mike’s hard problem of consciousness
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open
cherry valley forever

pixel skylines
Sweet Seals For You, Always
almost home
Not today Justin
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH

titsay
The Bowery Presents

Love Begins

PR's Tumblrdome
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸

bliss lane
NASA
𓃗
Sade Olutola
Monterey Bay Aquarium
sheepfilms
macklin celebrini has autism
noise dept.
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Germany

seen from Thailand
seen from Vietnam

seen from France

seen from Malaysia

seen from United States
seen from Switzerland
seen from Argentina

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from T1
seen from United States

seen from Malaysia

seen from United States
seen from China
seen from Vietnam

seen from United States

seen from India
@shocked--kwarrtz
mike’s hard problem of consciousness

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
The first (and to some extent only) rule you learn about Japanese word order is that the verb goes at the end of the sentence, but in conversational speech even this gets broken fairly often. It's pretty common to hear a clause like "watashi wa" or "kore" put at the end of a sentence, after the verb. In the rare cases this is mentioned at all in learning materials I've read, it's usually explained away as an ungrammaticalized aberration. People don't form full sentences in their head ahead of time before they start speaking, so sometimes you think of something out of order and have to tack it on as a kind of errata. You hear this in English too, and probably every language, where an incomplete clause will be said as an afterthought. And so I'm sure that does explain some instances of this in Japanese, but I don't think it can be the whole story, for a couple reasons. It often gets used in very rapid and fluent speech, with no discernible pause between the suffix clause and the rest of sentence, in a way that sounds more like an intentional construction than an afterthought. It's also used in set phrases that are too short and common (e.g. "nani kore" = "what's this") for it to be possible that the speaker got lost while forming it and had to correct themselves. So this really does seem like a grammaticalized pattern to me, at least in some cases.
But what's it doing exactly? I'm not nearly proficient enough to say with any confidence, and it strikes me as the kind of thing that probably has multiple subtle uses anyway, but I do have a theory for at least one of them. I've noticed that people seem to do this most often (a) with pronouns (by which I mean words serving a pronomial semantic function, since Japanese doesn't really distinguish pronouns as a grammatical class), and (b) in emotionally inflected contexts, especially when acting humorously or theatrically upset. Japanese is a very elision-heavy language in general, any clause that can be inferred from context can almost always be dropped, so pronouns, by their nature of being largely placeholders, are actually pretty rarely used compared to a language like English. Sentences that do specify pronouns explicitly can end up sounding plain, or a bit stiff and formal. But of course, sometimes you really do need to disambiguate this vs that, me vs you, or maybe you want to include the pronoun as a way of adding emphasis to the thing being indicated. So, I wonder if part of the point of this construction is that it gives you a way to add back explicit pronouns in contexts where the standard method of doing that would carry the wrong emotional nuance.
So this is "right-dislocation", where it looks (on the surface, at least) like some element of the sentence has been moved off to the end of the sentence, and it's certainly very colloquial and also certainly nowhere near marginal enough to be just ungrammatical performance error. The overall syntactic view at the moment seems to be that there are really two different constructions masquerading as one, where the difference is, basically, whether there's case marking—が, を, に, etc. (but not は or も!)—on the dislocated element. And the ones that you're talking about in your examples are the ones without case marking, so I'll talk about those first.
... I said just a moment ago that they weren't just ungrammatical error, but from the viewpoint where we have two different constructions going on, these ones with the bare dislocate are kind of... swept under the rug, syntactically. We mostly treat them as being fragments related to the main clause just by context and apposition. This doesn't have to mean that they're erroneous or unplanned; they could be following a productive lexical schema (e.g. 何 + Dem-NP), or they could be chosen for various pragmatic reasons. They're not really used to disambiguate between genuinely plausible alternatives—you only typically see them (outside of recognised formulas) when the fragment is already highly given—これ, それ, 私, etc.—but you're right that they're an anti-focused way of securing a reference that might not land 100% as clearly as it should, or sometimes of re-pointing at the referent after front-loading the emphatic part of the sentence. And another reason you might use them is just to lengthen the utterance, maybe to soften it a touch, or maybe to give the other person a bit more time to be ready for their turn. (Japanese, of course, devotes a good bit more explicit attention to turn-taking than other languages.)
The other kind, with overt case marking, is rarer and more involved. There seems to be more deep structure present—dislocations out of relative clauses for example are perfectly acceptable without the case marker, but become awkward to receive if the case marker is there:
"Tarou wants to know if Hanako has read it (the book Lectures on Government and Binding)."
太郎が花子が読んだかどうか知りがっているよ、LGB (fine)
太郎が花子が読んだかどうか知りがっているよ、?LGBを (weird!)
Also this form of right-dislocation permits negative polarity items such as しか, suggesting that the dislocated item is still in some deep structure with a negation in the local clause:
"Tarou hasn't read any of it (except Lectures on Government and Binding)."
太郎が読まなかったよ、LGBしか (fine!)
There are various arguments about what's underlying all of this, ranging from "an element has moved rightwards syntactically" (extremely rare and maybe impossible in Japanese; people really don't like this) to "the sentence is syntactically normal but an element is being delayed at pronunciation time" (well, it explains a bit too much) to "the element is the only pronounced part of a full duplicate of the preceding sentence" (actually not that uncommon of an approach).
Regardless, the function of these is more like the genuine case where you're repairing the sentence with some piece of information you've just now decided was relevant or needed to be made explicit.
Which is a little bit strange just intuitively, right? You've got this weird syntactic fussiness in a post-hoc repair operation that you don't have when you're making a deliberate callback to something established in the conversation. But self-corrections are very frequently analysed as having this structure, of a fully built-up syntax that duplicates what you just said but is left mostly unpronounced. And really it's the case that, from the perspective of the brain, extra syntax is cheap, and context clues are expensive. So of course it'd reach for the former when you realise split-second that something has to be fixed, and for the latter when you're trying to go for deliberate social function.
>< stepbro what are you doing that's my dominant pole ><
>< stepbro please! you're altering my damping coefficient! ><
The first (and to some extent only) rule you learn about Japanese word order is that the verb goes at the end of the sentence, but in conversational speech even this gets broken fairly often. It's pretty common to hear a clause like "watashi wa" or "kore" put at the end of a sentence, after the verb. In the rare cases this is mentioned at all in learning materials I've read, it's usually explained away as an ungrammaticalized aberration. People don't form full sentences in their head ahead of time before they start speaking, so sometimes you think of something out of order and have to tack it on as a kind of errata. You hear this in English too, and probably every language, where an incomplete clause will be said as an afterthought. And so I'm sure that does explain some instances of this in Japanese, but I don't think it can be the whole story, for a couple reasons. It often gets used in very rapid and fluent speech, with no discernible pause between the suffix clause and the rest of sentence, in a way that sounds more like an intentional construction than an afterthought. It's also used in set phrases that are too short and common (e.g. "nani kore" = "what's this") for it to be possible that the speaker got lost while forming it and had to correct themselves. So this really does seem like a grammaticalized pattern to me, at least in some cases.
But what's it doing exactly? I'm not nearly proficient enough to say with any confidence, and it strikes me as the kind of thing that probably has multiple subtle uses anyway, but I do have a theory for at least one of them. I've noticed that people seem to do this most often (a) with pronouns (by which I mean words serving a pronomial semantic function, since Japanese doesn't really distinguish pronouns as a grammatical class), and (b) in emotionally inflected contexts, especially when acting humorously or theatrically upset. Japanese is a very elision-heavy language in general, any clause that can be inferred from context can almost always be dropped, so pronouns, by their nature of being largely placeholders, are actually pretty rarely used compared to a language like English. Sentences that do specify pronouns explicitly can end up sounding plain, or a bit stiff and formal. But of course, sometimes you really do need to disambiguate this vs that, me vs you, or maybe you want to include the pronoun as a way of adding emphasis to the thing being indicated. So, I wonder if part of the point of this construction is that it gives you a way to add back explicit pronouns in contexts where the standard method of doing that would carry the wrong emotional nuance.

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
reading about south africas nuclear program is so funny because every other country is like "here is our factory for turning out interchangable implosion bombs" whereas the south african one was like "we have six bombs. they are all bad"
The criticality test was apparently performed by hand, by a researcher holding a meter stick with the fissile projectile attached to the other end, slowly pushing it into the target mass. The actual projectile and target mass from an actual functional warhead, to be clear. Don't worry though! There was a piece of steel placed inside to stop them inserting it too far, so all good.
On the Roman rams we can read traces of officialdom: ‘Lucius Quinctius the son of Gaius, the quaestor, approved this ram.’ On the one surviving inscribed Carthaginian ram, we read: ‘We pray to Baal that this ram will go into this enemy ship and make a big hole.’
must admit I am with the Carthaginians on this one
A few years ago I was at a welcome party for the new students in our department and one of them was complaining about how she’d been ubering to campus during orientation because of the lack of good transit options. So, as one of the few people there with a car I offered to drive her home, then immediately realized “wait, I’m suggesting driving this girl I only just met 20 min back to her apartment, alone, at like 11 pm” and started tacking on some hasty qualifiers and “if it wouldn’t bother you”s and so on. I don’t even remember exactly what I said. I do remember her response though, which was a look of genuine, oblivious confusion followed by “uh… I mean, if it’s not a bother to you then yeah that’d be awesome.” And in that moment I was reminded ah right, dumb internet discourse isn’t real life. It’s actually not normal for members of the opposite gender to be eternally uneasy and on-guard around each other. And yes, anyone who tells you otherwise is not your friend.
if i could give one piece of advice to newly transitioning trans men, it's that it's 100% possible to find a community of people (including women!) who don't treat you as a threat, and the people trying to convince you otherwise are not your friends

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Three Robert Tinney artworks, available as Intusoft wallpapers. Not sure when Intusoft comissioned or bought them... early 90s perhaps.
I've finally had enough time now talking to Fable about physics (the most intellectually demanding task I use LLMs for and so a useful benchmark) to have formed some real opinions. Opus 4.6 blew me away because it was the first model I felt was actually useful for trying to understand deep conceptual questions, but it still couldn't really one-shot hard explanations. It's first attempt would usually either be correct but surface-level or contain subtle errors or omissions. I had to iterate with it and push hard on things that didn't make sense to me to really get somewhere, but in the process it would sometimes get confused and start going in circles. It often seemed to struggle to identify the actual core of my question or confusion (even though it would act like it had) and would vacillate between being overly reductive and nitpicking or "clarifying" supposed misunderstandings that I really don't feel were anything of the sort. Again, as I said, it was impressively useful, but it was also clearly not of human intelligence, more like a very knowledgeable wall to bounce ideas off of. Even though the conversations were structured with me as the student and it as the teacher, I usually ended up feeling like I'd done the lion's share of the actual intellectual labor, so to speak. (So no different from undergrad I guess, har-har.)
Fable... is very different. I don't think I've spotted a single genuine mistake it's made so far. Not to say there've been none; I ask it about things I'm trying to understand, not things I'm already an expert in, so I could certainly have missed things. But still, even with unfamiliar topics, lack of understanding comes in many forms. There's a spectrum of sensations from "something about that really doesn't seem right" to "I'm probably just not following." Opus was very often the former, Fable has been almost entirely the latter. In most respects, talking to it has felt hard to distinguish from talking to actual humans who are experts in my field (except that they're rarely as eloquent). The sense that I'm a student being taught is suddenly much less superficial.
higgledy piggledy wily topologists keep an alchemical hold on each thing
whereby they may with their homeomorphisms alter a coffee cup into a ring
higgledy piggledy why do topologists use their alchemical charms just to bore us
rather than via their homeomorphisms alter a coffee cup into a torus
Coffee cups are solid anyway (unless you have one of the fancy vacuum walled kinds) so they really are homotopy equivalent to a ring, not a torus (though homeomorphic to neither)
Mildly nerdsniped thinking about fancy vacuum walled coffee mugs. The ones I've held are hollow in the cup part, but handle itself isn't hollow. So that would be homotopy equivalent to... a sphere with an annulus stapled on? This is stressing me out, are you allowed to staple 1-D circles onto 2-D spheres? Help?
Yeah, that’s totally a totally fine topological space (and a CW complex), it’s just not a manifold
higgledy piggledy wily topologists keep an alchemical hold on each thing
whereby they may with their homeomorphisms alter a coffee cup into a ring
higgledy piggledy why do topologists use their alchemical charms just to bore us
rather than via their homeomorphisms alter a coffee cup into a torus
Coffee cups are solid anyway (unless you have one of the fancy vacuum walled kinds) so they really are homotopy equivalent to a ring, not a torus (though homeomorphic to neither)

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Every new anime about a girl that's not typically feminine but deep down wishes she could be a good and submissive wife/girlfriend or a woman that's outwardly unconventional but a good and submissive wife/girlfriend to her husband/boyfriend brings me one step closer to becoming the 女禍.
The Japanese /r/ is so fucked. Wikipedia tells me it has a wide range of phonetic realizations in practice, but afaict the most common one in the standard dialect is like… a lateral post-alveolar tap? You have to aim for like the exact centroid of the English /r/, /l/, and /d/, then make it really short. Maybe throw a bit of /n/ in there too, because Japanese just loves nasalizing things. My tongue objects to being asked to do it very strongly.
Actually, saying it once is fine. It’s repeated /r/s, at full Japanese phoneme production rate, which I have complaints about.
By the way, does anyone know where I could find the individual responsible for the -rareru construction? For no particular reason.