Joined the Mayqueeze.
Depends on your definition of common. When the movable type printing press came to the British Isles, the available characters didn’t include the thorn so printers used the y as a stand-in. It was the beginning of the end and all “ye olde shoppe” signs are just a snapshot of a particular time in history.
I think the sound you’re hearing is a bunch of people creating throwaway accounts for this one. Not me though. I’m a saint.
Perp walks. Teachers in school in front of class. Other kids in school being mean. Public dress downs at work. I’m sure there are more. Not all perps walked reoffend. Kids get their shit together because they don’t want to be made to look silly in front of their peers. I think for some employees this works similarily.
Shaming only works if the shamed feels any. The doublers-down are often the ones who don’t feel shame. So it was the wrong tool for the job. Won’t work on 47 if you know what I mean.
Just to clarify: I would personally put this tool in the “break glass in case of last resort” section of the tool box. But I’ve worked with bosses who didn’t put these restrictions on themselves and it can work.
You could question their leadership qualities if you wanted to. That’s a benefit of arm chairing this stuff in an internet forum.
Just by origin of the word polyglot means you have many tongues. Tongues is of course well established as a stand-in for languages. If you can speak more than one, you fall under the definition.
I think people have attached more to the term than just that though. I’m thinking of well traveled and culturally sensitive as well. Somebody who would be alright no matter where you dropped them.
How many languages can your better half say good morning in? She might just be trying to pay you a compliment and you with your humilis gloriatio are not having it. In any case, I wouldn’t recommend going back to her with arguments obtained from a random group of internet users to settle your interpersonal disagreement.
I was shooting for “neutral you”.
I think you missed.
I assumed that you were also a fan.
You know what you do when you assume, don’t you?
Thus any course of action that happens to also serve it warrants scrutiny.
If that’s what you think I’m surprised you asked the question in the first place considering one of the binary choices you provided is essentially d-humping. Your mind is already made up. I also feel you’re moving the goal posts. You asked who is more idiotic, not whose behavior should be under more scrutiny.
So I wonder what “you” you, and from here on that means you personally unless otherwise stated, are referring to. Are you ascribing idiot-shouting behavior to me personally? Or are you referring to the neutral “you,” which can be replaced with “one?” The reason I’m wondering is that I have given no indication that I shout at idiots but your reply could be incorrectly construed in such a way that I do. Which then doesn’t make the motive warning any clearer also. Because it could be a interpreted as meaning I like to be “dominance-humping” and I ought to reflect on that. Or that my reasoning is too Darwinistic. Or that I shouldn’t judge tight calls by small statistical margins. Or that I like correcting people? Etc. It just isn’t clear.
If this was pointed at my personally then you in particular and one in general should keep in mind that the person answering a binary question of the calibre “Which is worse, the plague or cholera?” doesn’t necessarily need to be suffering from either disease to make an assessment. So looping back to your OG query: I would say it’s better not to shout at anyone in general. But I’m also sure you and I after careful deliberation could agree on some exceptions relating to your query that aren’t monkey business. E.g. the idiot could be in danger, the idiot could be a racist abusing the marginalized, the idiot could be hard of hearing, etc. This sort of longer discussion isn’t encouraged by a binary prompt.
If we have defined “idiotic” to a sufficiently objective degree, I think the idiot wins the race. The shouter - although not in the best manner - is at least trying to make the idiot aware of their transgression. It’s a reaction to the idiotic behavior, not out of the blue. And while it will not work in correcting the idiot’s behavior all the time, there is at least the chance that the reaction is memorable to the idiot - public shaming is s powerful tool - which could lead to reflection, and thus prevent a recurrence. It’s these small odds that tilt this seesaw of a question for me.
Let’s say you’re right and you’ve prevented the birth of Adolf or altered him to send him to another life trajectory. Who is to say that there wouldn’t be another mad person, naturally a man, who would rise to power and commit similar if not even worse crimes. It’s not only the person that made the fuehrer possible, it’s also everything happening in the world, especially politics at the time. So you’ve bumped Adolf but you’ve created Anton who was similarly radicalized but he wasn’t a landscape painter, he was a physics major and he made Germany develop nuclear weapons much faster. So now you have to go back and disturb Anton’s conception. Which brings about fuehrer Armin and so forth. You might be stuck in a time loop you’ll never be able to stop because you can’t control all the variables.
But we already know what to expect thanks to Stormy Daniels.
It’s where all good engagements start!
…
No, I mean engagements to marry.
…
Is it just me? It’s just me, is it. Oh, okay.
qA fA qing plaH! Today is a good day to die!
I do not sense this. Your experience is your own. Just keep in mind you’re looking at a sliver of the whole thing at the best of times. You’re too tiny a dataset, especially considering you just made the sensible swap.
I get that. It’s just the constellation of stuff here. Polish youths in considerate numbers falling in love with Russian culture is a bit like saying 9/11 firefighters are turning to Islam for guidance. Not that both scenarios would be inherently bad, they’re just not very likely. That’s why I asked for more than hearsay.
Can you back this up with anything but personal observation? There is nary a country in Europe that is under threat of a Russian invasion as much as Poland, now that they’re already in Ukraine. Right wingers all over Europe are very pro-Russian - except in Poland. History looms large in a country whose neighbors split it 3 times. It’s obviously possible that Polish younglings, unburdened with things like history, like the culture. You are well within you rights to separate the culture from its people’s history or what the current government is like. But I have a hard time imagining this as more as a passing fluke at best, or propaganda at worst.
But you had Facebook. That’s as good as having it. They know you. Their grubby tentacles will never let go!
Whether you like it or not, they probably already know who you are too. They’re collecting shadow profiles of people who haven’t signed up through various means.
If others have posted pictures of you on a meta service, there is a good chance it already knows what you look like and they know it’s you even if you’re not tagged.
People who allow them access are just less work for them. And now they have info to train their so-called AI models. Now it’s a question about what are they going to with them. The application is wide. Create fake pictures, create fake profiles, etc. And at some point we will find out about a massive data leak that happened because the company is run by unapologetic sociopaths.
Socialism badge unlocked.
I think there may be a paradox hiding in your question. You cannot believe in free will. You have it or you don’t - I would postulate you need a neutral third-party observer to tell you. For us humans, a Martian might do. Believing is an act of faith. Faith tends to bend will to its dogmas. I would go so far as to say belief is the natural enemy of a free will.
We are distracted animals. All things being equal, the Martian observer will after years of careful study come to the conclusion that humans have free will. But it’s constantly battered by short attention spans, a tendency to go with the herd, presupposituons in our heads that we don’t often or never question, etc. We are a smartphone full of bloatware running on too little RAM. It takes skill to operate. Some are more skillful than others.
You could of course counter that by saying that’s what you believe. It’s paradoxes all the way down.
In their defense, they were probably lying before the advent of so-called AI as well.
We humans always underestimate the time it actually takes for a tech to change the world. We should travel in self-flying flying cars and on hoverboards already but we’re not.
The disseminators of so-called AI have a vested interest in making it seem it’s the magical solution to all our problems. The tech press seems to have had a good swig from the koolaid as well overall. We have such a warped perception of new tech, we always see it as magical beans. The internet will democratize the world - hasn’t happened; I think we’ve regressed actually as a planet. Fully self-drving cars will happen by 2020 - looks at calendar. Blockchain will revolutionize everything - it really only provided a way for fraudsters, ransomware dicks, and drug dealers to get paid. Now it’s so-called AI.
I think the history books will at some point summarize the introduction of so-called AI as OpenAI taking a gamble with half-baked tech, provoking its panicked competitors into a half-baked game of oneupmanship. We arrived at the plateau in the hockey stick graph in record time burning an incredible amount of resources, both fiscal and earthly. Despite massive influences on the labor market and creative industries, it turned out to be a fart in the wind because skynet happened a 100 years later. I’m guessing 100 so it’s probably much later.