Sorry, you sounded like you were asking for a definition as if English was not your first language. Did you really want to split hairs over the definition of take? How about, what he said was so stupid it doesn’t warrant a response?
Sorry, you sounded like you were asking for a definition as if English was not your first language. Did you really want to split hairs over the definition of take? How about, what he said was so stupid it doesn’t warrant a response?
Take is a weird word. Take as a noun refers to what has been taken. So, in this context, it is like an opinion informed by a story. In a more definitional use…
I took from that story that the sky is blue. That is what I have taken from that story, therefore, that is my take.
This take is so stupid, it doesn’t warrant a response.
Hmmm… I’m a staunch pacifist and also 100% behind helping Ukraine. These things are not at odds because the enemy of pacifism is aggression. The person that can actually end the war is on the other side of the world.
Always best to keep them guessing. Strategically, it’s gold.
A related problem I see on YouTube is talking heads pruning their comments to create mini echo chambers. This is a real problem.
Are you curious how Russia’s supporters feel about this?
Another problem is their definition of outsider. A rich, corporate douchebag is not.
Wow. Clowns like this should not be in charge of anything.
Yeah. All he had to do was ask him who won the last election and watch him melt down. That was it. Instead he told us how he “defeated Medicare.” We’re screwed.
Thought “libs” was an American specific term. My apologies.
I guess you’re part of the American right? You see… the right in the US has been fed a steady stream of Russian propaganda through their talking heads for a while now. So the right has become indistinguishable from Russian bots. Sorry for the confusion!
That is a great idea. I’m in.
Damn he did all that work to help you… I have a friend just like you. They send me videos of these clowns on YouTube that tie the most random events together to come to the most insane conclusions. Like trivial to disprove stuff. And they turn their channels into little echo chambers by pruning everything out of the comments that isn’t “Thanks for speaking the truth!”
Whoever your YouTuber is, they are lying to you.
This. It’s exchanging long term success for short term wins. I doubt they are going to be the only victims of business over engineering. It’s going to be a slow burn for a lot of companies. Most companies that go this route will slowly crumble as their products enshitify, but the thing is, in most cases, no one will get hurt.
This should have never happened in the aerospace industry.
Sorry, I changed it manually. I should have cropped out the search.
Yeah. This was the problem. i just wanted to copy and paste it quickly but they rounded it off. It’s a useless conversion. And I switched it to mebibytes as well since that’s what everyone really means when they say megabytes unless you’re making selling storage devices. =]
Indeed, I should have just used my calculator program.
I think I have a favorite supreme court justice.
What a message to send to state legislators and mapmakers about racial gerrymandering. For reasons I’ve addressed, those actors will often have an incentive to use race as a proxy to achieve partisan ends. See supra, at 20–22. And occasionally they might want to straight-up suppress the electoral influence of minority voters. See Cooper, 581 U. S., at 319, n. 15. Go right ahead, this Court says to States today. Go ahead, though you have no recognized justification for using race, such as to comply with statutes ensuring equal voting rights. Go ahead, though you are (at best) using race as a short-cut to bring about partisan gains—to elect more Republicans in one case, more Democrats in another. It will be easy enough to cover your tracks in the end: Just raise a “possibility” of non-race-based decision-making, and it will be “dispositive.” Ante, at 16. And so this “odious” practice of sorting citizens, built on racial generalizations and exploiting racial divisions, will continue. Shaw, 509 U. S., at 643. In the electoral sphere especially, where “ugly patterns of pervasive racial discrimination” have so long governed, we should demand better—of ourselves, of our political representatives, and most of all of this Court. Id., at 639. Respectfully, I dissent.
I would encourage everyone to read her whole dissent.
That dude’s comment was 100% troll baiting. No one makes such braindead arguments in good faith. Why would I waste my time? Now, I’m curious… why are you so upset about my response to a blatant troll?