It makes no sense to pronounce “jpeg” as “jay-peg” because the ‘P’ in Joint Photographic Experts Group clearly makes a sound like the ‘F’ does in ‘fell’. Saying it like “j-feg” is more correct.
It’s just flatout wrong to say it makes no sense because an acronym is pronounced as a word, not an abbreviation of its words. AIDS isn’t pronounced “awh-ids”, NASA isn’t pronounced “N-eh-sa”.
Motorcycles should not be street legal. If I can get a ticket for not wearing my seatbelt, why do motorcycles get a pass?
Cars should not be street legal. If I can get a ticket for not wearing my helmet, why do cars get a pass?
Because they’re 2 different types of vehicle
You’re inside the moving vehicle and should you not be attached to it you’ll bounce around the inside or go flying out the window in a crash
A motorcyclist is not contained, and thus it’s dumb to attach them to the dangerous and heavy metal should a crash occur. We instead require protective gear (unless you live in a shitty state) so you get less injured if you go flying
If it were supposed to be pronounced “jif” it would have been spelled that way.
This is a jem of a response, but by jeneralizing pronunciations of acronyms only by the way they are spelt, you are opening a jigantic can of worms on etymology and linguistics.
The jist of it is that English is a weird language, jenerally descriptive, and there can be many correct answers to the same pronunciation problem.
GIF is an acronym. Giraffe is not. The Giraffe response has been debunked for decades.
Graphical is a hard G.
Debunked? Its a counterpoint to the fact that it’s pronounced that way because it’s spelled with a g. If that poor argument wasn’t used, the giraffe one wouldn’t have to come up. It’s not evidence of anything other than that letters can be pronounced in more than one way.
For the graphical thing, imagine pronouncing NASA wrong because of the way aeronautical is pronounce. Or underwater in scuba. World in WHO? The I in AIDS isn’t pronounced anything like immunodeficiency.
Your argument doesn’t work either.
If there’s ever a Giraffe Interchange Format, I’ll pronounce it the same as giraffe. And unlike some people, I’ll be able to tell the two apart.
How do you pronounce github? GIMP? GNU? GPU? Javascript?
Oh Geremy, it’s time to jo to the jocery store! We need some jrape gelly.
The creator of the format is documented as having confirmed the pronunciation is “jif”, but I don’t care. Once he created it and put it into the world, he relinquished his control.
Laser is an acronym for Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation, and yet we all pronounce it “lay-Zer” not “lay-Ser”
I was hanging with a group consisting of mostly older millennial gay men who don’t like that trans people are being included alongside them in conversations about human rights, sexuality, and gender. They think it takes away from the fight their community has gone through over the past few generations.
I chewed them out. Like, a lot. I am usually not at all confrontational but I pretty much stunned them into silence. Now I’m waiting to let them process, expecting a couple to reach out to me to step back from some of the shit they were saying. If that doesn’t happen, I guess I’m not really welcome in that group anymore and I’m ok with that.
There are no trans people in this group. I’m not a gay man nor am I trans. But when I hear shit like that, I hear echos of gay men activists not being willing to work with lesbian women activists, white feminists not includig black women, male laborers trying to keep women out of labor rights movements. It’s stupid. It’s tribal and hateful. It undercuts the strength the movement could have if we weren’t asshats about it.
Rights campaigning 101, strength in unity. This is basic ass shit.
While I do agree that unity is the way to go in the fight for rights, I can understand why one would want to separate the T from the LGB. It’s an issue of consistency - L, G, and B all describe sexuality, while T describes gender. The two are related, but ultimately separate concepts - one does not inform the other, and grouping them can hypothetically lead ignorant people to think that they are directly related, which could hypothetically lead to non-straight cisfolk experiencing more oppression than they would have otherwise experienced due to the perceived association with transfolk, as non-conforming sexuality is more generally accepted today than non-conforming gender.
That being said, it’s all hypothetical, and what matters is the reality that people from all spectra of nonconformity are regularly oppressed, and in many places, the oppressors treat anyone LGBT+ with the same disdain. So grouping them is vital for the sake of the most oppressed.
Apparently arguing in favour of AI art is pretty controversial, but then the anti-AI luddites are about as intractable as trump cultists, and their arguments about as valid, so fuck 'em!
the luddites were happy to use the new tech, but not for less pay and worse working conditions, so they trashed the machines - and history has sadly looked down on them ever since.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-the-luddites-really-fought-against-264412/
They are mostly known for having smashed machines and been terrified of technology. That’s where the parallel here lies, and what the term has come to mean. Whether they had good reasons back then is irrelevant, the anti-ai bunch don’t have now.
I drew out the luddite parallel deliberately: artists likely do not mind AI tools if they are credited and compensated for their work, but they receive no residuals nor credit whenever their work is used so using the tools amount to their theft.