🔥 Popular | Latest

priscilladyke: witchesversuspatriarchy: Thought this could fit in well here Ok I don’t mean to be doing this too often but I literally just wrote a paper about this so I thought I would comment! The English translation is The Cursed Woman but the original French is La Femme Damnée. “Femmes Damnées” was the title of a Baudelaire poem from his acclaimed 1857 book Fleurs du mal, which was known, among other things, to be a collection that famously dealt with the subject of lesbians. The poem tells the story of the desires and passionate love between two lesbians: Delphine and Hippolyte. As a result of this poem and of the book as a whole, the terms “fleurs du mal” and “femme damnée” became lesbian monikers of the turn of the century. Though some have deemed the term “damned women” to be accusatory of some moral dissonance, the poem it is derived from is actually quite sympathetic to the condition of lesbian love as it is a love which is unable to fully flourish in that time. Regardless, the translated title of Tassaert’s painting is misleading, as the original French is less accusatory and more identifying. The title is more accurately “the lesbian.” : priscilladyke: witchesversuspatriarchy: Thought this could fit in well here Ok I don’t mean to be doing this too often but I literally just wrote a paper about this so I thought I would comment! The English translation is The Cursed Woman but the original French is La Femme Damnée. “Femmes Damnées” was the title of a Baudelaire poem from his acclaimed 1857 book Fleurs du mal, which was known, among other things, to be a collection that famously dealt with the subject of lesbians. The poem tells the story of the desires and passionate love between two lesbians: Delphine and Hippolyte. As a result of this poem and of the book as a whole, the terms “fleurs du mal” and “femme damnée” became lesbian monikers of the turn of the century. Though some have deemed the term “damned women” to be accusatory of some moral dissonance, the poem it is derived from is actually quite sympathetic to the condition of lesbian love as it is a love which is unable to fully flourish in that time. Regardless, the translated title of Tassaert’s painting is misleading, as the original French is less accusatory and more identifying. The title is more accurately “the lesbian.”
Save
prismatic-bell: the-invisible-self: pulmonary-poultry: the-spoopy-ghost-of-raejin99: mandalorianreynolds: kuriquinn: prismatic-bell: the-spoopy-ghost-of-raejin99: prismatic-bell: broken-bits-of-dreams: prismatic-bell: aiko-mori-hates-pedos: artbymoga: Throwback to all these Jesus comics I drew in 2012… Good post OP Good post, OP, and if you ever decide to do another may I please suggest “NOT IN HEBREW IT DOESN’T” as a punchline? So much of the Old Testament is HORRIFICALLY translated from the Tanakh, it drives me batty. WAIT WAIT WHAT DOES IT SAY?????? I NEED TO LIKE,, DESTROY MI MUM FOR BEING REALLY HOMOPHOBIC Okay, so, strictly speaking, the infamous Leviticus 18:22 does say “forbidden.” Here’s the thing: 1) The word translated as “forbidden” is “toevah.” While that translation isn’t … wrong, it’s sort of like saying “McMansion” means “really big house.” There are a lot of connotations in that word. The specific issue with toevah is that we … sort of … don’t know anymore exactly what it meant. Based on context, it seems likely that the word referred to something ritually forbidden. This part of Torah was written not only as a guide for future generations, but also to say “so, look around, see your neighbors? DON’T DO THAT.“ Thus, if we interpret “toevah” to mean something that’s forbidden to do as a ritual before G-d, then the verse says nothing whatsoever about Adam and Steve and their two kids and their dog–it’s saying you shouldn’t have sex with another man in the Temple as a sacrifice. 2) Following the same “this is ritually forbidden” logic of toevah, this verse may also be interpreted as “don’t do sex magic,” which was a thing in. Like. A lot of fucking cultures at the time. 3) Hebrew is a highly gendered language, and the grammatical gender in this verse is really really weird. One of the “men” in this verse is given female grammar. Why? Who fucking knows, man, this isn’t the only grammatical oddity in Torah. (There are also places where G-d is referred to as plural, and also as female.) One suggestion is that this is a way of creating a diminutive–that is, that the verse should be read as “a man should not lie with a boy.” Now, it’s worth noting that modern secular scholarship has concluded the written Torah was written down around the 6th century BCE, and most non-Orthodox Jewish scholars are like “yeah, all things considered, that sounds pretty legit.” Do you know what else was happening around the 6th century BCE? What laypeople tend to mean when they say “ancient Greece” was happening. Do you know what happened a lot in that time period in Greece? Dudes forming relationships with younger boys, like ages 10-15, and using them for sex in exchange for financial gifts, mentorship, etc. While we don’t know just how young some of these younger boys may have been, we do know some were prepubescent. In light of this, and also something I mentioned under the first point–”see your neighbors? DON’T DO THAT,” if this verse is interpreted to say “a man should not lie with a boy,” then it’s pretty clearly “my dudes, my fellows, my lads, don’t be fucking pedophiles.” 4) Because of the grammar I mentioned in #3, it’s also possible that “should not lie with a man as with a woman” is actually referring to a place, not an abstract personhood: a man shouldn’t have sex with another man in a woman’s bed. In the time period, a woman’s bed was sort of like–that was her place, her safe sanctuary. It was also a ritually holy place where babies were made. By having sex in her bed, you’re violating her safe space (and also introducing a man who may not be a male relative, thus forcing her into breaking the laws of modesty). If this verse is read this way, then it should be taken to mean “don’t sexually violate a woman’s safety and modesty.”5) And as an offshoot of #4, this may be a second verse relating to infidelity. Which woman’s bed is any random dude in 600 BCE most likely to have access to? His wife’s. But laws were administered differently based on whether the person they pertained to was slave or free, male or female, and so on–thus, a man committing adultery with a woman would be treated differently than man committing adultery with a man (especially because the latter would carry no chance of an illegitimate pregnancy). So you’ll note, there are a lot of ways to read this verse, and only a one-to-one translation with no cultural awareness produces “being gay is wrong, all of the time”.(You’ll also notice the word “abomination” is nowhere to be found. That’s like … a straight-up fiction created for who only knows what reason.) Apparently tumblr mobile doesn’t want to show @prismatic-bell ’s long and in-depth essay, so here’s the screenshots, because it still shows up on mobile browsers: Much appreciated. I love when scholarship and history debunks bullshit …I sadly have more bullshit to report. “removed for violating guidelines”, EVERY screenshot. …goddamnit Let’s try this again I am horrified that @prismatic-bell keeps getting censored + this info is gold. Many thanks, @pulmonary-poultry. This isn’t the only Jewish post of mine that’s mysteriously stopped showing up in searches and/or vanished from my blog entirely, but it is the one I get the most requests to repost, so this saves me from having to rewrite the whole damned essay. @the-invisible-self, thanks for bringing it to my attention that someone was able to preserve the post! : prismatic-bell: the-invisible-self: pulmonary-poultry: the-spoopy-ghost-of-raejin99: mandalorianreynolds: kuriquinn: prismatic-bell: the-spoopy-ghost-of-raejin99: prismatic-bell: broken-bits-of-dreams: prismatic-bell: aiko-mori-hates-pedos: artbymoga: Throwback to all these Jesus comics I drew in 2012… Good post OP Good post, OP, and if you ever decide to do another may I please suggest “NOT IN HEBREW IT DOESN’T” as a punchline? So much of the Old Testament is HORRIFICALLY translated from the Tanakh, it drives me batty. WAIT WAIT WHAT DOES IT SAY?????? I NEED TO LIKE,, DESTROY MI MUM FOR BEING REALLY HOMOPHOBIC Okay, so, strictly speaking, the infamous Leviticus 18:22 does say “forbidden.” Here’s the thing: 1) The word translated as “forbidden” is “toevah.” While that translation isn’t … wrong, it’s sort of like saying “McMansion” means “really big house.” There are a lot of connotations in that word. The specific issue with toevah is that we … sort of … don’t know anymore exactly what it meant. Based on context, it seems likely that the word referred to something ritually forbidden. This part of Torah was written not only as a guide for future generations, but also to say “so, look around, see your neighbors? DON’T DO THAT.“ Thus, if we interpret “toevah” to mean something that’s forbidden to do as a ritual before G-d, then the verse says nothing whatsoever about Adam and Steve and their two kids and their dog–it’s saying you shouldn’t have sex with another man in the Temple as a sacrifice. 2) Following the same “this is ritually forbidden” logic of toevah, this verse may also be interpreted as “don’t do sex magic,” which was a thing in. Like. A lot of fucking cultures at the time. 3) Hebrew is a highly gendered language, and the grammatical gender in this verse is really really weird. One of the “men” in this verse is given female grammar. Why? Who fucking knows, man, this isn’t the only grammatical oddity in Torah. (There are also places where G-d is referred to as plural, and also as female.) One suggestion is that this is a way of creating a diminutive–that is, that the verse should be read as “a man should not lie with a boy.” Now, it’s worth noting that modern secular scholarship has concluded the written Torah was written down around the 6th century BCE, and most non-Orthodox Jewish scholars are like “yeah, all things considered, that sounds pretty legit.” Do you know what else was happening around the 6th century BCE? What laypeople tend to mean when they say “ancient Greece” was happening. Do you know what happened a lot in that time period in Greece? Dudes forming relationships with younger boys, like ages 10-15, and using them for sex in exchange for financial gifts, mentorship, etc. While we don’t know just how young some of these younger boys may have been, we do know some were prepubescent. In light of this, and also something I mentioned under the first point–”see your neighbors? DON’T DO THAT,” if this verse is interpreted to say “a man should not lie with a boy,” then it’s pretty clearly “my dudes, my fellows, my lads, don’t be fucking pedophiles.” 4) Because of the grammar I mentioned in #3, it’s also possible that “should not lie with a man as with a woman” is actually referring to a place, not an abstract personhood: a man shouldn’t have sex with another man in a woman’s bed. In the time period, a woman’s bed was sort of like–that was her place, her safe sanctuary. It was also a ritually holy place where babies were made. By having sex in her bed, you’re violating her safe space (and also introducing a man who may not be a male relative, thus forcing her into breaking the laws of modesty). If this verse is read this way, then it should be taken to mean “don’t sexually violate a woman’s safety and modesty.”5) And as an offshoot of #4, this may be a second verse relating to infidelity. Which woman’s bed is any random dude in 600 BCE most likely to have access to? His wife’s. But laws were administered differently based on whether the person they pertained to was slave or free, male or female, and so on–thus, a man committing adultery with a woman would be treated differently than man committing adultery with a man (especially because the latter would carry no chance of an illegitimate pregnancy). So you’ll note, there are a lot of ways to read this verse, and only a one-to-one translation with no cultural awareness produces “being gay is wrong, all of the time”.(You’ll also notice the word “abomination” is nowhere to be found. That’s like … a straight-up fiction created for who only knows what reason.) Apparently tumblr mobile doesn’t want to show @prismatic-bell ’s long and in-depth essay, so here’s the screenshots, because it still shows up on mobile browsers: Much appreciated. I love when scholarship and history debunks bullshit …I sadly have more bullshit to report. “removed for violating guidelines”, EVERY screenshot. …goddamnit Let’s try this again I am horrified that @prismatic-bell keeps getting censored + this info is gold. Many thanks, @pulmonary-poultry. This isn’t the only Jewish post of mine that’s mysteriously stopped showing up in searches and/or vanished from my blog entirely, but it is the one I get the most requests to repost, so this saves me from having to rewrite the whole damned essay. @the-invisible-self, thanks for bringing it to my attention that someone was able to preserve the post!
Save
libertarirynn: scribblesteph: semituring: meganphntmgrl: spontaneous-purple-giraffe: fakefurby: hottest take Would someone please tell me which war crimes she committed? I don’t think anyone has ever mentioned them to me before and I’d really like to know. Oh, that’s what makes this a TRULY piping hot take. It’s that she, as commander, placed a civilian into combat, which is classified as a war crime because of press ganging and child soldiers, along with the whole general thing about exposing civilians to harm. Like, yeah, generally speaking, inflicting that on someone is a war crime. The trouble is, the civilian she placed in combat? Herself. This guy (and Human Pet Guy) are calling her a war criminal because they’re doing mental somersaults to consider her both a commander and a civilian. At the same time. Yeah. so we’re just stealing our discourse from fifteenth century france huh This blog is pro-Joan of Arc and any antis will be promptly blocked I’m just distracted by the idea of Joan of arc being a “waifu” : libertarirynn: scribblesteph: semituring: meganphntmgrl: spontaneous-purple-giraffe: fakefurby: hottest take Would someone please tell me which war crimes she committed? I don’t think anyone has ever mentioned them to me before and I’d really like to know. Oh, that’s what makes this a TRULY piping hot take. It’s that she, as commander, placed a civilian into combat, which is classified as a war crime because of press ganging and child soldiers, along with the whole general thing about exposing civilians to harm. Like, yeah, generally speaking, inflicting that on someone is a war crime. The trouble is, the civilian she placed in combat? Herself. This guy (and Human Pet Guy) are calling her a war criminal because they’re doing mental somersaults to consider her both a commander and a civilian. At the same time. Yeah. so we’re just stealing our discourse from fifteenth century france huh This blog is pro-Joan of Arc and any antis will be promptly blocked I’m just distracted by the idea of Joan of arc being a “waifu”

libertarirynn: scribblesteph: semituring: meganphntmgrl: spontaneous-purple-giraffe: fakefurby: hottest take Would someone please t...

Save
blackwitchmagicwoman: auroraluciferi: askmace: scholarlyapproach: DON’T LET THIS HAPPEN TO CEREAL!!! Listen in the past the poor have had to improvise cheap food the rich never wanted as a means to survive. And over the many years of innovation made the food taste good until eventually the rich where like: “Oh hay you actually like that garbage? Why on earth would you like it?” Then they try it, love it, start buying it, and then drive the price up so much it becomes a luxury good. They do this and its devastating, the food typically never becomes affordable again. It don’t matter how cheap the foo dis to produce, it doesn’t matter if there is almost no meat on the bone or its super difficult to eat and messy. Once the poor discover how to make some bit of cheap food taste good, the rich take it away via driving the price of it up. THEY DID THIS TO RIBS. Ribs were garage meat. Just look at them, there is hardly any meat on the bone, you have to eat them by hand usually, and they are messy. They where an undesirable cheap source of junk meat. But the poor being the poor made them taste good. (Because they don’t have much to choose from.) The rich discovered the meals the poor made with them and decided they liked ribs too. People discovered they could sell a few ribs to rich people and make way more money then selling lots of ribs to poor people and the price was driven up. DON’T LET THIS HAPPEN TO CEREAL!!! They did the same to brisket.  You used to be able to get brisket for less than a dollar a pound, which meant you could get a twenty pound brisket fairly cheaply.  And then you smoked it, sliced it, and had meat for weeks if not a full month.  And it was tasty.  I grew up eating brisket at least once a month because my family could afford it. It was a cheap meat because no rich person looks at the dangly part of the neck of a cow and goes ‘ooh, that looks tasty!’. But then Food Network started showcasing things like barbecued brisket.  Rich people started showing up at places that weren’t just Rib Crib to get their barbeque.  And the price of brisket went up.  A lot. I regularly see it for over five dollars a pound in stores now.  And while yeah, that might not seem like a lot when you’re talking only a pound or two of meat, brisket is normally sold in ten to twenty pound sizes.  It’s become completely unaffordable to the people that made it delicious. Sushi used to be really cheap, too, until it became ‘trendy’.  Guess why you’re now paying twelve dollars for your order of California rolls?  Because rich people discovered something that poor people had been eating for ages. Noticed the prices of fajita meat, chicken thighs, or ham hocks has gone up recently?  You guessed it.  Rich people are taking our food and now we’re scrambling to afford the things that we grew up eating. Lobster is a perfect example of this phenomenon. For hundreds of years, lobster was regarded as a sort of insect larvae from the depth of the sea. It had zero appeal as a “luxury food” until people living in NY and Boston developed a taste for it. Before the 19th century, it was considered a “poverty food” or used as fertilizer and bait - some household servants specified in employment agreements that they would not eat lobster more than twice a week.It was also commonly served at prisons, which tells you something about prison food. Only by cleverly marketing lobster as an indulgence for the privileged made it cost so much. It became a vehicle for enormous profit spawning a multi-billion dollar global industry in the process. This mythical affection for lobster flesh - not its practical value in terms of taste, nutrition, or any other reasonable consideration - drives its value. LMAO. Wait. : blackwitchmagicwoman: auroraluciferi: askmace: scholarlyapproach: DON’T LET THIS HAPPEN TO CEREAL!!! Listen in the past the poor have had to improvise cheap food the rich never wanted as a means to survive. And over the many years of innovation made the food taste good until eventually the rich where like: “Oh hay you actually like that garbage? Why on earth would you like it?” Then they try it, love it, start buying it, and then drive the price up so much it becomes a luxury good. They do this and its devastating, the food typically never becomes affordable again. It don’t matter how cheap the foo dis to produce, it doesn’t matter if there is almost no meat on the bone or its super difficult to eat and messy. Once the poor discover how to make some bit of cheap food taste good, the rich take it away via driving the price of it up. THEY DID THIS TO RIBS. Ribs were garage meat. Just look at them, there is hardly any meat on the bone, you have to eat them by hand usually, and they are messy. They where an undesirable cheap source of junk meat. But the poor being the poor made them taste good. (Because they don’t have much to choose from.) The rich discovered the meals the poor made with them and decided they liked ribs too. People discovered they could sell a few ribs to rich people and make way more money then selling lots of ribs to poor people and the price was driven up. DON’T LET THIS HAPPEN TO CEREAL!!! They did the same to brisket.  You used to be able to get brisket for less than a dollar a pound, which meant you could get a twenty pound brisket fairly cheaply.  And then you smoked it, sliced it, and had meat for weeks if not a full month.  And it was tasty.  I grew up eating brisket at least once a month because my family could afford it. It was a cheap meat because no rich person looks at the dangly part of the neck of a cow and goes ‘ooh, that looks tasty!’. But then Food Network started showcasing things like barbecued brisket.  Rich people started showing up at places that weren’t just Rib Crib to get their barbeque.  And the price of brisket went up.  A lot. I regularly see it for over five dollars a pound in stores now.  And while yeah, that might not seem like a lot when you’re talking only a pound or two of meat, brisket is normally sold in ten to twenty pound sizes.  It’s become completely unaffordable to the people that made it delicious. Sushi used to be really cheap, too, until it became ‘trendy’.  Guess why you’re now paying twelve dollars for your order of California rolls?  Because rich people discovered something that poor people had been eating for ages. Noticed the prices of fajita meat, chicken thighs, or ham hocks has gone up recently?  You guessed it.  Rich people are taking our food and now we’re scrambling to afford the things that we grew up eating. Lobster is a perfect example of this phenomenon. For hundreds of years, lobster was regarded as a sort of insect larvae from the depth of the sea. It had zero appeal as a “luxury food” until people living in NY and Boston developed a taste for it. Before the 19th century, it was considered a “poverty food” or used as fertilizer and bait - some household servants specified in employment agreements that they would not eat lobster more than twice a week.It was also commonly served at prisons, which tells you something about prison food. Only by cleverly marketing lobster as an indulgence for the privileged made it cost so much. It became a vehicle for enormous profit spawning a multi-billion dollar global industry in the process. This mythical affection for lobster flesh - not its practical value in terms of taste, nutrition, or any other reasonable consideration - drives its value. LMAO. Wait.

blackwitchmagicwoman: auroraluciferi: askmace: scholarlyapproach: DON’T LET THIS HAPPEN TO CEREAL!!! Listen in the past the poor have...

Save
feniczoroark: injuries-in-dust: sewickedthread: coredesignixandnekonee: the-real-numbers: ilfaitdusoleil: bigwordsandsharpedges: Ball lightning is a rare electrical phenomenon. Scientists aren’t certain what creates it, and once disputed that ball lighning existed at all. Some argued that it was simply the electromagnetic field of an electrical storm causing visual hallucinations by exciting neurons in the brain, an effect called transcranial magnetic stimulation. However, recent high-definition video proved that at least some instances must be a real physical effect. Spectrograpic analysis of this images suggests that ball lightning is made of vaporized silicon contained within a self-contained electromagnetic bubble, effectively making a naturally occurring electric arc lamp. Laboratory experiments successfully replicated the glowing ball of plasma, which hovered for several seconds. Unfortunately, other lab experiments create similar visual effects using wildly different methods, including electrically-excited nanoparticles, water shocked by capacitors to simulate lightning, and a bubble of ionized gas fuelled for many seconds by a vast atmospheric energy field. The varying size of that energy-pumping field would conveniently explain the unpredictable size, duration, and electrical power levels observed in ball lightning. So we’re still not sure what that thing in the video really is, but it may be possible to create something like that in a dozen different ways. I would lose my mind like a 15th century peasant if I saw this walking down the street Me crossing the street Willow wisps? Joe Baldwin, is that you? Some historical instances of seeing g angels are now believed to have been ancient people encountering ball lighting. Don’t move, don’t shoot it, stay against the wall Artjom don’t move. : TikTok danojok86 JTikTok @snejok86 feniczoroark: injuries-in-dust: sewickedthread: coredesignixandnekonee: the-real-numbers: ilfaitdusoleil: bigwordsandsharpedges: Ball lightning is a rare electrical phenomenon. Scientists aren’t certain what creates it, and once disputed that ball lighning existed at all. Some argued that it was simply the electromagnetic field of an electrical storm causing visual hallucinations by exciting neurons in the brain, an effect called transcranial magnetic stimulation. However, recent high-definition video proved that at least some instances must be a real physical effect. Spectrograpic analysis of this images suggests that ball lightning is made of vaporized silicon contained within a self-contained electromagnetic bubble, effectively making a naturally occurring electric arc lamp. Laboratory experiments successfully replicated the glowing ball of plasma, which hovered for several seconds. Unfortunately, other lab experiments create similar visual effects using wildly different methods, including electrically-excited nanoparticles, water shocked by capacitors to simulate lightning, and a bubble of ionized gas fuelled for many seconds by a vast atmospheric energy field. The varying size of that energy-pumping field would conveniently explain the unpredictable size, duration, and electrical power levels observed in ball lightning. So we’re still not sure what that thing in the video really is, but it may be possible to create something like that in a dozen different ways. I would lose my mind like a 15th century peasant if I saw this walking down the street Me crossing the street Willow wisps? Joe Baldwin, is that you? Some historical instances of seeing g angels are now believed to have been ancient people encountering ball lighting. Don’t move, don’t shoot it, stay against the wall Artjom don’t move.
Save
how programming languages got their names: y @TheStrangeRoots How programming languages got their names Bash Clojure The creator wanted to include the letter 'c' (C#), 'I (Lisp) and 'j' (Java) and liked that it was a pun on 'closure! The word 'closure, the act of closing, comes from the Latin 'clausūra' stemming from' clauděre' which means 'to shut or close! Bash is an acronym for Bourne-again Shell, a pun on the Bourne Shell - named after creator Stephen Bourne - being "born again". 'Bash' is also a verb meaning 'to strike with a heavy blow', possibly from the Danish 'baske' meaning 'to beat, strike! Quite simply C got its name because it was preceded by a programming language called B.C spawned its own children including C++ and C#.It is the third letter in the English alphabet and was originally identical to the Greek letter 'Gamma', Java Go Elixir The name Java was the result of a highly- caffeinated brainstorming session. Java, or 'Jawa' in Indonesian, is the name of a large island in Indonesia that produces strong, dark and sweet coffee. It has been a slang term for coffee in the United States since the 1800s. One of the Google developers said the name Go, sometime referred to as Golang, was chosen because it was 'short and easy to type' The word 'go, meaning 'to travel or go somewhere' stems from the Old High German 'gan' (to go). The word 'elixir', meaning a potion or essence that prolongs life or preserves something, stems from the Arabic 'al-ikst' via the late Greek 'xerion', a powder for drying wounds. Appeared in Middle English from the 14th century. Java JavaScript Kotlin Perl Originally named Mocha, a type of fine quality coffee, it was later renamed JavaScript, combining Java, US slang for coffee, + 'Script, 'something that is written' from the Latin 'scriptum, 'a set of written words or writing. Inspired by Java, it was named after Kotlin Island in Russia. Originally called Kettusaari by the Finns ('fox island') and Ketlingen by the Swedes, (maybe stemming from 'kettel' meaning 'cauldron'). After Russia won control of the island in 1703 it was Initially named Pearl, the alternative spelling was adopted as the name was already taken. It comes from the Middle French 'perle 'meaning 'bead' or 'something valuable' and the Latin 'perna' meaning 'leg, also a mollusc shaped like a leg of mutton. JS renamed 'Kotling' then 'Kotlin. PHP Python Ris named partly after the first names of the first two R authors (Ross Ihaka and Robert Gentleman) and partly as a play on the name of S, itss parent langauge. It is the 18th letter in the alphabet and derives from the Greek letter 'Rho' php Originally known as Personal Home Page Construction Kit, this was later shortened to just PHP (an acronym for Personal Home Page). It is now accepted as the initials for PHP: Hypertext Preprocessor. Creator Guido van Rossum named Python after TV comedy Monty Python's Flying Circus. The word 'python' comes from the ancient Greek 'Puthón, the name of a huge serpent killed by the god Apollo. Later adopted as a generic term for non- poisonous snakes that constrict their prey. Ruby Scala Rust Influenced by Perl, the developer chose a colleague's birthstone which followed it in the monthly sequence (June is Pearl, Ruby is July). Ruby comes from the Old French 'rubi', a 'reddish precious stone', and the Latin 'rubeus, 'red'. Rust's name comes from a fungus that is robust, distributed, and parallel. It is also a substring of robust. Rust, also the reddish coating formed on oxidized metal, stems from the German 'rost' and possibly the Indo-European base of 'red. Scala is a combination of the first letters of 'scalable' and 'language! It is also the Italian word for 'stairway', as it helps users to ascend to a better language. The logo is also an abstraction of a staircase or steps. SQL Swift TypeScript SQL Originating from the shortcomings of JavaScript, hence the similarility of the name. Its name combines 'Type', meaning a kind or class (from the Greek 'tuptein' 'to strike'), with 'Script, 'something that is written' from the Latin 'scriptum'. First called "Structured English Query Language" (SEQUEL), pronounced "sequel", it was a pun that it was the sequel to QUEL. It was later shortened to SQL. The word 'sequel' stems from the Latin 'sequela' from 'sequr' meaning 'to follow. The word 'swift' means 'moving with great speed or velocity' and can be traced back to the prehistoric 'swipt' meaning to 'move in a sweeping manner'. The swallow-like bird became known as a swift from the 17th century and is used as the language's logo. TS how programming languages got their names

how programming languages got their names

Save
skitpost: final project for my jewish studies class ! the assignment was to answer the question, “WHAT IS JEWISH ART?” after spending the semester studying jewish artists from the 20th century, so here are my thoughts on the intersection of art and identity. goyim can interact w this post but don’t clown in the comments thx : WHAT IS JEWISH ART? El DOES THAT MAKE ALL OF My ART "JE WISH ART"? I AM AN ARTIST. I AM A JEW. | HOPE NOT. I K NOW THAT THESÉ ARE NOT "JE WISH ART"; EVEN THOUGH I, A JEWISH ARTIST, MADE THEM. Bur i STILL DbONT kNow WHAT MAKES "JE WISH ART " JEWISH. 64:ME B4i ME 00 BY:ME BUT WHAT IF ITs NOT! RECOGNIZABLE I CAN MAKE My ART JEWISH ON PURPOSE, To My VIEWERS? B4: ME WHAT IF ONLY I SEE IT AS JEWISH ART, AND NO BOby ELSE DOES? IS IT STILL JEWISH ART? AND WHEN I MAKE my ART JEWISH ON PURPOSE, WHAT IS IT THATI DO TO MAKE IT JEWISH? WHAT'S JEWISH ABOUT JEWISH ART! A GROUPS CULTURE IS VERY DEPENDANT ON ITS LOCATION OF ORIGIN, So WHAT UNIFIES A GROUP WHOSE ORIGINS HAVE BEEN LERASED WHEN YOU SPEND YOUR WHOTE HISTDRY RUNNING, WHERE DO YOU COME FROM? SURVIVAL REQUIRES ADAPTATION, AND you NEVER KNOW *WHEN BEING IPENTIFIABLY JEWISH IS DANGEROUS, so JEWISH ART IS CLOAKED IN THE I THINK THE COMMON THREAD IN JEWISH ART IS THAT THERE ISNT ONE. WORLD IN WHICH IT WAS CREATED THE ONLY TRADITION TO JEWISH ART IS THAT THERE IS NONE. IF AN ART PIECE ISNT IMMEDIATELY EXPUCITLY JEWISH, ITS JEWISHNESS IS UNIQUE TO EVERY VIEWER. АД AND SO JEWISH ART IS DEFINED BY ITS INA BILITY TO BE DEFINED, A PAR ADOX THAT RAISES MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS. BUT THAT SOUNDS PRETTY JEWISH TO ME. SO IF AN ART PIELE MAKES You ASK, 0"IS THIS JEWISHART? 1IT SURE AS HELL MIGHT BE. THE MOST JEWISH ANSWER TO A QUESTION IS ANOTHER QUESTION. BUT IF IT MAKES YOu ASK "WHAT MAKES JE WISH ART JEWISH?" WHAT ENISH ART? WHAT'S JEWISH ABDUT JEWISH ARTS T.ALMOŞT CERTAINLY IS JEWISH? NOT. skitpost: final project for my jewish studies class ! the assignment was to answer the question, “WHAT IS JEWISH ART?” after spending the semester studying jewish artists from the 20th century, so here are my thoughts on the intersection of art and identity. goyim can interact w this post but don’t clown in the comments thx

skitpost: final project for my jewish studies class ! the assignment was to answer the question, “WHAT IS JEWISH ART?” after spending th...

Save
ao3tagoftheday: ao3tagoftheday: [Image Description: Tag reading “a blend between a religious vision and a sex dream I guess”] The AO3 Tag of the Day is: This is a callout post for every single medieval mystic, but especially for Catherine of Siena, who had a vision of Jesus giving her his foreskin as a wedding ring [Image Description: Ask reading “Jesus’ WHAT now as WHAT”]Here, my friend, is an excerpt from a letter written by Catherine of Siena, a real, actual saint whose visions are considered by the real, actual Catholic Church to be really, actually divinely inspired:You see very well that you are a bride and that [Jesus] has espoused you … and not with a ring of silver but with a ring of his own flesh. Look at the tender little child who on the eighth day, when he was circumcised, gave up just so much flesh as to make a tiny circlet of a ring!For the record, this woman contributed to the development of a major schism in the 14th century, one which radically changed the geopolitics of Europe and created the conditions that led to the Reformation. Never doubt your ability to change the world, friends. Literally anyone can.: a blend between a religious vision and a sex dream guess, ...... ............." ao3tagoftheday: ao3tagoftheday: [Image Description: Tag reading “a blend between a religious vision and a sex dream I guess”] The AO3 Tag of the Day is: This is a callout post for every single medieval mystic, but especially for Catherine of Siena, who had a vision of Jesus giving her his foreskin as a wedding ring [Image Description: Ask reading “Jesus’ WHAT now as WHAT”]Here, my friend, is an excerpt from a letter written by Catherine of Siena, a real, actual saint whose visions are considered by the real, actual Catholic Church to be really, actually divinely inspired:You see very well that you are a bride and that [Jesus] has espoused you … and not with a ring of silver but with a ring of his own flesh. Look at the tender little child who on the eighth day, when he was circumcised, gave up just so much flesh as to make a tiny circlet of a ring!For the record, this woman contributed to the development of a major schism in the 14th century, one which radically changed the geopolitics of Europe and created the conditions that led to the Reformation. Never doubt your ability to change the world, friends. Literally anyone can.
Save
averypottermormon: solitics: tielan: monsterpeanut: monsterpeanut: monsterpeanut: redsuns-n-orangemoons: kwamenace: bleck-excellence: pharoah-tahan: alwaysbewoke: History books always seem to leave this out. Don’t let them tell you that slaves are our only history. When black people ruled the world History repeats itself And who said moors weren’t black? These are fantastic who painted these???GOOGLE HALP EDIT: ludwig deutsch <3 yaaay Look at those fucking details!!! Look how he makes the light bounce off of the skin, the eyes not pure white but reflecting the colors. Each and every FUCKING CHAIN is painted and highlighted.The folding of the fabric aaaaaaaaaaa I’ve reblogged this before.I DON’T CARE. they look like photographs i thought they were : Naeem +2 @naeem_V 19th century oil paintings of North African medieval Muslims (Moors) who conquered Spain, France, and Sicily. Nww.youhuaua com averypottermormon: solitics: tielan: monsterpeanut: monsterpeanut: monsterpeanut: redsuns-n-orangemoons: kwamenace: bleck-excellence: pharoah-tahan: alwaysbewoke: History books always seem to leave this out. Don’t let them tell you that slaves are our only history. When black people ruled the world History repeats itself And who said moors weren’t black? These are fantastic who painted these???GOOGLE HALP EDIT: ludwig deutsch <3 yaaay Look at those fucking details!!! Look how he makes the light bounce off of the skin, the eyes not pure white but reflecting the colors. Each and every FUCKING CHAIN is painted and highlighted.The folding of the fabric aaaaaaaaaaa I’ve reblogged this before.I DON’T CARE. they look like photographs i thought they were
Save