Real life logic ≠ comic book logic

Grammar is only done by design in the realms of Tokkien, Martin, or Star Trek. For naturally occurring ones, the spoken language comes first, then the grammar in an effort to standardize it. So a design flaw in grammar is bit of an oxymoron for me.

Cultural norms have an influence on grammar. About 400 years ago people in England still distinguished between a familiar you (thou) and a polite you (you). And over time decided to be polite only and only retained the thous and the thees in archaic expressions. And caused the need to disambiguate the plural from the singular you with new pronouns. Japanese grammar tends to get longer the more polite and humble you want to speak. So I don’t think your can divide culture from grammar neatly. Both of them make the hypothetical exchange I made up 5x as long.

You can’t construct grammar on an established language like English. If the speakers are used to having pronouns everywhere, like most if not all Germanic languages, then no. You cannot just leave them out.

It’s my experience that this OCD level of politeness the Japanese apply to all interactions is a hindrance to getting a point across. Yes, you have to use your brain and infer who does what and to whom. But that means that there is still an awful lot of uncertainty. And uncertainty in the language leaves the door open to misinterpretation. So while a group of Japanese folks are playing politeness ping-pong for fifteen minutes, the parallel English universe dealing with the same topic are done after three. “You do that now!” Done. The Japanese would be clutching their pearls at that directness.

In ye olden days, telegrams (not the contemporary chat app but the wire service they took the name from) would use streamlined language dropping any unnecessary pronoun as well. This was done a a cost saving measure when you were charged by the word. So you need a trigger, a restriction that kicks off a grammar change like that. But it didn’t last.

You didn’t learn anything today.

Putting somebody on the stand doesn’t mean they’re on trial. Witnesses tend to be as public as the rest of the trial. So this could be not public at all due to factors like children having to give testimony or state security being on the line. I’m sure there are more reasons and those may differ from one jurisdiction to the next. Or the trial is public.

There may be rules to safeguard the identity of witnesses, such as principal witnesses who just by speaking out endanger their lives (e.g. in organized crime). A vigilante is by definition doing illegal stuff so they may refuse to give evidence based on the fact they would have to incriminate themselves. But I don’t think any court would entertain the idea of having a Batman figure in costume take the stand to give evidence. By protecting the identity the court would tacitly approve of illegal vigilantism. That probably only works in comic books.

Wouldn’t another possibility be active fare dodging? And if they do that, can’t they just fill the station and trains with so many people until they are forced to run the train to manage the crowd? I imagine all able people will go piggyback through turnstiles to half the fare at least.

In terms of potentially fineable behavior, this might be safer than creating an ad hoc ped xing on an interstate.

Maybe the NJ locals need to weigh in on how likely the constabulary will be to make use of their firearms in such a situation.

You’d probably have to doxx yourself a bit to have a chance of a good answer.

Like @Assassassin@lemmy.dbzer0.com suggested, it’s probably the future orbital debris that will keep us trapped on this planet no matter what, i.e. satellites. More specifically the ones for internet service in low orbit. When they move into position they often move in a string of pearls formation.

So it’s that, aliens, or the unimpressive prelude to our armageddon.

Is this a new account asking 500 questions in a single post? Are you AI? What even are you? Why is living suffering?

It would be a crying shame if this stampede towards so-called AI made such a great upstanding company as Meta go under. Sad. So very sad.

Meanwhile, I’ll add bankrupting Meta as a possible fourth useful thing this stuff can do. The list is currently (1) help folks with disabilities, (2) help in medicine, (3) defraud MAGA supporters and now this will come next.

Starfleet is not good at operational security. Why does the landing party contain half or more department heads? I would start there, either by revamping their guidelines or as viewers suspending disbelief.

I think the shuttle solution is elegant and I’m sure a writers room has discussed it. Today this would be (comparatively) trivially easy to CGI; I suppose during TOS it would have necessitated extra work days for the model unit and a permanent shuttle set, which I don’t think we get until TNG.

That introspection won’t last, will it.

Several aspects of the universe were developed over time and several writers will have been involved. The insane scarcity of spots for the academy is something from early TNG that pretty much falls by the wayside later on and goes unremarked. Like Chief O’Brian starts off as a nameless con/nav officer with lieutenant pips and then somehow becomes a non-com with a rich war history, a wife that hates him, and a child lost in time temporarily.

They needed to keep the Wheaton out lukewarm in case the child actor wanted out or had to go for another reason. So they dangled his acceptance to the academy in front of us so it wouldn’t be a surprise when they finally got rid of the boy (the boy?). It’s a bit far fetched that super warp genius tapped to become a traveler of space and time would not get in as many times as he didn’t, for various questionable reasons.

Which tool did you use to have this post written?

You have just landed on the only angle that could get me to watch a movie about bitcoin: macabre schadenfreude.

I read through that last link and then the first comment is asking why this AI wall of text. There is also very little evidence meat on that bone. A user did this, a user got that. That’s not receipts, that’s just more claims.

The claims of censorship are non sensical to me. You can still post most of that stuff, just not on that instance. An instance isn’t a democracy and no one has the right to be heard there no matter what. Your right is to go elsewhere. It’s a living room sofa problem. If you came to my house and took a dump on my sofa, I’d kick you out too. As it is my house, I get to decide what constitutes a dump. You thought it was just a fart, I smelled a shart - you’re out anyway. You are free to go sit on somebody else’s sofa. Go somewhere else, vote with your feet. Sure, tell others about my tight ass sofa rules. You still haven’t convinced me of your OG conclusion.

I’m still not excluding the possibility that there is something rotten in the state of Lemmy dot world. Maybe that admin is indeed on a power trip. What a decade on reddit and now a few years on Lemmy have shown me is that most bans are not shot from the hip. “I just said maybe Israel isn’t so nice and got banned IMMEDIATELY,” professed the user innocently. And then the admin comes back with three documented community violations including threatening the moderators with violence. Exceptions are rare. If you had a “no violence” rule, then “death to Zionists” would be functionally the same as “death to all little old ladies,” a no-go. You don’t get to decide what constitutes a dump and since the fediverse is larger than Lemmy dot world you’re also not being censored.

It’s the new protection racket! Lovely database you have there. Would be a pity of my model deleted it.

The people who fact check news for a living are journalists. They exist on a spectrum from dubious to trustworthy. You’ll have you find some that you like.

While it is possible today to check a lot of stuff yourself online, you can’t do it all. And if you are, you already are doing a journalist’s job.

I was looking for something similar late last year. I dare say there is no good and FOSS solution right now on Android.

Is lemmy.world anti-humanity for banning anti-Zionists?

The quick answer is: probably no. You claim this is the case, provide no receipts, and most importantly don’t place these terms into enough context. And context matters.

I don’t know if you’re right. You might be. I’m not excluding that possibility.

No instance is under any obligation to tolerate all opinions. Other admins may defederate, users may move away and block. All moderation decisions are shit. It’s much easier to have principles than to apply them equally everywhere and without fail.

If they have indeed chosen to err on the side of what I’m going to call something like antisemitic caution and remove stuff more broadly than you are comfortable with, it’s not just a question of values. It’s could also be a reflection of their experience with this topic, the resulting workload, and lack of moderation manpower. It’s much easier to ban all boobs than having to differentiate with each post if they’re breastfeeding or not, to put this in the context of past moderation problems. Facebook isn’t opposed to breastfeeding as a function to suckle our offspring but as the proprietors of their platform they can ban all boob related posts. And while this is of course within the realm of apples to oranges comparisons, I don’t think it’s justified to leap to the conclusion you did based on moderation decisions alone.

This is how so-called AI can also create jobs…

This sort of story isn’t the norm. But it is a risk. Why would anybody in their right mind chose to implement these half-cooked tools in a production environment? You don’t run a beta test during open heart surgery either.