palordrolap

I’m British and I tried to plug something into it.

Why did you cross out a word and then write a synonym right afterwards? I’d put an /s here, but well…

When politicians talk about “the country”, whatever country they happen to be in charge of, they almost always mean the parts of the country that they think are important to the total exclusion of everything else. Or what they’ve been bribed to think of as important. Either way, that usually means “the rich, the important, and their agendas”.

Likewise “the economy” is “the rich people’s yacht fund”.

(This latter one I stole from a viral tweet.)

Both sheep and wolves are religious but for different reasons. You seem to be saying that there are only wolves.

However, the wolves are dressed as sheep, and occasionally it is useful to tear off the sheepskins they hide under in order to save other animals that they also eat, if not also the sheep.

I think so. Maybe I’m now a delusional and surprisingly active corpse.

If God (or Allah if you prefer that name) is so angry about blasphemy, why does He risk letting fallible humans take care of the problem?

Simply cause the blasphemer to drop dead. Then the faithful can clean up the aftermath if they wish to appear faithful, because it is less important how that is handled.

Is this comment blasphemous? We’ll see if I drop dead.

If the British civil service, even operating under previous administrations, can put together a multi-functioning government domain that runs reasonably well without JavaScript, there’s no reason Google can’t continue to do the same with a ducking web search.

The former works better with JavaScript, that’s true, but it works OK without and that’s the point.

Then again, the civil service were ordered to do it largely out of spite because the government didn’t want to give the plebs any excuse for not being able to use the site.

I’m not sure how to get Google to lose the need for scripting in the same way.

“Instagram” is, at least in my opinion, about as awkward as “Friendica” to say, and has millions of users. It wins marginally on spelling, but how often does the average user write or type the full name of a site anyway?

There can’t be a comma missing from a motto which is itself entirely missing. They threw it in a ditch a few years ago. (I’ll be honest, I thought it had to have been at least 10 years at this point, but Wikipedia says otherwise.)

The example picture at the top of the article is weird.

The window title reads “nano” but the software running in the window is Pico, Nano’s now deprecated (and strangely-licenced) spiritual parent. Or it’s Nano hacked to have a Pico header which, while somewhat fitting with the theme, that would be even more weird.

Illiteracy possibly. Almost certainly more people will be less able to read older texts.

If that’s going to happen anyway, they could do worse than adopt Pinyin or some variant of it. Or they might prefer something like Bopomofo if they don’t want to use Western characters for whatever reason.

Either way, any decision like that is likely to be 20-30 years away at minimum, and that’s assuming literacy rates start going down, which they might not. I doubt Xi gives it any thought at all.

The vowel you’re talking about is “ə”, also known as “schwa”. It’s probably the most common vowel sound in all varieties of English - in defiance of spelling - but it occurs in lots of languages. (German often uses it as the sound for final e, and French still retains it in some words and dialects for the same thing too.)

As to how common it is in English:

“Thə vowəl yo~ə’re talking əbout is “ə” also known as “schwa”. It’s probəbly thə most commən vowəl sound in all variəties of English.”

In some varieties ə moves closer to ʌ, a similar sound that’s a little further back in the mouth. Links go to Wikipedia where there are sound files to listen to.

Spies working for a country do not have to look like the stereotypical person from that country. The spy could even be “on loan” from some other country friendly to SK.

Mathematics doesn’t try anything. It’s abstract. Humans try to fit mathematics to real world phenomena, often with great success, but we don’t know why things seem to work out, only that they do.

Whether it means the universe is fundamentally mathematical is a bigger question than for both science and philosophy combined, and so mathematics is merely a useful modelling tool until we know for certain. (And we might never know.)

The “perfect” mathematics in this case is that this planetary system has all planets in what’s called resonance, that is, the orbit time of the planets is in some relatively simple integer ratio. e.g. the innermost planet might go around twice for every once of the next furthest out (2:1), or three times for every two (3:2), etc.

The article doesn’t give the ratios, but there is a tendency for planetary resonances to self-reinforce, that is, once nearby planets in non-resonant motion get close to an orbital resonance, there is a tendency that their orbit speeds will shift towards that resonance over time, and outside interference is usually needed to break a resonance once it has been set up.

There was no grand mathematical plan, only an emergent phenomenon.

Maybe this system has ended up with 32:16:8:4:2:1. That would be neat.

If I was Finland, I would continue as if Russia had changed nothing at that camp, however reassuring the changes there might appear to be.

Even if it’s “only” a training camp now and not a fully operational military installation, I’d still not let my guard down just in case the Russians decide to take a “special training exercise” over the Finnish border. That is the sort of thing they like to do, after all.

I remember this being panel two in a Dilbert strip (from back in the days when Adams did a great job of presenting as sane.)

One take I saw on it was that he has no case because the local authority were not responsible for the harm caused to him, such as it is.

Sure, he feels aggrieved because of the local authority’s refusal to accede to his demands to search the landfill, but that’s secondary. Had he never pursued it they would not have had to say no.

In his shoes, I’d be sick to my stomach every single day, but I might have given up sooner nonetheless. I’m pretty sure that due to sheer bloodymindedness he’s now in deep with various financial backers who were hoping for a return when he succeeded… and now he owes them money.

Basically, if this doesn’t stop him, I’m not sure he’ll ever stop trying.

“Oh, but officer, I was only pretending to be a criminal when I robbed that store, so it doesn’t count.”

TL;DR Only if you misunderstand the intent of the word “delete”.

In the sense of getting rid of the sites themselves, sure, that’ll never happen.

And in the sense that once you’re known to them you’ll never be forgotten, at least not without a massive lawsuit that you’ve little chance of winning, yes.

But you can ask Meta to delete your account(s) and everything visibly associated with you to the point that you no longer have a presence on any of their sites, and that’s what this article is about.

One of the reasons Meta has been creating fake AI-based accounts is because so many people are doing this and they don’t like it and want to make it look like their site is still active. Which is an excellent reason to delete your accounts, even if they weren’t also doing a bunch of other heinous things.

And you can delete the apps from your phone. You should delete your accounts first though.

Thus proving that Tencent is either stupid or is insulting our intelligence.

You’re overreacting too far the other way. Sure they’re not saying he was a duck, they’re saying he was a goose, but for many practical purposes, those two things are the same.

Furthermore, they said what they said in the way that they said it to foment precisely this sort of confusion (or because they’re equally confused. Take your pick.). Did they go on to explicitly say “not an actual communist, but a bit like one”?