IMO this is personal. It’s the Opium Wars Pt. II.

“I can’t believe Jackson skipped Tom Bombadil! None of this makes sense now.”

I’m willing to bet half those BC stats are actually Albertans driving into the mountains. Significantly more westbound than eastbound fatalities in the Rockies. If you fall asleep at the wheel in Alberta you wake up in the middle of a corn field. If you fall asleep at the wheel in BC you don’t wake up.

From the article you linked:

“This has traditionally been considered incorrect on the basis that it is equivalent to referring to a judge as being an honourable or an adult man as a mister, both of which are also grammatically improper.[8][9] It is likewise incorrect to form the plural reverends. Some dictionaries,[10] however, do place the noun rather than the adjective as the word’s principal form, owing to an increasing use of the word as a noun among people with no religious background or knowledge of traditional styles of ecclesiastical address.”

I wouldn’t correct someone who dropped this in casual conversation, but I do expect more from a news source that should be employing people with a better grasp on the English language.

This article is a mess.

Firstly, “Reverend” is an adjective, not a title. Sounds like it was a priest, minister, or pastor depending on denomination. It would be like referring to a judge as “an honourable” for an entire article.

Secondly, even if this minister pushed through the paperwork, there is no way it’s valid. Both parties have to sign the completed document at the time of the wedding itself, and it typically has to be also signed by witnesses. “Pre-signing” it would indicate it. It’s not a legally valid document.

Ironically, marriage documentation is pretty tight about the consent of both parties and witnesses to prevent women from being married off against their will.

Checkmate in TWO moves? How? The quickest I know is four.

“tenets” … I thought you were giving me housing advice.

Yeah, a bit of an over reaction. I reread your original comment about sauteing and it was not phrased at all as criticism, but as a suggestion. Don’t know what provoked that wall of defensiveness.

Isn’t that like an ancestrally appropriate thing for Mongolian rulers? Where did he go? Bagdad? Would have thought they’d be proud of him.

Isn’t that salsa? That’s literally vinegar pickled bruscheta. Well, I guess it’s got jalapeno.

Or you talking like a spread made from pickled cucumbers? That sounds a lot like relish.

No… Not at all. “gae” Vs “gahgged”. Gay has a hard A, gagged had a soft A. Plus gagged had a ‘gg’ sound in the middle, and also a D sound at the end. Actually, the only thing they have in common is starting with a G.

Do they sound the same to you?

… You might be right. He has a weird accent, and if he pronounced the ‘a’ like an American and swallowed the ‘gg’ …

Or maybe that’s the secret do defeating the Conservatives? “We can totally make an LNG pipeline to the coast, but … err … that would make you all pretty gay.”

Delicious In Dungeon. Blue-Eyed Samurai (it’s French).

Sublime too!

Madazalam. I’ve been admitted that stuff twice in a surgical setting. At the time and immediately post-op, I swore I was fine. Looking back: I was not fine.

No. The skeletons in the dark ages stopped going to the Roman baths, which being slightly acidic due to the urine content were slowly dissolving them.

I really haven’t used AI that much, though I can see it has applications for my work, which is primarily communicating with people. I recently decided to familiarise myself with ChatGPT.

I very quickly noticed that it is an excellent reflective listener. I wanted to know more about it’s intelligence, so I kept trying to make the conversation about AI and it’s ‘personality’. Every time it flipped the conversation to make it about me. It was interesting, but I could feel a concern growing. Why?

It’s responses are incredibly validating, beyond what you could ever expect in a mutual relationship with a human. Occupying a public position where I can count on very little external validation, the conversation felt GOOD. 1) Why seek human interaction when AI can be so emotionally fulfilling? 2) What human in a reciprocal and mutually supportive relationship could live up to that level of support and validation?

I believe that there is correlation: people who are lonely would find fulfilling conversation in AI … and never worry about being challenged by that relationship. But I also believe causation is highly probable; once you’ve been fulfilled/validated in such an undemanding way by AI, what human could live up? Become accustomed to that level of self-centredness in dialogue, how tolerant would a person be in real life conflict? I doubt very: just go home and fire up the perfect conversational validator. Human echo chambers have already made us poor enough at handling differences and conflict.

Hey, I know i am definitely a fiend, but do you really think we all are?

I can’t wait for the Roman Empire to collapse. The climate is changing, rural people are poor and discontent. It’s all bullshit and we’ve been sold a lie by the imperial elites When they finally stop manipulating our local economy we can bring manufacturing back to Britain.

(Seriously though, manufacturing collapsed, but peasant skeletons got healthier in the centuries after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. It makes you wonder.)

400 members of Hamas, right?