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.

Oh no no no … The younger generation of Australians DON’T eat Vegemite. Consequently, they’re growing weak and unhealthy.

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.”

Cool. I went to a Vietnamese restaurant and ate cow bones/tendons/guts soup once. Actually, lots of times.

Sublime too!

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.

My eyes are just a little sweaty today.

https://www.google.com/search?q=disappointment+island&oe=utf-8

Did anyone who was actually curious. The beach pictured is almost certainly not on this “subantarctic” island. Not enough albatrii or fur seals, and too many palm trees.

It’s “O Canada!” It’s the vocative, you bronze bitchlet, not some interjection. We’re not expressing fucking surprise.

Why? Because you think that in spirit Canada and the US are the same thing?

You’re on thin ice right now …

Participants have perfect product and market knowledge.

No, they don’t. They have no idea what the actual costs of the product is, nor are they aware that it’ll break in two weeks … or two days.

EDIT: a typo.

Nah! They’re used to dollar store candies, so I just tell them it’s a candy bar. They love the scented ones, a real treat.

I knew my marriage didn’t have much left in it when for my birthday my wife gifted me a bag of candles that had been half eaten by the kids.