Contoh speech text

Text-To-Speech

2013.09.13 21:23 sirmentio Text-To-Speech

Discussion about text-to-speech engines, virtual assistants, and related topics.

[link]

2012.02.10 19:51 skyroof_hilltop 😎HAHA DAE MINIONS!!!😎

Community for all those terrible memes your uncle posts on facebook

[link]

2008.12.19 21:11 Confess your secrets

Get that nasty secret off your chest or simply use this as a place to vent. See the unfiltered opinions of strangers.

[link]

2024.05.18 21:18 Definition_Novel Vytautas Montvila: the Lithuanian Diaspora’s true unsung hero.

In the age of current mass glorification via media from Lithuania and the United States of diaspora Lithuanian fascists like Adolfas Ramanauskas (Ramanauskas was born in New Britain, Connecticut, USA and later moved to Lithuania, later collaborating with Nazis during their invasion) or Lithuanian exile fascists like Jonas Mekas, few diaspora Lithuanians remember the names of revolutionary socialist Lithuanian diaspora heroes like Vytautas Montvila or Antanas Bimba. Antanas Bimba was a Lithuanian involved in the early American Communist movement, and a post will be made for him sometime later. As for the story of Montvila, It is up to Lithuanians everywhere to give this man his credit as a hero and martyr against fascism. Vytautas was born to to an ethnic Lithuanian Catholic immigrant family in 1902 in the city of St. Charles, Illinois. His family, like many Lithuanian immigrants to America at the time, left Lithuania due to persecution by czarist Russian Empire authorities, whom sought to ban Lithuanian language as well as restrict the Catholic Church in favor of Orthodoxy. This persecution under czarism caused many minorities, particularly ethnic Lithuanian Catholics and Lithuanian Jews, to move often to the United States, Canada, or South American nations. In 1906, he and his family returned to Lithuania, moving to the city of Marijampolė. The family later moved to Degučiai, then a Marijampolė suburb.
As Vytautas grew older, between the years of 1922-26 he joined the Kėdainiai Teacher’s Seminary. It was somewhat of a social club for study, covering a wide range of topics, such as science, culture, atheism, and philosophy. Members were of various political parties, but it was here Vytautas became acquainted with local Communist activists and gained entry into the wider movement. The communists at these meetings often discussed Marxist theory, offered to share sections of the Communist Manifesto, and recruited members into local Worker’s Guilds.
In 1923, he began writing his early poetry, often revolutionary in nature and influenced by avant-garde style. In his most famous poem, “Naktys be Nakvynės” (ENG: “Nights Without Accommodation”), written early in his career, he champions revolutionary socialism and personifies art of poetry as a tool for revolution. His later work from 1940-41 reflects the new Soviet period, condemns the reactionary past, hoping towards a socialist future in Lithuania. These later poems were influenced heavily by the works of fellow Soviet poet V. Mayakovsky, whose works Montvila enjoyed. These later works by Montvila were of a topical oratorical style, and he is credited often with having laid the foundation for other Lithuanian Soviet poets at the time. Montvila also wrote short stories and portions of novels. Among other feats, he translated the novel “Mother” by fellow Soviet writer Maxim Gorky, from Russian into Lithuanian, as well as translated the writer Émile Zola’s novel “The Collapse” from its original French into Lithuanian.
He shortly then studied in the Faculty of Humanities at the University of Lithuania (Today, Vytautas Magnus University in Kaunas).
Following his departure from university, he began a life fully committed to revolutionary socialist activism. In 1929, in an effort to organizationally unify leftist writers against the bourgeoisie, he published the revolutionary almanac “Raketa” (ENG: “Rocket.”) For this, he was imprisoned from his arrest in 1929 to 1931. During 1935, he moved back to Marijampolė, and published the “Skardas” (ENG: “Tin”) worker’s newspaper for the Communist faction of the Lithuanian Social Democratic Party. He also published other socialist newspapers, titled “Darbas” (ENG: “Work”), “Kultūra” (ENG: “Culture”), “Aušrine” (ENG: “Dawn”), and “Prošvaistė” (ENG: “The Light”) for various leftist organizations. He simultaneously worked odd jobs to add to his livelihood.
Upon establishment of the Soviet Lithuanian government in 1940, Montvila, like many leftist Lithuanian citizens, was thrilled and ready for change, having been oppressed in a society previously plagued by issues such as anti-communism, rural serfdom, clerical fascism, anti-Semitism, and capitalist exploitation of all of the working people of Lithuania. Vytautas dedicated specialized time to working with Soviet authorities to publish and translate revolutionary texts from various authors, as well as delivering his own revolutionary pro-Soviet speeches. He continued this into 1941, the final year of his life.
Upon the Nazi invasion of Lithuania in mid-1941, he was captured by local collaborators and Gestapo. According to documents, he did not run or resist, rather instead defiantly, in true revolutionary martyr manner, insulted his captors. He was taken prisoner to the 9th Fort in Kaunas, where he was executed, being shot to death on July 19th, 1941, killed alongside many other Jewish and leftist victims of Nazi and collaborator fascist terror. To leftists who are aware of his heroism and revolutionary martyrdom, he is often compared to fellow revolutionary and Spanish poet F. Garcia Lorca, a leftist whom was executed by the Francoists. Vytautas, Lorca, and all revolutionaries shall be remembered forever. May we remember Vytautas Montvila, a hero to all Lithuanians, but especially to Lithuanians in the diaspora! Remember Vytautas Montvila, both uniquely a hero to Lithuanian-Americans, and the people of Lithuania!

submitted by Definition_Novel to TheDeprogram [link] [comments]

2024.05.18 21:07 fintech07 How to Enable ChatGPT4 Voice to Voice on Phone

Enabling ChatGPT-4's voice-to-voice feature on your phone involves setting up and using voice input and output functionalities to interact with the model. Here’s a detailed guide on how to do it:
Step 1: Installing the ChatGPT App

Download the ChatGPT App:
- Android: Go to the Google Play Store and search for "ChatGPT". Download and install the app by OpenAI.
- iOS: Go to the App Store and search for "ChatGPT". Download and install the app by OpenAI.

Step 2: Setting Up Voice Input

Open the ChatGPT App:
- Launch the app on your phone.
Enable Voice Input:
- Tap on the microphone icon (usually located on the text input field) to start voice input.
- Grant the app permission to access your microphone if prompted.
Using Voice Input:
- Tap the microphone icon and speak your query or message.
- The app will transcribe your speech into text and process it as a normal text input.

Step 3: Enabling Voice Output

Settings Configuration:
- Open the app's settings (often found in a menu or gear icon).
- Look for an option like “Voice Settings” or “Speech Output”.
Enable Text-to-Speech (TTS):
- Ensure that Text-to-Speech is enabled. This setting allows the app to read out the responses.
Choosing a Voice:
- Some apps allow you to select different voices. Choose the voice you prefer for the TTS.

Step 4: Using Voice-to-Voice Interaction

Start a Conversation:
- Tap the microphone icon, speak your question, and let the app process your input.
Listening to Responses:
- The app will transcribe your spoken words into text, generate a response, and then read out the response using the TTS feature.
Continuing the Conversation:
- After the app reads out the response, you can continue the conversation by tapping the microphone icon again and speaking your next query.

Step 5: Troubleshooting

Microphone Issues:
- Ensure that your phone's microphone is working properly.
- Check that you have granted the app necessary permissions to use the microphone.
TTS Issues:
- Ensure your phone's volume is up and not muted.
- Check the TTS settings on your phone and within the app to ensure they are configured correctly.
Network Connection:
- Ensure you have a stable internet connection, as voice input and output features may require data transmission to and from the servers.

Step 6: Additional Tips

Clear Communication:
- Speak clearly and at a moderate pace to improve speech recognition accuracy.
Environment:
- Use the app in a quiet environment to minimize background noise, which can interfere with voice recognition.
Update the App:
- Keep the app updated to the latest version to ensure you have access to the newest features and improvements.

By following these steps, you should be able to enable and use ChatGPT-4's voice-to-voice feature on your phone, allowing for a seamless and interactive conversational experience.

submitted by fintech07 to AIToolsTech [link] [comments]

2024.05.18 21:05 Definition_Novel Vytautas Montvila: the Lithuanian Diaspora’s true unsung hero.

In the age of current mass glorification via media from Lithuania and the United States of diaspora Lithuanian fascists like Adolfas Ramanauskas (Ramanauskas was born in New Britain, Connecticut, USA and later moved to Lithuania, later collaborating with Nazis during their invasion) or Lithuanian exile fascists like Jonas Mekas, few diaspora Lithuanians remember the names of revolutionary socialist Lithuanian diaspora heroes like Vytautas Montvila or Antanas Bimba. Antanas Bimba was a Lithuanian involved in the early American Communist movement, and a post will be made for him sometime later. As for the story of Montvila, It is up to Lithuanians everywhere to give this man his credit as a hero and martyr against fascism. Vytautas was born to to an ethnic Lithuanian Catholic immigrant family in 1902 in the city of St. Charles, Illinois. His family, like many Lithuanian immigrants to America at the time, left due to persecution by czarist Russian Empire authorities, whom sought to ban Lithuanian language as well as restrict the Catholic Church in favor of Orthodoxy. This persecution under czarism caused many minorities, particularly ethnic Lithuanian Catholics and Lithuanian Jews, to move often to the United States, Canada, or South American nations. In 1906, he and his family returned to Lithuania, moving to the city of Marijampolė. The family later moved to Degučiai, then a Marijampolė suburb.
As Vytautas grew older, between the years of 1922-26 he joined the Kėdainiai Teacher’s Seminary. It was somewhat of a social club for study, covering a wide range of topics, such as science, culture, atheism, and philosophy. Members were of various political parties, but it was here Vytautas became acquainted with local Communist activists and gained entry into the wider movement. The communists at these meetings often discussed Marxist theory, offered to share sections of the Communist Manifesto, and recruited members into local Worker’s Guilds.
In 1923, he began writing his early poetry, often revolutionary in nature and influenced by avant-garde style. In his most famous poem, “Naktys be Nakvynės” (ENG: “Nights Without Accommodation”), written early in his career, he champions revolutionary socialism and personifies art of poetry as a tool for revolution. His later work from 1940-41 reflects the new Soviet period, condemns the reactionary past, hoping towards a socialist future in Lithuania. These later poems were influenced heavily by the works of fellow Soviet poet V. Mayakovsky, whose works Montvila enjoyed. These later works by Montvila were of a topical oratorical style, and he is credited often with having laid the foundation for other Lithuanian Soviet poets at the time. Montvila also wrote short stories and portions of novels. Among other feats, he translated the novel “Mother” by fellow Soviet writer Maxim Gorky, from Russian into Lithuanian, as well as translated the writer Émile Zola’s novel “The Collapse” from its original French into Lithuanian.
He shortly then studied in the Faculty of Humanities at the University of Lithuania (Today, Vytautas Magnus University in Kaunas).
Following his departure from university, he began a life fully committed to revolutionary socialist activism. In 1929, in an effort to organizationally unify leftist writers against the bourgeoisie, he published the revolutionary almanac “Raketa” (ENG: “Rocket.”) For this, he was imprisoned from his arrest in 1929 to 1931. During 1935, he moved back to Marijampolė, and published the “Skardas” (ENG: “Tin”) worker’s newspaper for the Communist faction of the Lithuanian Social Democratic Party. He also published other socialist newspapers, titled “Darbas” (ENG: “Work”), “Kultūra” (ENG: “Culture”), “Aušrine” (ENG: “Dawn”), and “Prošvaistė” (ENG: “The Light”) for various leftist organizations. He simultaneously worked odd jobs to add to his livelihood.
Upon establishment of the Soviet Lithuanian government in 1940, Montvila, like many leftist Lithuanian citizens, was thrilled and ready for change, having been oppressed in a society previously plagued by issues such as anti-communism, rural serfdom, clerical fascism, anti-Semitism, and capitalist exploitation of all of the working people of Lithuania. Vytautas dedicated specialized time to working with Soviet authorities to publish and translate revolutionary texts from various authors, as well as delivering his own revolutionary pro-Soviet speeches. He continued this into 1941, the final year of his life.
Upon the Nazi invasion of Lithuania in mid-1941, he was captured by local collaborators and Gestapo. According to documents, he did not run or resist, rather instead defiantly, in true revolutionary martyr manner, insulted his captors. He was taken prisoner to the 9th Fort in Kaunas, where he was executed, being shot to death on July 19th, 1941, killed alongside many other Jewish and leftist victims of Nazi and collaborator fascist terror. To leftists who are aware of his heroism and revolutionary martyrdom, he is often compared to fellow revolutionary and Spanish poet F. Garcia Lorca, a leftist whom was executed by the Francoists. Vytautas, Lorca, and all revolutionaries shall be remembered forever. May we remember Vytautas Montvila, a hero to all Lithuanians, but especially to Lithuanians in the diaspora! Remember Vytautas Montvila, both uniquely a hero to Lithuanian-Americans, and the people of Lithuania!

submitted by Definition_Novel to sendinthetanks [link] [comments]

2024.05.18 21:03 Visible-Employment43 I can't Install speech tò text localy because isn't Easy for me. I tryed standalone version and .exe crash, i tryed whisper and It use only CPU, i tryed subtitle edit with ctranslate2 and whisper buy It wasn't "streaming" task Option, help?

I did pip install faster-whisper
. I have the audio file: - Saved the audio file i want to transcribe as audio.mp3 in the same directory as my Python script.

Run the Python script: - Open a text editor and copy the provided code:
```
 model_size = "large-v3" 
```
# Run on GPU with FP16
model = WhisperModel(model_size, device="cuda", compute_type="float16")
# or run on GPU with INT8
# model = WhisperModel(model_size, device="cuda", compute_type="int8_float16") # or run on CPU with INT8
# model = WhisperModel(model_size, device="cpu", compute_type="int8") segments, info = model.transcribe("audio.mp3", beam_size=5)
print("Detected language '%s' with probability %f" % (info.language, info.language_probability)) for segment in segments: print("[%.2fs -> %.2fs] %s" % (segment.start, segment.end, segment.text)) - Save the file with a .py extension, for example, transcribe.py.

Open a terminal or command prompt and navigate to the directory where you saved the Python script. - Run the script using the following command:

Python (name of file)

No output: - The script Not process " Sintax invalid " line 3

Line 3 contain (model_size = "large-v3")

submitted by Visible-Employment43 to OpenAI [link] [comments]

2024.05.18 20:56 Yurii_S_Kh Anatomy of sin: how adultery darkened David's mind

Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld, “David's Repentance.”
Joab's trickery
When we read how Joab carried out David's orders, we realize: the commander disobeyed the king:

And it came to pass, when Jo´ab observed the city, that he assigned Uri´ah unto a place where he knew that valiant men were. And the men of the city went out, and fought with Jo´ab: and there fell some of the people of the servants of David; and Uri´ah the Hittite died also. (2 Sam. 11:16-17)

Joab makes Uriah's death look like an accident rather than the result of betrayal: he simply puts a warrior in the hot seat. Along with Uriah, other warriors died.
Why does Joab do things his own way and not directly fulfill David's order? On the one hand, it is obvious: as an experienced military commander, he quickly noticed the king's blunder and corrected it accordingly. On the other hand, when we read about his command to notify David of the event, we realize that Joab is not as simple a man as it may seem at first glance. What did Joab want? Let's look at the text of the commander's command to notify the king of the event:

Then Jo´ab sent and told David all the things concerning the war; and charged the messenger, saying, When thou hast made an end of telling the matters of the war unto the king, and if so be that the king's wrath arise, and he say unto thee, Wherefore approached ye so nigh unto the city when ye did fight? knew ye not that they would shoot from the wall? Who smote Abim´elech the son of Jerub´besheth? did not a woman cast a piece of a millstone upon him from the wall, that he died in Thebez? why went ye nigh the wall? then say thou, Thy servant Uri´ah the Hittite is dead also. (2 Sam. 11:18-21)

1) It is striking that Joab is clearly not trying to avoid problems. Instead of telling the story of Uriah's death right away, the commander offers to recount the entire battle.
2) Joab thinks through David's future response in great detail. This suggests a commander who is portraying the king, expressively imitating the intonation and manner of speech of royalty in anger. It is beyond the scope of this article to go into the details of why Joab puts the story of Abimelech's death into David's mouth. Here we will only note that the commander anticipates the king's reaction (as we know from the subsequent story, David did not react in the way Joab portrayed). Why did Joab need all of this?
Joab versus David
It is paramount to note that the relationship between David and Joab was hardly a good one. The warlord had despicably murdered men who were dear to the king: Abenir (2 Samuel 3 ch.) and Absalom (4 Samuel 18 ch.). After the death of Abenir, David, realizing that he was dependent on Joab, nevertheless dared to openly voice his disagreement with the warlord:

And the king said unto his servants, Know ye not that there is a prince and a great man fallen this day in Israel? And I am this day weak, though anointed king; and these men the sons of Zeru-i´ah be too hard for me: the Lord shall reward the doer of evil according to his wickedness. (2 Sam. 3:38-39)

We can assume that Joab was the most experienced strategist of his day (it was not for nothing that David put him in charge of the whole army). It is noteworthy that among the other commanders of King David were very worthy men: “Isbosef the Ahamanite, the chief of the three; he lifted up his spear against eight hundred men, and smote them once” (2 Sam. 23:8). Another, “Eleazar the son of Dodo...The Israelites went out against them, and he stood and smote the Philistines until his hand was weary and stuck to his sword. And the Lord granted a great victory that day, and the people followed him only to pick up the slain.” (2 Sam 23:9-10). Joab was a ruler over such worthy men among others. It is quite possible that Joab saw a worthy rival in David. Realizing that he could not become king, the warlord was simply trying to show his superiority over David.
Returning to the story of Joab sending a messenger to notify David of Uriah's death, we can assume that he played David's reaction to show his superiority over David: "that my actions could so easily make David mad." We do not know with what intonation, facial expressions, and gestures Joab imitated David's reaction. But it is possible that he portrayed the king's helplessness, perhaps even hysteria.
It is also worth noting here that Joab, though not directly, still obeyed the king and, in fact, gave some of the soldiers (including Uriah) to be killed. Why did he do this? It can also be explained by his cold strategic mind as a military commander. He was willing to use such an occasion to demonstrate to David his superior strategic thinking - if he had followed David's plan, the soldiers would have realized that any one of them could be in Uriah's place. In any case, the fact that Joab gives some of the soldiers to the death, fulfilling the king's orders, hardly makes him look good from a Christian moral standpoint.
Three versions of Uriah's death
When we read how the messenger at Joab's command notified the king, we realize that he is not quite listening to the warlord and lays out his own version:

And the messenger said unto David, Surely the men prevailed against us, and came out unto us into the field, and we were upon them even unto the entering of the gate. And the shooters shot from off the wall upon thy servants; and some of the king's servants be dead, and thy servant Uri´ah the Hittite is dead also. (2 Sam. 11:23-24)

Thus we have three versions of the account of the battle in which Uriah was killed. The first is that of the author of Scripture himself (2 Kings 11:16-17); the second is that of Joab (2 Kings 11:18-21), and the third is that of his messenger (2 Kings 11:23-24). Comparing them, we find differences that deserve separate attention. In the messenger's account, the arrows killed Uriah as Joab's army (which included Uriah) pursued the enemy to the gates of the besieged city. In the Scripture author's account, the enemy came out of the city, fought Joab's army, and in the course of doing so, Uriah was killed. It can be assumed that the messenger seeks to make Uriah's death as accidental as possible (no one is safe from archers) and at the same time justifiable (the troops had taken the upper hand over the enemy and in their pursuit of victory had come very close to the city). The messenger does his best not to piss David off. He realizes that it is hardly worth it to anger the king (contrary to what Joab said).
David's derangement
As we read of King David's reaction to the messenger's news, we can hardly remain indifferent:

Then David said unto the messenger, Thus shalt thou say unto Jo´ab, Let not this thing displease thee, for the sword devoureth one as well as another: make thy battle more strong against the city, and overthrow it: and encourage thou him. (2 Sam. 11:25)

Here we can see the depth of David's confusion. On the one hand, he tries to convey his speech in such a way that the messenger does not understand what is going on between the king and the commander. But the king himself does not understand what is going on: he does not know that the commander has deliberately changed his plan in order to ridicule his reckless strategy. He was waiting for news that Joab had carried out his orders: to kill one Uriah. When he heard that the commander had “failed miserably” (instead of killing one Uriah, he allowed other soldiers to die), the king decided to encourage his commander.
It is noteworthy that the author of Scripture does not tell us how the events unfolded: how the messenger reacted to David's words, how he returned to Joab, how they captured the city... But we, the readers, who realize the darkness of the events, understand one thing: David, instead of surrendering to grief and sorrow over the death of his loyal soldiers (as he had done before and would do in the case of Absalom's death), wants to encourage Joab. Instead of surrendering to anger at the commander who “badly” carried out an order, David encourages the one who, in correcting a flaw in the king's order, gives up his soldiers to die.
Every sin darkens the mind. That is why we must not think: I will sin and then repent. We don't know what happens after we sin. It is likely that David too was justifying his desire to give himself over to lust. Perhaps he too thought that afterward he would repent and all would be well. He hardly thought about the fact that he would then kill Uriah and have his firstborn son by Bathsheba die. He did everything he could to make his sin known to as few people as possible. And that only led to everyone finding out about his sin.
Sin is never worth committing. To paraphrase the apostle Paul, one of the Christian's mottos can be summarized as follows: “I will die, but I will not sin!” (Hebrews 12:4) Let us not forget that today's “petty idleness” can lead to a breeding ground for countless and shameful passions. For example, today's idleness can become shameful slander and gossip. And when we sin, we will immediately confess our sin, being broken and if possible mourning for what we have done. For the sin we have committed darkens our mind and corrupts our soul. Only sincere confession, brokenness, rethinking and change can restore the health of mind and soul after sin. May the Lord help us never to justify consenting to sin, but to really fight against sin, even to the point of shedding blood! (Hebrews 12:4)
Source: JesusPortal

submitted by Yurii_S_Kh to SophiaWisdomOfGod [link] [comments]

2024.05.18 20:54 Reasonable_Feed7939 How do you write without actually writing?

So many authors and writers say to ‘just write!’ but I’ve tried that and then my hands get tired and it becomes a chore rather than something I enjoy doing, like contemplating my decades of worldbuilding. Then I get burned out and end up despising it. So, what “writing” things do you do to keep from tiring out? Speech to text, ChatGPT, taking other books and putting my name on it, etc…

submitted by Reasonable_Feed7939 to writingcirclejerk [link] [comments]

2024.05.18 20:54 Keith502 Why is the Bill of Rights interpreted to give rights to Americans?

There seem to be a large number of people who believe that the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to grant and guarantee rights to the American people. Furthermore, I have heard many people claim that the Bill of Rights is entirely a list of specifically individual rights of American citizens. It puzzles me why these beliefs continues to persist, because the historical record indicates that there is no reason to believe these descriptions of the Bill of Rights. There is a more than adequate amount of historical evidence to corroborate my conclusion. The first and most direct evidence is the very preamble to the Bill of Rights itself. The original preamble of the Bill of Rights begins with a paragraph explaining the document’s purpose; it goes as follows:

The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

I think the three most important phrases in this paragraph are “in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers”, “declaratory and restrictive clauses”, and “extending the ground of public confidence in the Government”. These three phrases seem to best sum up what the Bill of Rights was originally meant to accomplish: it is a list of declaratory and restrictive clauses whose purpose is to prevent the misconstruction or abuse of the Constitution’s powers, and increase public confidence in the federal government. And if one were to look at the Bill of Rights, its text would seem to be in harmony with this statement of purpose. The Bill of Rights consists mostly of negative clauses which put restrictions on the federal government; it states what shall not happen or what shall not be done by Congress, such as prohibiting freedom of religion, abridging freedom of speech, infringing the right to keep and bear arms, violating the right to be secure in property, etc. And the ninth and tenth amendments do not mention any particular rights whatsoever, and clearly just serve the purpose of preventing the Constitution from being misconstrued or abused to diminish the rights of the states and the people, and to prevent granting the federal government more power than the Constitution meant for it to have. The phrase “extending the ground of public confidence in the Government” further indicates that the Bill of Rights was not really meant to add rights not already stipulated in the Constitution, but was only meant to reinforce trust in the federal government at the time of the Founding. The Bill of Rights was not meant to add any substantive articles to the Constitution, but rather it consisted of articles whose purpose was to reinforce the articles that had already been established, and prevent them from being misinterpreted in the future by any unscrupulous members of the federal government. Also notice that there is nothing written here in the preamble about granting rights to the American people, let alone granting specifically individual rights to the American people: you would think if the framers of the Bill of Rights had meant for this to be the document’s effect, they would have stated so clearly in the preamble.
Another piece of evidence for my conclusion comes in an address given by James Madison -- the author of the Bill of Rights -- in the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789. This address involved an early proposal of amendments to the Constitution. Before listing his various propositions for amending the Constitution, Madison said this:

There have been objections of various kinds made against the Constitution. Some were levelled against its structure because the President was without a council; because the Senate, which is a legislative body, had judicial powers in trials on impeachments; and because the powers of that body were compounded in other respects, in a manner that did not correspond with a particular theory; because it grants more power than is supposed to be necessary for every good purpose, and controls the ordinary powers of the State Governments. I know some respectable characters who opposed this Government on these grounds; but I believe that the great mass of the people who opposed it, disliked it because it did not contain effectual provisions against encroachments on particular rights, and those safeguards which they have been long accustomed to have interposed between them and the magistrate who exercises the sovereign power*; nor ought we to consider them safe, while a great number of our fellow-citizens think these securities necessary.*

The part I've put in italics indicates that the major purpose of the amendments to the Constitution was to reassure citizens that effective protections were put in place to prevent the “magistrate who exercises the sovereign power” from encroaching upon their rights. Notice there is nothing written here about granting rights to the people, only protecting the people's pre-existing rights from the federal government.
Following the above statement, Madison begins to list a variety of proposed additions to the Constitution, and he proposes the additions be inserted into the body of the Constitution itself, at various sections. Ultimately, he begins to propose a certain list of amendments to be inserted within article 1, section 9; and this particular list happens to correspond to most of the articles which comprise the Bill of Rights as it exists today:

Fourthly. That in article 1st, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses, to wit: The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.
The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.
The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good; nor from applying to the Legislature by petitions, or remonstrances, for redress of their grievances.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner; nor at any time, but in a manner warranted by law.
No person shall be subject, except in cases of impeachment, to more than one punishment or one trial for the same offence; nor shall be compelled to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor be obliged to relinquish his property, where it may be necessary for public use, without a just compensation.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The rights of the people to be secured in their persons; their houses, their papers, and their other property, from all unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated by warrants issued without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, or not particularly describing the places to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, to be informed of the cause and nature of the accusation, to be confronted with his accusers, and the witnesses against him; to have a compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.
The exceptions here or elsewhere in the Constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people, or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the Constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.

It is notable to consider that Madison initially proposed the Bill of Rights to be integrated into the Constitution itself, rather than to be a separate document. But what is even more notable is the specific location it was proposed to be inserted in. Article 1, section 9 is specifically the location of the Constitution dedicated to enumerating the prohibitions upon the power of Congress. What this means is that the original plan for the amendments currently appearing in the Bill of Rights was for them to merely be a list of stipulations regarding what Congress was not allowed to do. Thus, it would make no sense for those same clauses today to be construed as being themselves grants of rights to individual American citizens, anymore than Congress being prohibited from abolishing the slave trade before 1808, or laying taxes on state exports could themselves be considered individual rights of American citizens.
Another piece of evidence can be found in the 1833 Supreme Court case Barron v Baltimore. This case essentially makes explicit that which was originally understood about the Bill of Rights -- that it was meant only as a list of prohibitions upon Congress. The following excerpt makes this clear:

Had the framers of these amendments intended them to be limitations on the powers of the State governments, they would have imitated the framers of the original Constitution, and have expressed that intention. Had Congress engaged in the extraordinary occupation of improving the Constitutions of the several States by affording the people additional protection from the exercise of power by their own governments in matters which concerned themselves alone, they would have declared this purpose in plain and intelligible language.
But it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day, that the great revolution which established the Constitution of the United States was not effected without immense opposition. Serious fears were extensively entertained that those powers which the patriot statesmen who then watched over the interests of our country deemed essential to union, and to the attainment of those invaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty. In almost every convention by which the Constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the General Government -- not against those of the local governments. In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them.

And then the aforementioned case was subsequently referenced by the 1875 Supreme Court case US v Cruikshank, which further reinforced the same conclusion while addressing the first and second amendments of the Bill of Rights:

The first amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from abridging "the right of the people to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." This, like the other amendments proposed and adopted at the same time, was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National Government alone. [. . .] It is now too late to question the correctness of this construction. As was said by the late Chief Justice, in Twitchell v. The Commonwealth, 7 Wall. 325, "the scope and application of these amendments are no longer subjects of discussion here." They left the authority of the States just where they found it, and added nothing to the already existing powers of the United States.
The particular amendment now under consideration assumes the existence of the right of the people to assemble for lawful purposes, and protects it against encroachment by Congress. The right was not created by the amendment; neither was its continuance guaranteed, except as against congressional interference. For their protection in its enjoyment, therefore, the people must look to the States. The power for that purpose was originally placed there, and it has never been surrendered to the United States.
The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States.

So as you can see, it was well-established from the time of the country’s founding that the Bill of Rights was never meant to itself be a grant or guarantee of rights to the American people. The official function of the Bill of Rights was always prohibitive rather than affirmative: the purpose was to restrain the federal government, rather than to endow something to American citizens. So what I don’t understand is: how has the Bill of Rights become so misunderstood and misapplied? Why is it that, from the layman even to the level of the modern-day Supreme Court, it is believed that the Bill of Rights is meant to grant or guarantee rights to individual American citizens, when this conclusion is unequivocally unsupported by the historical record? And not only is this conclusion not supported by the historical evidence, but I would argue that it contradicts the very purpose of the Bill of Rights; the whole point of the document was to limit the power of Congress, but interpreting the document to be a federal guarantee of rights to the people is, in effect, a transference of power to the federal government never stipulated in the Constitution, and is in violation of the tenth amendment.
The Bill of Rights, according to its original design, is essentially superfluous; effectively declaring nothing in itself, and only serving to clarify the intent of the Constitution, prevent it from being adversely misinterpreted, and to make explicit what was implicitly acknowledged regarding the boundaries of congressional power. There had been much debate among the Founders regarding whether the Bill of Rights should even exist at all. So how is it that a document whose original purpose was to be nothing more than a protection of civil rights has now become interpreted effectively as the source of the people's civil rights?

submitted by Keith502 to USHistory [link] [comments]

2024.05.18 20:32 hkallay Letterly: An app that turns your speech into well-written text.

submitted by hkallay to AIToolsInsider [link] [comments]

2024.05.18 20:19 Whirling_Sufi I found something very interesting: Protestant Christianity and Wahhabism are very much alike

At first glance, Protestant Christianity and Wahhabism might seem like movements from entirely different worlds. One emerged from the heart of Europe in the 16th century, the other arose in the deserts of Arabia (Najd?) in the 18th. Yet, I was reading this book that is amongst the best works about enlightenment is the west. There was a part that was talking about Protestants and the Christian Reform movements, I was absolutely shocked to know how similar it was to the Wahhabi branch of Sunni Islam. If you study for yourself a closer look reveals some fascinating parallels both in their origin story and their approaches to life on the all three levels (Individual - Social - Political). Both movements were fueled by a deep yearning for religious renewal out mixture of a feeling defeated and the feeling of blaming religious misguidance in order to rationalize that sense of defeat. The two movements wanted a return to what they believed were the core principles of their respective faiths. This shared goal manifested in several key similarities:

Return to Scripture: Both Protestants and Wahhabis emphasized a return to the foundational texts of their religions. Protestants revered the Bible, rejecting the authority of the Catholic Church and its interpretations. They believed the Church had strayed from the purity of the Bible's message, focusing instead on elaborate rituals, veneration of saints, and the Pope's authority. Similarly, Wahhabism arose in response to what its followers saw as a decline in Islamic practice and the blamed it on Ottomans. They argued that Muslims had become lax in their adherence to the Quran and the teachings of Prophet Muhammad. Wahhabi scholars emphasized a strict, literal interpretation of the Quran, rejecting practices like Sufi mysticism and concept of Tawassol which is absolutely there in sunni sources too.
Challenge to Religious Authority: I remember myself every single day in university seeing the a letter from Safavid times between Safavid king and Ottoman caliph, the start of the letter had such words of respect in it. The Najd movement and the other Arab religious rejection of Ottoman rule is like the reform movement in Christianity. Both movements challenged the established religious hierarchy. Protestants, most notably Martin Luther, rejected the authority of the Pope and the Catholic Church. They argued that the Church had become corrupt and interposed itself between individuals and their relationship with God. They emphasized the importance of individual interpretation of the Bible and a direct connection with God through faith. Similarly, Wahhabism arose in direct opposition to the dominant religious practices of the time in Arabia. Wahhabi scholars rejected the authority of religious scholars who had incorporated practices they viewed as heretical, such as saint veneration (Twassol) and many other things.
Focus on Individual Piety: Both Protestant reformers and Wahhabi scholars stressed the importance of personal faith and a direct relationship with God/Allah. Protestants emphasized the concept of "priesthood of all believers," meaning that individuals could access God directly without the need for a priest or intermediary. This focus on individual piety led to a new emphasis on personal religious experience and the importance of living a moral life according to God's will. Wahhabi teachings likewise emphasized the importance of individual piety and a super strict adherence to Islamic law (Sharia).
Use of Violence in Early History: A critical similarity, though often overshadowed by the later peaceful developments in Protestantism, is the fact that both movements caused massive expenditure of blood for sectarian causes during their early formations. The Protestant Reformation sparked numerous religious wars across Europe, as Protestant princes and rulers challenged the Catholic Church's authority (Look up 30 years war). Wahhabi scholars in Najd who allied with the House of Saud, had in their conditions to reject what they saw as Shirk using swords, and that way of thought went into almost all Arab countries, then gave birth to various Takfiri movements that until today is causing bloodshed. Before that of course sectarianism could cause bloodshed, but the way a terror group like ISIL specifically prioritizes the destruction of things related to Shia is absolutely because of what I described.

To further prove my point about respect between Shia and Sunni pre-Wahhabism, look at this letter: Nuruddin Jahangir's letter to Shah Abbas the great in response to a letter from Shah Abbas. The present letter was written after Jahangir's conquests, and he now shows his respect and devotion to Shah Abbas because he considers his conquests to be the result of receiving Shah Abbas's letter (intel?).
سند ۱۰۸ ﺍﺯ ۱۹۷
P.S: One crazy point is that I hear from many people, and I also can see it in the videos online that Sunni debate Shia in the UK in ways that they are not passionate even about the most anti-religion atheists. I think this is a unique thing in UK, in America things seem to be better for the Shia, but for some reason, the UK muslims are more under this influence. I think it would be beneficial for every party involved in here to create more awareness about these things, we do not have to go through the cycle of violence anymore, and even in speech, we can be towards each other the way the Safavid king was to Ottoman caliph (had respect for each other when there was no war).
P.S 2: Another fun fact here but unrelated: Did you know that in times of war between Safavids and Ottomans, both armies used Shahnameh as their source of Rajaz poetry? In fact the Ottoman Turkish had so much Persian + Arabic in it, that the Turks today cannot access their heritage. Both the writing system and the language itself today is not recognizable by today's people in Turkey.

submitted by Whirling_Sufi to shia [link] [comments]

2024.05.18 19:55 isthereareasontho Voice feature available or not?

Hey guys, was wondering if the new voice feature rolled out for gpt + users? Gpt 4o says it did, but I wanted to ask before upgrading. Thanks

submitted by isthereareasontho to ChatGPT [link] [comments]

2024.05.18 19:42 Baasbaar Uverturo — MIYAMOTO Masao (precipe por mezniveluloj)

(Esperanto sekvas.) I'm writing this first paragraph in English for any komencantoj who might be confused or interested. Please note that this is not accessible reading material for beginners: This is for Esperantists around my level—those who have a good grasp of the grammar (tho we may still make errors) and who have a solid base vocabulary. The text is a poem by MIYAMOTO Masao, a well-known Japanese Esperanto writer, publisher, and activist who passed away in 1989; his 1976 novel Naskitaj sur la ruino appears on William Auld's list of Esperanto classics, but is very hard to find today. I've annotated the poem with links to PIV for words that I thought a middle-stage Esperantist might not know, as well as to Wikipedia for proper names. Some komencantoj may enjoy struggling through something like this, but please note that the use of language is decidedly poetic, and there are many things one probably shouldn't imitate in normal speech or prose.
Mi legis hodiaŭ la suban de MIYAMOTO Masao verkitan versaĵon. Dufoje mi devis legi ĝin, ĉar kelkaj de liaj esprimoj konfuzis min, sed fine mi ege ĝin ĝuis, do mi decidis afiŝi la poeziaĵon, aldoninta al ĝi kelke da ligiloj al PIV kaj al Vikipedio por klarigi la sencon de maloftaj aŭ poeziaj vortoj kaj propraj nomoj. Mi esperas, ke ankaŭ vi ĝin ĝuos.
. . .
UVERTURO
La lum' aprila sur relief' de Majstro ankoraŭ brila.
Ĉe bord' alfluson printempan vidas mi kun hajkar' de Buson.
Mi venis trajne al flu' printempa, poŝe libret' de Heine.
Mi legas Rilke kun postkoler' ankoraŭ — pluvetas silke.
Sireno bovas per bleko trans sakuroj, mi hajki provas.
Mi versas, rimas, abortas ĉiam; dafno sur kort' kulminas.
Ankoraŭ lamas poemo mia buŝe, dum nuboj skvamas.
La sun' sin portis zeniten super fluo, — hajkad' abortis.
Jam la movado kun snoboj kaj filistroj min naŭzas tede. Ĉu mi prefere restu verkist' nur kabinete?
Pri l' jun' karcera ankoraŭ pent' nenia, sed nur bedaŭro, ke mi ne rajtas esti ja bard' revolucia.
Sur herb' kuŝante mi hajkas sun' printempa eksinkis lante.
Vesperas kaj' kaj ekbrilis ondoj, sed ve, fuŝprovoj hajkaj.
Ekpalis dafno sub pluv'; per kiu rimi? Ĉu nur per Maĥno?

submitted by Baasbaar to learnesperanto [link] [comments]

2024.05.18 19:10 liadrin3 A dumb rant about twitch dono incentives ruining the viewing experience

I hate how twitch streams devolve into just being games around donations I have been having twtich streams on in the background while I study or work since the early days of justin tv and without fault they all devolve into people having stupid wheels, or squirtguns or text to speech or other inane shit dominate the stream where its basically just a flood of gimmickry instead ofsquirt gunspodcast like talking over game play while having a conversation with chat. And people LOVE it so you can't even complain about it without shitting on everyone's fun. All I want is just to talk with people online about games or life and not have people screaming because they get jumpscared by some insane dono popup or getting I don't know tazed in the balls for 10 subs. It's exhausting having to migrate from a community every time this shit happens and not being able to talk about it with anyone because at the end of the day its a super stupid problem and very few people watch twitch in the grand scheme of things

submitted by liadrin3 to rant [link] [comments]

2024.05.18 18:27 textspeakpro Check us out!

Have you ever tried AI Text-to-Speech?
Are you a content creator, student, or business?
Want something FREE, fast, and simple?
Look no further, http://TextSpeakPro.com is here!
Multiple languages, tones, accents, and voices!
https://textspeakpro.com

submitted by textspeakpro to u/textspeakpro [link] [comments]

2024.05.18 18:16 LowKeyEmilia Is there a way to voice clone in SillyTavern using Android?

sorry for the noob question or bothering y'all, but I recently discovered we could use XTTS to clone voices and use it on characters to read chats/dialogues out loud, but that's only on PC, is there any way to make it work on Android? or a good alternative? I'm not looking for just a text to speech option but to clone voices of my favorite characters too. Help please? :c
And thank you in advance :)

submitted by LowKeyEmilia to SillyTavernAI [link] [comments]

2024.05.18 18:05 sipjca Benchmarking GPU's/Systems

I've been building a tiny inference provider built on top of a bunch of friends PC's (mac mini's and a few GPU's) which are networked together. One of the things I'm most curious about is what are the best GPU's to get for cheap, and also that perform well in terms of perf/watt since a lot of expense will come from just powering a system.
I am thinking of buying a bunch of relatively inexpensive GPU's and benchmarking them. I'd love to come up with a nice benchmark suite for local AI applications. I'd also like to open source the code, and make it easy for anyone to run and contribute benchmarks for their system. Given this, I would love feedback on the kinds of things that y'all would want to see benchmarked, and what results would help you make decisions on what hardware to buy.
What GPU's/Systems do you want to see benchmarks for?
On my list currently are things like: RTX2060,3060,4060, RTX 2000 Ada, RTX 4000 SFF, P40, P100, etc.
I also would love to be testing AMD cards. Intel cards. AI accelerators (Tenstorrent?). Integrated GPU's are also interesting. I certainly would be testing M series Macs as well.
What workloads would you like to see benchmarked?
Initially I am thinking about targeting llama.cpp and whisper.cpp primarily, since I am using these often. Some of the target models would be:
* LLaVA 1.6 Mistral 7B
* Llama3 8B
* Moondream 2
* Whisper, tiny and large
* Bark (Text to Speech)
What would you like to see measured?
I am thinking about
* tokens/sec (along with batch size ideally)
* power (watts)
* workload concurrency
* training/finetuning perf
Would love your answers to the questions above!

submitted by sipjca to LocalLLaMA [link] [comments]

2024.05.18 17:46 Silver-Tough2275 All in one AI tool

Hi everyone, just wanted to share my experience with dakaei ai chat. it's an awesome platform that features the latest ai chat models like claude 3, gemini 1.5 pro, and even gpt-4.o, with no messages limit, allowing for deeper and more engaging conversations. what's really cool is that dakaei also offers image generation ( like dall-e and stable diffusion also), voice over generation, and more. personally, i've found it incredibly useful and have been using it regularly to improve my blog seo & in copywriting.
https://preview.redd.it/qiv5qmffg71d1.png?width=1894&format=png&auto=webp&s=69de7f388957a54ea22862e2d18e7eaee3ebd944

submitted by Silver-Tough2275 to AItoolsCatalog [link] [comments]

2024.05.18 17:44 MamiLikesCake What's going on with lore fmand AO3?

The only thing i can gather is that its some sort of AI(?) Text to speech servuce thats used with AO3? It's a little confusing https://www.reddit.com/AO3/comments/1cu4z1j/just_got_this_confirmation_from_lorefm_hardly_a/

submitted by MamiLikesCake to OutOfTheLoop [link] [comments]

2024.05.18 16:22 ncasas Browser extension and tools for Chinese language learners

Hi everyone.
I am a software developer and I study Chinese. I created a Chrome extension called Langtern.
It opens a side panel with:

A Dictionary showing the definition and usage examples of the word the mouse is over in the active tab. It also works for Youtube videos with CC. Words can be saved as flashcards for reviewing later.
A lookup dictionary, with the same flashcard integration.
Extraction of all the vocabulary from the active tab, dividing the resulting words by HSK level.

Also, Langtern has a website (https://langtern.com) with more functionality:

PDF/EPUB reader with integration with the Chrome extension dictionary. For EPUB files it also converts from traditional characters to simplified ones, so you can conveniently read books from Haodoo.
Flashcard decks, created from the words looked up in the dictionary. Can be exported to Anki.
Chat with AI, discussing either freely, in a role-playing situation or about recent news picked from the content database in Langtern.
Text-to-speech reading assistant for shadowing.

You can find Langtern also as a mobile app (for both iOS and Android), where the Chrome extension functionality is offered in an integrated browser inside the app itself.
I hope you find it useful!
A couple of screenshots here:
https://preview.redd.it/gjpwx180371d1.jpg?width=2198&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1b4015914988140bb0097ac4be8a1828b6e3f741
https://preview.redd.it/2rtxk79t271d1.jpg?width=2208&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d3663cd52bfc733395f68667b7fd8a3ea4c8fe47

submitted by ncasas to ChineseLanguage [link] [comments]

2024.05.18 16:22 jonaskoelker Rewatcher's diary: Season 2, episodes 15 to 18

Previous diary entries are here: https://www.reddit.com/buffy/comments/1ctyuhn/rewatchers_diary_season_2_episodes_11_to_14/
Today I want to talk about Phases (2x15); Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered (2x16); Passion (2x17); and Killed by Death (2x18).
It's so good to be back at The Bronze (2x15-2x17)! I didn't know how much I missed it. Phases is great, BBB is a fun romp, Passion is BTVS at its absolute finest and temps me to add 'P' to my list of tiers, Killed by Death is S2 shedding its S1 skin. (Consider that choice of words in the light of episode 20.)
Phases

I love Cain! Well he's a bad guy so I don't love love him, but I love every second he's on screen. He has such... I'm not sure charm or charisma or chemistry is the right word 'cause it puts him in a positive light. Maybe screen presence is better.
And he's funny! "People for the ethical treatment of werewolves" :D
Giles calls him a pillock, a quite British insult which will be repeated in Becoming (2x21-2x22).
There's a fun bit early where Willow says something like "at least Oz is not an animal". Chekhov's lycanthropy much?
Giles being asleep in his car while he's supposed to look for werewolves with Buffy makes his later scolding of Xander—for sleeping on while werewolf watch—appear a bit hypocritical.
Xander and Cordelia's anti-chemistry continues to develop, much to my amusement.
In Teacher's Pet (1x4) Xander dreamed of being the one to save Buffy. When a vampire Theresa rises from her coffin, he finally gets to—right after they called out the episode by mentioning Xander might get his head cut off.
I guess we should talk about Oz being a werewolf. Buffy was dating a monster—they make monster movies about vampires—who turned into a real monster when he lost his soul. Now Willow is dating a monster too? Uh-oh.
Angel tried to keep the monster in check by warning Buffy about himself: "we're not right for each other" // "I'm older than you and this can't work" // coming clean about Drusilla in Lie To Me (2x7). Oz is trying to keep the monster in check by attempting to chain himself up and by pushing Willow away when he's about to turn. One is more successful than the other.
Oz could have come clean and asked for help, but the way the scoobies talked about werewolves probably pushed him out of it. Later he'll ask Faith about her stance on werewolves, and he'll fail to communicate in Wild at Heart (4x6). I won't opine on whether that's in character on not, but I think at least some seeds have been planted here.
Let's talk about about Larry and his coming out scene. I'm male, I'm not gay, digest my take accordingly. I thought it was mostly good—that is, the writing felt true to life and it was compelling to watch. It's tragic that he was afraid of coming out. I don't think we see malice directed to non-straight characters to the degree Larry is afraid of (excluded from his sports, being run out of town), I mostly remember surprise ("Tara's a great girl, Wil" / "Tara's your girlfriend?!?") followed by acceptance, at least when same-sex attraction is talked about overtly and explicitly. But let's assume Larry is right to fear that he'll be punished somehow if people know his true self, and no one can help him with that. Then I can clearly understand why he would remain in the closet, as a painful adaptation to an unfriendly environment. What really gets me, and maybe I'm reading too much into a single word, is him saying "[... admit I'm gay]". English isn't my first language, but my understanding is that "admit" means "acknowledge something bad", suggesting internalized homophobia: Larry views his own homosexuality as bad :(
No Larry, it's okay to be gay (as the song goes). What's not okay is knocking papers out of the hands of random passers-by. It's so nice seeing him make amends near the end of the episode, by helping a victim of the same mistreatment at someone else's hands. And I guess step one of self-acceptance manifests by dropping the false persona you've used to cover up your true self.
Hey maybe Larry can be(come) fun to be around for N-3 days of the month, just like Willow and Oz.
The obvious parallels in this episode are Oz and Larry, both acting like monsters—if you'll admit the hyperbole about Larry's bullying—and new(-at-least-to-us) sides of them (ahem) coming out. But, in part because I like thinking concretely, I find the Larry/future-Willow parallels even more compelling. Did you catch my Restless reference? I think Willow's false persona is not about her sexuality but the very core of her being—and during her dark phase at the end of S6, it all comes out.
Phases is great. It's not spectacular or anything, just one of those solid on-the-good-side-of-average episodes which make up the backbone of BTVS and which makes me love the show.

Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered

Amy is back! I'm always happy to see her, she's one of my favorite side characters.
First we find out Buffy is dating a monster, then Willow too, and now we learn Xander is dating the kind of monster who would break up with her boyfriend on Valentine's day. It's really true what they said in I, Robot... You, Jane (1x8): they're doomed.
It's not like a horde of love-crazed girls is any better, though. And Buffy's mom! [stacys_mom.mov] Is this where Xander's dream in Restless (4x22) comes from?
Even Drusilla is hot for Xander. They truly are doomed, and Xander could be completing the dating-a-monster trio here.
Before this, Amy invoked Godess Hecate to turn Buffy into a rat—also to be invoked in Gingerbread (3x11). We see rat-Buffy liking cheese. Hey, is that at the root of Willow telling Riley "Buffy likes cheese" in Something Blue (4x9)? Also, Amy's eyes turned red for a moment, reminding me of the final shot in Seeing Red (6x19). I learned in Lie to Me (2x7) that you can tell the baddies by their horns or black hats but it didn't mention red eyes. I'm confused :-p
In either this episode or the previous one (I think), there was a throwaway comment around Willow, maybe from Oz to Willow, about using powers for good and not turning into an evil mastermind—or words to roughly that effect. Apropos red eyes.
Once or twice when the mob of girls was chasing Xander, I thought to myself "this is getting a bit old; please pick up the pace and go somewhere". But one bit of pacing not to my taste does not detract from this being a dang good MotW episode, by which I mean: it maybe nudges the characters and/or relationships forward a step—in particular Cordelia choosing Xander over Harmony—without really moving the needle on the season arc, and while doing so it focuses mainly on the episodic issue, in this case the love spell hijinks. It does its thing very well, would recommend.

Passion

Oh no not Jenny :(
I mean, you all know Passion. Greatest. Shit. Ever. Afterwards my partner said, with a sad tone of voice, "This' a stupid show. One more episode?"
Angelus' speech at the end, "without passion [...] empty rooms" is great. And it's true: having something in your life which you value greatly, such as loving someone, means you also have the capacity for pain and suffering if you should lose it. Yet this is what life is for: loving, valuing, risking pain and loss. And especially endgame couples: one always dies first, leaving the other to suffer the bereavement. And yet by hormones and pheromones we are driven into each others' arms, only to be ripped out again.
Of course: just because suffering is part of life doesn't mean we should go around inflicting it. Much better to accept the unavoidable parts, reduce the suffering we can eliminate, and hope we can tell them apart.
Just go watch it, I don't have anything witty to say.

Killed By Death

"Tact is just not saying true stuff, I'll pass" // "let's go, tact guy"
They say that college is a time for experimentation. I always thought they meant lab work. I think Willow shares my mindset: her and Xander used to play doctor, except Willow would be reading the medical texts and Xander didn't have it in his heart to tell her she was playing it wrong. Willow in a nutshell: on point with the academic program—the lab work in my analogy—but a bit less so with the social program, i.e. the actual experimentation.
Ooh, while in a heath care facility she talks about vampires and Giles pretends it's a delusion with which he plays along. That must sting real bad for Buffy: in Normal Again (6x17) we learn that she has already been in a (that time: mental) health care facility in which people didn't believe her about the vampires.
Child Buffy playing supergirl with who I assume is her cousin Celia was suuuuper cute. I don't recall the images from The Weight of the World (5x21), but I think child-Buffy in 2x18 didn't look exactly like child-Buffy in 5x21. Oh well, maybe (up to) three years of aging will do that to a child.
Buffy is sick so she can see the monster which she fights to save the kids the end. MotW, kept me looking at the screen the whole time, didn't move any needles on anything as far as I can tell. Not terrible, but not what excites me about BTVS.

Loose threads: I did not talk about Larry grabbing Buffy's ass in Phases or Buffy commenting on Xander not making use of her being under his (er, Amy's) spell in Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered. I don't think I have anything new to say, but I want to acknowledge that those things happened.
Episode tier list

S-tier: 17
A-tier: 7 13 14 > 9 10 15 16
B-tier: 3 6 > 1
C-tier: 8 11 > 5
D-tier: 2 4 18 > 12

FWIW, I tend to rank two-parters as a unit, probably where I would place the best half. If I tried to distinguish real hard, Surprise (2x13) might end up somewhere lower on the A-tier. I'm not sure about What's My Line (2x9-2x10).

submitted by jonaskoelker to buffy [link] [comments]

2024.05.18 16:06 adulting4kids Obscure Literary Devices Writing Class Assignments

Device Identification Exercise:

Provide excerpts from various texts and ask students to identify and annotate instances of specific literary devices.
Discuss their findings as a class, exploring different interpretations and applications of the devices.

Creative Writing Prompts:

Assign each student a specific literary device and ask them to craft a short story or poem that prominently features that device.
Encourage creativity and exploration of the device's nuances in their narratives.

Literary Analysis Essays:

Assign students a literary work (poem, speech, or prose) and ask them to write an essay analyzing the author's use of a chosen literary device.
Emphasize the impact of the device on the overall theme and tone of the work.

Collaborative Storytelling:

Divide the class into small groups and have each group create a collaborative story.
Assign a different literary device to each group, instructing them to incorporate it seamlessly into their narrative.

Speech Writing and Delivery:

Have students choose a social or political topic and write a persuasive speech using anaphora or epizeuxis to enhance their rhetorical impact.
Organize a speech delivery session where students showcase their use of repetition for emphasis.

Literary Device Showcase:

Assign each student or group a different literary device and ask them to prepare a presentation showcasing its historical origins, notable examples, and contemporary usage.
Encourage multimedia elements such as visuals or short video clips to enhance engagement.

Rewriting Exercises:

Provide sentences or paragraphs containing common expressions and ask students to rewrite them using more complex literary devices.
Discuss the impact of the changes on tone, mood, and overall meaning.

Debate on Stylistic Choices:
- Organize a debate where students defend or critique an author's use of a specific literary device in a given text.

Encourage students to articulate how the device contributes to or detracts from the effectiveness of the work.

Literary Device Scavenger Hunt:

Provide a list of literary devices and have students search for examples in books, articles, or online.
Discuss their findings in class, exploring how different authors use the same device in diverse ways.

Themed Poetry Slam:

- Task students with creating a thematic poetry slam where each participant focuses on a different literary device. - Host a class poetry slam event where students perform their pieces and discuss their choices.

Interactive Online Quizzes:

- Curate online quizzes or interactive activities that allow students to self-assess their understanding of literary devices. - Provide instant feedback to reinforce learning.

Peer Review and Feedback:

- Implement peer review sessions where students exchange their creative writing assignments and provide constructive feedback on the integration of literary devices. - Encourage discussions on the effectiveness of different approaches.

Literary Device Journal:

- Assign students a literary device to track in their personal reading over a set period. - Have them maintain a journal documenting instances of the device, their interpretations, and reflections on its impact.

Literary Device Bingo:

- Create bingo cards with different literary devices - As students encounter instances of these devices in class readings or discussions, they mark off the corresponding squares on their bingo cards.

Real-world Application Project:

- Challenge students to find examples of literary devices in advertisements, speeches, or news articles. - Present their findings, discussing how the devices are employed for persuasive or artistic purposes in the real world.

submitted by adulting4kids to writingthruit [link] [comments]

2024.05.18 15:48 UltraChilly Is there a way to make speech bubbles?

I've tried using the tooltip, but in FPS view it sits right on the character at first then goes away when I try to update it.
I've tried using the particle emitter with a png containing text as a particle, that works, but it's hardly a solution.
Any other idea or option I'm missing?
I'm just trying to set a speech bubble above my NPCs I can udpate (the idea is you can "hear" NPCs "talking" to themselves and then when you interact I use the dialog system)
(sorry if I wrongly use some terms or misspell them, English is not my first language and this is quite technical lol, feel free to use technical English in your answers though, I'll manage)

submitted by UltraChilly to rpginabox [link] [comments]

2024.05.18 15:45 Eeveetron7 is this the right way to make my own subs?

okay so i put down a few simple affirmations in a text to speech app (copy pasted it a few times so that it runs longer), and then under it i put a few ‘why’ affirmations. i sped it up a lot and put them at 4% vol and then put music over it. is this correct?

submitted by Eeveetron7 to Subliminal [link] [comments]

http://swiebodzin.info