Okay, but, did you actually watch the video? It’s based on Homestar Runner and how they intentionally mispronounced something - the mispronunciation is entirely intentional.

That is, in fact, how “dogecoin” is pronounced (doj coin). Here’s one of the two creators of dogecoin saying as much (and why!): https://youtu.be/kVDcOI0-gdQ

Yeah, the axes on this are weird, why would the opposite of a systems language be a toy language? And why is Lua, a very popular and commonly used language in tons of stuff, a “toy”? And Lua is a nu Lang? It’s older than Java, maybe it just feels newer because each release isn’t necessarily backwards compatible?

I think you’re using this meme template backwards - the car should say most people and the text for the directions should be flipped. The car is supposed to be going somewhere it shouldn’t, not somewhere it should.

Honestly, I would have expected C++ to end with the SIGSEGV and nothing else, then for python to reply.

Might be a bit early to make such a statement - This is her third video. While I agree that her videos will undoubtedly have more personal effort put in and will have significantly less restrictions as compared to the content churn at LTT, I think you’re underestimating the impact the Linux videos she did had and the reach that LTT, flawed as they are, have. Emily’s not gonna really reach as many tech “converts” (people who might get into tech but aren’t really yet), just people already into it, which is fine, but y’know, it’s nice to be able to get people into the hobby. Don’t let your hate for LTT, the organization, blind you to the effort Emily put in to make good videos while there!

All of those languages will convert numbers into booleans, 0 is false, all other numbers are true.

It has an integrated browser in Ultimate, not in Community.

It’s C, NaN is never equal to itself in floating point, that’s not just a JS thing.

Or a wireless winch, if I were to hazard a guess.

“Creates a whole game in assembly” is probably referring to roller coaster tycoon, which was written by a man. (lots of other games were written in asm, like many NES games, but I’d wager RCT was what they were alluding to)

And you think there’s not bias in those rules that’s notable, and that the edge cases I mentioned won’t be an issue, or what?

You seem to have sidestepped what I’ve said to rant about how OpenAI sucks when that was just meant to be an example of how even those best informed about AI in the world right now don’t really understand it.

Sure, who will it impersonate if you don’t? That’s where the bias comes in.

And yes, they do need a guide, because the way chatbots behave is not intuitive or clear, there’s lots of weird emergent behavior in them even experts don’t fully understand (see OpenAI’s 4o sycophancy articles today). Chatbots’ behavior looks obvious, and in many cases it is…until it isn’t. There’s lots of edge cases.

Something that annoys me about people who love to harp on about how bad Mozilla is because they’ve gone downhill (which they have): Who is better? Genuinely compare them to their competition. Google? Heck no. Brave? Nope. Microsoft? Absolutely not. Apple? No. People complain about how much Mozilla spends on advocacy, but then when they actually do the advocacy, they’re happy about it! They’re perpetually stuck between a rock and a hard place because they’re pulled in both directions and thus, Firefox suffers. But, are they actually a broken clock? Really?

I guess to be a little clearer: If you compare Mozilla to their past selves, they lose. If you compare Mozilla to anyone else in that space with the resources to develop a browser, they’re still the best of the bunch by a country mile.

Lots of states made flavored reusable vapes illegal, but flavored disposables are legal. Yes, it is as stupid as it sounds.

Oh, of course, it’s just their tools have gotten much better. You could have said what you just did about the internet too, and it’d also be correct, but it definitely had a big impact.

Fair, I should have said “for a bad actor”, of which I am not. I haven’t experience with the tools they’d use.

No, they’re saying it would be really easy now to create a fake image that would have in the past had that level of impact.

That’s not at all the argument I’m making. My argument is that English’s inconsistency is, at this point, the reason it is successful. By integrating everything into it, it has become a good enough medium of communication for almost everything. That would not have been possible unless the language eschewed consistency.

Really, a better argument against changing the spelling is the classic “standards” xkcd, where now you’re just making another dialect of English where they spell words differently again, and now it needs to be adopted, fracturing the language further. Honestly, though? It doesn’t matter. Fix the spelling if you want. English can take the fracturing. The changes might take, they might not, but I doubt it’ll make the language more consistent overall, for every fix you put in, you’ll have someone who disagrees and doesn’t put it in, making your dialect more consistent, but the language overall less so, but it doesn’t matter. English will continue to be inconsistent, and that’s okay, that’s why it works.

The fool’s errand is trying to make the language consistent, when it never has been, especially trying to do it via spelling. English isn’t consistent. It’s not supposed to be. It takes pieces from every other language and integrates them into English whether it makes sense to or not, leading to inconsistency. That inconsistency, I think, is by design. It makes the language more versatile than any other, a “good enough” medium of communication for everything, but usually not the best, which for communication, tends to be fine.