FriendOfDeSoto

Yeah but it isn’t here.

If you want to get picky, Xwitter didn’t enshitify as laid out as a concept by Cory Doctorow. The best example is probably Amazon which went from being insanely user friendly to lock in users, to supplier-friendly and increasingly less so for users, until it had squeezed and shafted both groups. That’s enshitification and it doesn’t apply to Xwitter. They had problems to make money before a certain somebody bought it. They’ve been bleeding users since the eventually Nazi saluting manbaby bought it, who then wanted to sue advertisers who refused to buy ads on his service. There was no user lock-in and then a supplier lock-in. There was just shit. All their current problems are man made. By one specific man.

I would argue you cannot enshitify a service that was already shit. At this point this is more of a conshitidation.

Oh, man, this will affect tens of people.

If Ockham’s Razor points to the simplest possible reason of anything to be the most likely one, Drumpf’s Razor, which I have just made up, holds that the dumbest possible explanation is probably true when the incumbent US head of state is involved. These are posts by an undereducated narcissist; the choice of targets is at best accidental.

The prompt probably included “destroy Iran” and whichever model they used was like gotcha, destroying Ireland it is.

I can think of two confederacies that have flags. And you haven’t specified the feed.

Which one? And that applies both to the confederacy and the feed here.

If you subtract the satire from the movie Mars Attacks, pretty much that. Uh uh uh.

Is asking generalized closed questions like that too simple a rhetoric tool to discuss family ties, especially around death?

Real life logic ≠ comic book logic

Grammar is only done by design in the realms of Tokkien, Martin, or Star Trek. For naturally occurring ones, the spoken language comes first, then the grammar in an effort to standardize it. So a design flaw in grammar is bit of an oxymoron for me.

Cultural norms have an influence on grammar. About 400 years ago people in England still distinguished between a familiar you (thou) and a polite you (you). And over time decided to be polite only and only retained the thous and the thees in archaic expressions. And caused the need to disambiguate the plural from the singular you with new pronouns. Japanese grammar tends to get longer the more polite and humble you want to speak. So I don’t think your can divide culture from grammar neatly. Both of them make the hypothetical exchange I made up 5x as long.

You can’t construct grammar on an established language like English. If the speakers are used to having pronouns everywhere, like most if not all Germanic languages, then no. You cannot just leave them out.

It’s my experience that this OCD level of politeness the Japanese apply to all interactions is a hindrance to getting a point across. Yes, you have to use your brain and infer who does what and to whom. But that means that there is still an awful lot of uncertainty. And uncertainty in the language leaves the door open to misinterpretation. So while a group of Japanese folks are playing politeness ping-pong for fifteen minutes, the parallel English universe dealing with the same topic are done after three. “You do that now!” Done. The Japanese would be clutching their pearls at that directness.

In ye olden days, telegrams (not the contemporary chat app but the wire service they took the name from) would use streamlined language dropping any unnecessary pronoun as well. This was done a a cost saving measure when you were charged by the word. So you need a trigger, a restriction that kicks off a grammar change like that. But it didn’t last.

You didn’t learn anything today.

Putting somebody on the stand doesn’t mean they’re on trial. Witnesses tend to be as public as the rest of the trial. So this could be not public at all due to factors like children having to give testimony or state security being on the line. I’m sure there are more reasons and those may differ from one jurisdiction to the next. Or the trial is public.

There may be rules to safeguard the identity of witnesses, such as principal witnesses who just by speaking out endanger their lives (e.g. in organized crime). A vigilante is by definition doing illegal stuff so they may refuse to give evidence based on the fact they would have to incriminate themselves. But I don’t think any court would entertain the idea of having a Batman figure in costume take the stand to give evidence. By protecting the identity the court would tacitly approve of illegal vigilantism. That probably only works in comic books.

You’d probably have to doxx yourself a bit to have a chance of a good answer.

Like @Assassassin@lemmy.dbzer0.com suggested, it’s probably the future orbital debris that will keep us trapped on this planet no matter what, i.e. satellites. More specifically the ones for internet service in low orbit. When they move into position they often move in a string of pearls formation.

So it’s that, aliens, or the unimpressive prelude to our armageddon.

Is this a new account asking 500 questions in a single post? Are you AI? What even are you? Why is living suffering?

It would be a crying shame if this stampede towards so-called AI made such a great upstanding company as Meta go under. Sad. So very sad.

Meanwhile, I’ll add bankrupting Meta as a possible fourth useful thing this stuff can do. The list is currently (1) help folks with disabilities, (2) help in medicine, (3) defraud MAGA supporters and now this will come next.

That introspection won’t last, will it.

Which tool did you use to have this post written?