Reread the rule @TheTechnician27@lemmy.world listed; it's not a rule against posting AI, it's a rule against accusing people of posting AI, the very thing they were trying to prompt people to do.

So, if nobody accuses them, is it because nobody noticed, or is it because nobody wanted to break the no-accusing rule? It's impossible to tell, which makes the results of the study worthless.

I'll be honest, this is the first I'm hearing that Time's person of the year isn't a celebration of a given year's most positively-influential person. Granted, I don't read Time, but I don't think it's all that common knowledge that "person of the year" isn't always a compliment. I mean, I've seen several of "___ of the year" awards, and most ended with applauding and rewarding the winner; if Time wants people who don't read it to know that its award doesn't follow common conventions, it should probably title it something to obviously differentiate itself.

They're a company - their only purpose is to make money. They don't hate emulation, they hate not making the absolute maximum amount of money they possibly can. Public use of emulation lowers their profits, while their own use of emulation helps increase their profits. It's not some weird enigma or hypocrisy - money is the singular driving factor for every company; every action they take traces back to making more money. This is why we need much tighter regulation instead of trusting companies to "be reasonable" or "do the right thing."

One of the few things I miss from Reddit were the extra small communities like the one for QC. I liked being able to chat with the 30 other people who read this comic daily.

Yeah, I nearly drowned at 7 when another kid at the wading pool asked if I wanted to go down a water slide into the deeper pool with her. I was aware that I didn't know how to swim, but I didn't really understand why that was important. Kids are dumb, especially when interacting with other kids.

I'm definitely in support of A, regardless. I only know complex words from having seen them used correctly in the wild; how could anyone be expected to learn them otherwise?

The ability to find an approximate definition of a new word using context - and slowly whittle it down to the actual definition over subsequent encounters - is invaluable for gaining better language comprehension.

A lot of people think of forgiveness as something that only happens when the "offending" party falls to their knees to repent for their actions. They can't move on with their lives until they receive closure from someone who may not even realize they did anything that requires being forgiven for, and so these people often hold onto their hurt until it festers and becomes an obsession.

Well, she's already dying of breast cancer that she found while it was still DCIS, but continues to refuse anything but quack treatments even as it's progressed to stage 4, so I doubt a bit of uranium ore will be what takes her out in the end.

Let me break down the original post for you, since you're refusing to understand it for some reason. Free ice cream is a ridiculous thing that would never happen, but would be amazing if it did, and countries like Finland seem to often be in the news for doing amazing things. Banning wheelchair ramps is a ridiculous thing that would never happen, but would be terrible if it did, and the USA seems to often be in the news for doing terrible things. You understand the meaning of a hyperbole - you're just being obtuse.

I happily described a nice coffee shop as "kitschy" to the guy behind the counter and quickly learned from his reaction that it isn't the synonym for "artsy" that I thought it was.

This shouldn't be news. It should be expected that when a company does something that shows it doesn't have its customers' best interests in mind, it's immediately and wholly abandoned. That is the only reaction that gives consumers a level playing field with corporations. If we show them we can forgive them, they'll purposefully use the forgiving nature against us.

A lot of people, myself included, grow up thinking that a person's job is the most important aspect of their life, and often hear the phrase "Do what you love and you'll never work a day if your life." So, they find a job they would like - something that fits with their identity - because that's how the world had been explained to them.

I spent 8 years working toward my "dream job," and realized I hated it within 6 months of getting my first position in the field. Then I quit, and spent 6 months wallowing on my own self pity for having lost the cornerstone of my identity.

Once I got back on my feet, I got a boring white collar job in a field I wasn't interested in, rebuilt my identity with things I was actually interested in, and realized that working is just a thing I have to do to survive, not some life calling that's supposed to define who I am as a person.