“He thought he was hot shit but I took him down a peg” kinda vibe. Doesn’t strike me really as “justice”. Too emotional.

If anything, the “reddit attitude” is making judgements based on vibes instead of the established facts…

I might be more inclined to go to the cinema if the employees would ever actually do something about noisy children on their phones during the show. But even if we ignore them, we have to pay an arm and a leg for tickets and popcorn, then we have to sit through 20 minutes of commercials, and then instead of a real movie, it’s just a bunch of boring ass CGI action sequences

There are lots of adaptations of Greek myth, but none of them are especially faithful to the source material

“Quething” rather than “quothing” FYI

Only if they don’t want to be condemned to hellfire for the blasphemy of monotheism

There are plenty of high quality sources, but I don’t work for free. If you want me to produce an encyclopedia using my professional expertise, I’m happy to do it, but it’s a massive undertaking that I expect to be compensated for.

Your doubts are irrelevant. Just spend some time fact checking random articles and you will quickly verify for yourself how many inaccuracies are allowed to remain uncorrected for years.

With all due respect, Wikipedia’s accuracy is incredibly variable. Some articles might be better than others, but a huge number of them (large enough to shatter confidence in the platform as a whole) contain factual errors and undisguised editorial biases.

I’m a doctor of classical philology and most of the articles on ancient languages, texts, history contain errors. I haven’t made a list of those articles because the lesson I took from the experience was simply never to use Wikipedia.

This, but for Wikipedia.

Edit: Ironically, the down votes are really driving home the point in the OP. When you aren’t an expert in a subject, you’re incapable of recognizing the flaws in someone’s discussion, whether it’s an LLM or Wikipedia. Just like the GPT bros defending the LLM’s inaccuracies because they lack the knowledge to recognize them, we’ve got Wiki bros defending Wikipedia’s inaccuracies because they lack the knowledge to recognize them. At the end of the day, neither one is a reliable source for information.

A gay agenda of peacocks

I guess I just think that there’s a marked difference between using collective nouns that already exist in a language and making up brand new ones whole cloth just for the sake of being clever.

Merriam-Webster writes that most terms of venery fell out of use in the 16th century, including a “murder” for crows. It goes on to say that some of the terms in The Book of Saint Albans were “rather fanciful”, explaining that the book extended collective nouns to people of specific professions, such as a “poverty” of pipers. It concludes that for lexicographers, many of these do not satisfy criteria for entry by being “used consistently in running prose” without meriting explanation. Some terms that were listed as commonly used were “herd”, “flock”, “school”, and “swarm”.

None of those are goofy terms though…

And then, from somewhere deep and previously unknown, there sprang a reserve of fortitude and courage.

Or was it resignation?

Or fatalism?

Or nihilism?

Or perhaps I simply understood, from the darkest corner of my soul, that these pancakes couldn’t kill me because I was already dead…

Folks, I have no more desire to get through the rest of my life than I did to eat those pancakes.

But I ate them.

And the knowledge that I can keep going when all seems lost… that’s a great thing to acquire.

Eating thirty pancakes, ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Funny enough, I just made this account after getting banned from reddit for reporting violent content. Apparently it constituted “abuse of the report button”, go figure.