I feel like this has been done. There was an AI generated “debate” between Biden and Trump that was mostly swear words. But it was trained on their speeches and was mostly gibberish and insults.

Edit: It was on Twitch, and users could add inputs and questions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDKBtAWtTfg

Jokes on them, I don’t have any.

Oh. I made myself sad.

Perplexica? What sort of sauce goes with that?

For a minute I legit thought Italy had dropped a new pasta shape.

They say you shouldn’t generalize about people.

Google gorilla feet.

I read that as “California launches electric trains at US…” and I was confused.

Traditionally, that’s what the insult meant. It would seem that modern usage is shifting.

It’s fascinating to read all the top comments from people who didn’t know the implication. I would guess that you and others assumed from context that it means “fragile.” It’s a reasonable assumption, and if enough people use it to mean that, then that will be a new meaning of the word.

Language evolves, so it isn’t fair to say that you or they are “wrong,” but it belies the problem with using metaphors in communication. If the listener doesn’t understand the metaphor, they’re more likely to fill in their own guess than they are to ask for clarification or look it up. And that’s not a flaw, that’s actually a fantastic adaptation that makes language possible in the first place. How many words did you learn from the dictionary, compared to how many you learned from reading or hearing them used?

Take the name “Nimrod.” Nimrod was a Biblical character known to be a great hunter. It has frequently been used sarcastically to impugn the hunting skills of the target, most famously by Daffy Duck to describe Elmer Fudd, and then again by Bugs Bunny to describe Yosemite Sam. But most of the people watching the cartoons weren’t Biblical scholars, and the word entered the public consciousness as a generic insult which has come to mean a stupid person.

The term for the phenomenon is “semantic drift.” See also: peruse, awful, nice, and the currently-relevant “weird.”

I agree completely. I just wonder why anyone argues that he’s not obviously trying to actively destroy Twitter.

I honestly believe that he was backed into a corner and this was his out. His mouth wrote checks he literally couldn’t cash, and when he was forced to fork over the money, the spiteful little shit was like “Ok, well these oligarchs would like to see Twitter festroyed anyway, so let’s do that.”

Have you been in a Spencer’s recently? Remember the skeezy area in the back? That’s now the whole thing.

Yeah, a lot of people are (understandably) mad at Crowdstrike right now, but I want to drag some c-suite executives into a conference room and impress upon them the value of allocating budget for test environments and disaster recovery. Banks, airlines, service providers, these aren’t mom-and-pop bakeries and plumbers who don’t have time for all that nonsense. Every service that went down should be looking for the fuckwit in their organization, and they’re probably in the executive lounge. Anyone can make a mistake, but it takes dedication to systematically ignore the best advice of top experts in the field and run your infrastructure on a shoestring budget.

How do bad ideas like this ever get off the ground?

I don’t understand.

Ironically, what you’re doing is called “equivocating.” It’s the assumption that two different concepts mean the same thing, often because they are named with the same word.

In this case, you are equivocating the concept of judging the relative merits of two things with the concept of noting differences between two disparate things. Both concepts are called “comparing” but they are different concepts.

To use your example, you can compare bikes and cars by speed, by price, by cargo capacity, by viability as a means of transport, by weight, etc. You are looking at the qualities, quantifiable or otherwise, to evaluate the two things in relation to each other.

You can also compare the mechanics of the two machines. A car has an engine and a transmission, a gas tank, power steering and brakes, electronics, a radio, rearview camera, tire pressure sensors, and cup holders. A bike has gears, a chain, pedals, a frame, brakes, a bottom bracket, a fork, shifters, reflectors, and a little cage for a water bottle. These might be similar in components and functionality, but you wouldn’t say one is better or worse, because they are each built for a specific function. If you compare a cup holder to a water bottle cage, you could define how they are similar and how they are dissimilar, but it would not be the same sort of comparison as comparing the top speed of a car to the top speed of a bike.

Both uses of the term “compare” are correct. There’s no inaccuracies in your language, because the word “compare” means something different in each context. English is full of words like this, where the meaning can be slightly changed or even entirely opposite depending on when and how it is said. That doesn’t mean you are using the words wrong. Your confusion of the two concepts is the mistake, not the use of one word to describe two different things.

Usually, the food has it’s own oil, which is heated by the air around it. That’s how air-frying gets food crispy (but it doesn’t always work).

Our best understanding of neurology is like a blank map. As we grow and learn, we discover places on the map. We discover where the feelings on our fingers grow, and how to imitated the noises we hear. We discover the balance and coordination to walk and run and flip. Each place on the map is connected like pathways through a forest. The more we run along the path, the wider and more permanent it becomes.

The true power of the human mind is the ability of language. We have a superpower, to create an infinite number of sounds and shapes that arbitrarily describe an unlimited set of concepts. There are things we never dreamed of that our grandchildren will name, and it is this capacity to observe, remember, and describe things that has given rise to every great human accomplishment.

You learned the word “airport” as a place on your map. You never needed to connect it to the etymological history of the word, so you never needed to walk those paths. They were always there, which is why it seems obvious to you now, and also why a lot of people have the initial inclination to say “duh, of course.” That’s an expected response.

But we should all appreciate and marvel at the enormity of civilized history that has us here, scribing words on glass and light and copper, sending them instantaneously around the world, to discuss how the place where our flying machines engage in cooperative commerce and transport, how that concept is so mundane that you never even bothered to glance at the constituent words as separate concepts.

This is an amazing world, and we are all marvelous creatures. We are the absolute quintessence of stardust, and our progeny will look back on us as quaint.

Man, these are good drugs.

TIL thanks! Which VPN would you suggest?

It’s a vpn. There are many, that’s just one example.