We don’t target hospitals.

And if we do, it’s not that bad.

And if it is, that’s not a big deal.

And if it is, that’s not our fault.

And if it is, we don’t mean it.

And if we do, the savages deserve it.

They should end in the style of the author’s notes from the fanfic My Immortal instead.

For comparison, if you had a deck of 52 playing cards and shuffled them into a random order, then checked a year later to see if they were in the same order as when you opened the box, reshuffled if they weren’t, and repeated another year later, and so on…

We can use the cumulative distribution function of the geometric distribution 1 - (1 - p)^k, where p is the per-trial probability and k is the number of trials, to find the chance that you’ll find at least one correctly sorted deck from now until the time in this paper. There’s a… Well, SageMath failed because of the exponent, but Wolfram Alpha tells me, uhhhhh…

Yeaaaaaaaaah, we’re not going anywhere any time soon.

Worth noting that OpenHistoricalMap does exist: https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/

Entirely plausible and even probable, though, that a commercial site has more historical map data than OHM does.

blame will still be placed on the war.

Yes, it will, and to a large extent rightly so. I’d hope you understand that this insane fucking whiplash means the following:

1. Logistics have been made more complicated and therefore expensive.
2. Some companies have probably already made expensive changes based on this that can no longer be turned back.
3. Companies (especially small businesses) now feel like they have to “make hay while the Sun shines”, i.e. make money while Trump isn’t tarrifing our biggest source of imports at a gajillity-billion percent. This way they don’t go bankrupt the next time Trump decides to collapse the economy from his phone on the toilet. (EDIT: And to be clear, Trump himself is explicitly saying he will 90 days from now. No remotely stable business is going to say "oh, okay, we’ll just make all of our financial decisions based on this three-month window of quasi-normalcy and not account for the indefinite period of fuckery that’s all but certain to follow.)
4. Consumers (correctly) being worried over this means they’re (correctly) less likely to buy product. If businesses want to stay in business, they either need to downsize or sell each item for more.
5. EDIT: China also isn’t our only trading partner. Exorbitant new tariffs on other countries still exist and still massively impact prices.

I’m 100% certain there are things I’m failing to consider here. Trump moved past the point on the curve where deformation can be considered elastic.

9gag-ass meme tbh

The original AP article so you don’t have to use the slop site it’s syndicated to.

>try all the OS out there

>person you’re responding to is suggesting they try the other one of the two top DEs for Linux desktop before leading with “Linux Is Already Broken Before You Even Start”

This is a ridiculous strawman. I empathize with them and want to see accessibility improve (it’s something I do in the project I work on even though you wouldn’t conventionally expect that blind people can use it). If you’re going to talk in such broad terms about the Linux desktop, not just your specific distro/DE, the onus is on you to at minimum try GNOME and KDE. Instead they chose GNOME and MATE, the latter of which is barely maintained and has effectively zero relevance outside of users who abandoned GNOME ages ago during GTK3 or people whose hardware makes the Atari 2600 look like a supercomputer (it looks like the former here). It’s not 2017 anymore; Ubuntu with GNOME isn’t some near-universal Linux desktop experience. I’m not telling them “nooooo just try my specific config for NixOS bro I promise Linux isn’t that bad”.

This isn’t even to say that KDE will be better; I don’t know, which is why I wish they covered it. If KDE is also bad, then this is a stronger argument that Linux desktop contributors need more awareness of and focus on accessibility. If it’s just mediocre, KDE devs can see it and learn how to improve. If it’s good, then GNOME and MATE devs have a lesson in how they can improve.

I don’t expect anyone to exhaust every DE on every distro, but when the userbase is so firmly concentrated around GNOME and KDE, I expect you to at minimum include KDE (let alone if you include MATE). You don’t have to, but I’m free to criticize your essay if you have such a massive hole in it. If you don’t want to try KDE, literally just find+replace “Linux” to “GNOME/MATE” and solve the problem that way.

Transvestigators: “Trans X will never be real X!”

Also transvestigators: “Trans X are apparently so functionally indistinguishable from biological X that you can’t tell the difference from thousands of hours of footage (including their voice) from public appearances and paparazzi voyeurism taken at almost every possible angle over dozens of years, including childhood pictures. Instead you need to resort to convoluted, pseudoscientific, irreproducibly arbitrary, per-person diagrams of what you allege is their skeleton. This applies to dozens of celebrities. But they’ll never be a real X tho!”

Transvestigators are scum, but I feel if I were trans that these “investigations” of obviously and openly cis people would make me feel more affirmed than basically any other form of external validation.

Just rewrite curl in Rust so you can immediately close any AI slop reports talking about memory safety issues. /s

When you know even a little about how a transformer model works under the hood, the amount of blind trust people put in LLMs is genuinely horrifying.

Also, LLM means “large language model”, not “language-learning model” or “learning language model”. People get this wrong very often.

The Daily Dot, to clarify, is an Internet culture website. So basically their job is to talk about how things related to the Internet. They’re a pretty good source for giving context to a new viral meme or whatever, but I’d caution OP that there’s a time and a place for different sources. This one slipped through the cracks for me, otherwise I probably would’ve found a better source and asked them to substitute it.

TL;DR: Article’s pretty shit; The Daily Dot went out of bounds.

You cut off the part where they say “the production of the”, implying that the production is what’s located in Huntsville, Alabama. I don’t see anything factually wrong with it on its face.

not counting the places they fell for bait like the southern flag and statue distractions

Fell for the bait? Jesus actual christ, we had and still have statues in our parks and town squares erected by the KKK that exist solely to intimidate PoC and venerate men whose only notable “accomplishment” was being on the losing side in a war to own and brutally exploit human beings – black people who they saw as subhumans – and getting those out is “taking the bait”?? Absolutely lost your goddamn mind, like sensible people who want those removed are falling into a trap set by the elite to distract them from class consciousness. Racist dipshits were baited into responding vehemently against that. In much the same way that sensible people didn’t “fall for the bait” when they started supporting trans rights and MAGA made that a wedge issue (although I know some tankies actually fall for that transphobic garbage).

Outdated on Windows? Because on Linux, the LibreOffice UI is great, imo.

Lee-bruh is definitely the way to go since it fluidly connects to the first syllable of “office”. If you do “lib-ray” or “lee-bray”, you’re forcing a ton of unnecessary annunciation on yourself.

Should I have added “nationalize it and make future research funded and owned by the public”? (A lot of public funding already goes to medical research, but the profits get privatized.)

Private corporations researching medications so they can price gouge the chronically ill through a copyright-enforced monopoly isn’t the only way to do medical research.

Nah, should’ve been prior to the gender-affirming surgery.

Alternative: send Vertex Pharmaceuticals’ board to the guillotine and make the medication available for pennies per 50-milligram pill (at cost) or free (publicly funded).

Correct and not at the same time. I’ll use Wikipedia as a source to hopefully show you that I’m in a position to understand some of the nuances.

1. Never, ever, ever cite Wikipedia in formal writing unless it’s to cite some meta aspect of the project itself (such as “this article was 5879 words long as of 4 May 2025”). If you really do need to formally cite Wikipedia, always make sure to grab a permanent URL for the current revision.
2. If you already know a fact but just need it cited, look at the inline citation in the article, evaluate the source, and use it if it’s to your liking.
3. You don’t necessarily have to look at Wikipedia’s sources at all if you don’t want to. You can look at something stated on there then go out and try to find more in-depth information about it if we just cover it in a sentence or two with a shallow citation doing the bare minimum to support only what we say.
4. There are some subtle qualities to articles you only pick up on as an experienced editor, but here are some less vibes-based things: does the article have a little grey or blue padlock at the top right on desktop? Those are protection templates, and they prevent IPs and very new editors from changing the article. Is there a green circle or a bronze star at the top right on desktop? Those represent a good article and a featured article, respectively. A good article has been peer-reviewed by an experienced editor, and a featured article has been peer-reviewed by at least several highly experienced editors. These articles are routinely scrutinized to make sure they keep up their overall quality, and this status can be removed if they deteriorate.
5. Wikipedia legitimately has high standards for the information presented – way higher than when teachers were (absolutely correctly) panicking about students sourcing it in their writing. In 2012 – 13 years ago, when I would consider Wikipedia to have had much lower standards than it does today – it was found that its information about psychological disorders was of higher quality than Britannica and a psychiatry textbook. 2012 Wikipedia was still climbing its way out of the hole that Wikipedia stopped digging around 2006 when it implemented quality standards, and it’s vastly better in 2025 than in 2012.
6. There’s honestly nothing that wrong with using Wikipedia as a source in casual disputes over popular topics. For how many Mughal casualities there were in some obscure 1608 battle? Yeah, probably continue on to the source the article cites instead. For the date of JFK’s assassination? Just take it at face value, to be honest. For something where you just want to give someone a casual overview of the topic? Really just link them to Wikipedia; it’ll likely do a better job than you unless the subject is very underdeveloped there or unless you’re a subject matter expert.
7. As for using Wikipedia as a source in your own private life when you just need to check something? In that case, just try to keep in mind your own level of familiarity with the subject, how obscure the subject is, how contentious the subject is, if the article overall looks well-cited or if it looks/sounds like someone just injected their own original research, if the inline source looks credible (this last one doesn’t guarantee anything; if you want a guarantee, check the source yourself to ensure it says what Wikipedia says it does), if it’s plausible that Wikipedia isn’t showing the full context here, and if the consequences of an inaccurate understanding are worth risking.
8. If you see something on Wikipedia that’s uncited or poorly cited, please either remove it or attempt to find a robust citation for it. It helps a lot.