fediverse userbase is politically engaged; that’s a great thing, but if you don’t have at least some spaces reserved to talk about other stuff, everything becomes the same. Simply labelling it (like you propose) doesn’t work because there are political aspects in everything, so the dividing line is really fuzzy.

There’s a lot in Your article I agree with. A lot. I could nitpick some of the middle layers, but the conclusion is the same — we should simply disregard intentions, when judging the morality of the actions of someone (incl. ourselves).

Specially the 7th layer — what You said there is something that has been living in my mind for a long time, but I was never able to phrase it properly.

About the 8th layer: the bourgeoisie does love to exploit this problem when it helps them to get less blame, since it’s impossible to prove someone doesn’t have good intentions. But I don’t think they created it, I think the problem is older even than our own species, and it comes from developing a theory of mind.

Thank You for sharing it!

When the topic of AI submissions flooding open source projects pops up, my immediate reaction is to think "see, this is why you disregard intentions". Because I genuinely believe a lot of the people submitting this slop are trying to help the project, even if in reality they’re harming it, by wasting the maintainers’ time with their crap.They cause harm and deserve to be treated as a source of harm, simple as.

And while most projects could/should use more money, I don’t think that’s the solution; it allows the devs to handle more workload, sure, but the goal should be to reduce it. I think this will be eventually done through pre-sorting contributors: a cathedral for the outsiders, but a bazaar for the insiders.

Got it - thanks for the info!