I watched a few documentaries on the 100 Years’ War recently; I’m convinced we’re still living out THAT trauma … and that was just one crazy time out of many. It’s one of the ways I cope with climate change and the degradation of the global environment: reminding myself that living in really fucked up times is more the norm than anything. I do believe that modern technology and the absolute privilege we live with has given many of us in the developed world the illusion that we’re in control of the world. I have a suspicion that the awareness of how little we can do to stop the sheer randomness and brutality of life and human callousness is why religion has been so prevalent for most of history, it’s people having some solidarity in, “Holy shit, this is fucked. God, save us, you’re obviously our only hope.”

IMO geologists missed a lot of opportunities: i.e barfite, flashlite, holdmetite, alrite, campsite, dogshite (it’s white and fossilized, found in small deposits).

Ehh … The definition of a cult includes things like isolating you from your friends and family, and having secret teachings that only the initiated have access to. I.e. the Freemasons: secret teachings, but does not try to isolate you from friends and family. Secret society, but not a cult. Religion is a cult in terms of the original sense of the word: organised worship, but not a cult as we think of them. Though some subsets definitely do get pretty culty. Don’t know about these days, but when I was at university the Campus Crusaders for Christ definitely had the love-bombing and isolating you from your friends and family going on.

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.

“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.

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.

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.

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.

That’s true. I mean, I’d welcome all those reforms. Still, at an political level, I’m not sure 50% of the world is politically savvy enough to actual appreciate what these reforms would do.

At some level I’m pretty cynical about the ‘average’ voter. I don’t think it would be possible to come out of this alive. Too many people want what immediately benefits them, not what would make a better world.

For example, the majority of the world is worried about climate change, but it seems like a small minority that would actually vote for useful reforms if it meant they would have to adjust their lives.

Know your audience.

50% of THE WORLD. You’re dead because I don’t believe anywhere near 50% of China or India cares about most of this list. This is a list of American issues.

I think you’re right. I didn’t think the “helper words” in the conditional should get conjugated, but I grabbed a Book of Common Prayer off the shelf and there’s a bunch of “thou shalt” + infinitive, so evidently the conditional does get conjugated (in addition to “thou didst” and “thou hast”.) Pretty sure I noticed some 2nd person weak verbs that looked like they had the same conjugation as the 3rd person (eg “Remember thou keep holy …”) I did note “he cometh”, so maybe that -eth ending is actually an older conjugation for the 3rd person that later morphed into an -s ending? Just noticed “he saith (says)”, and the confirmed -eth ending on a bunch of 3rd person congregations. Interestingly, I found a LOT of “thou shalt”, some “thou wilt”, but no “thou couldst” or “thou wouldst”. Probably because the BCP is all like, “you WILL, this is not an option, sinner.”

I don’t know though! I’m a typical English first language speaker and I’m just going with what feels right and using my understanding of grammar from my French education.

We actually do have a second person singular, “thou.” We just transitioned out of using it because ‘politeness’. Thou could useth the second person singular, but thou would soundeth quite archaic. (Think I conjugated that correctly.) You can still see it used in some religious texts in reference to God.