Fair enough- I had never heard of either of those before. However, I know Mervyn Peake has been a heavy inspiration of modern fiction. I may have to give the Gormenghast series a try- just super daunting.

Anyways, thanks for indulging my curiosity. Just had time to kill. Have a good one!

And that’s your opinion. A subjective view of your own. See how that works?

I agree- which is the way I believe most Cormac McCarthy fans view his writing style. I have never read his books, they aren’t for me- but I feel that bucking trends is the way art is meant to evolve. Some trends getting bucked are more annoying than others, though.

Do you have any authors that you suggest to others?

No- but since a good “meal” is subjective to the person eating it, one person calling it a bad meal is not a good metric to base your opinion on.

If the meal has seasonings you don’t like, or is missing components you do like (grammar, in this case)- it doesn’t make the meal bad. It just means it isn’t for you, and there is nothing wrong with that.

This is not an inflammatory response, I am just curious- How do you feel about “House of Leaves?”

Generally considered to be a phenomenal work of art, but it DEFINITELY doesn’t follow the vast majority of standard grammar rules.

Lol, no they don’t. Because outside of a scientific setting- the words are synonyms. Listed as such within any modern dictionary or thesaurus. Just because YOU have a narrow understanding of a word, doesn’t make its use outside of that scope wrong.

"the·o·ry /ˈTHirē/ noun noun: theory; plural noun: theories

a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained."

"hy·poth·e·sis /hīˈpäTHəsəs/ noun noun: hypothesis; plural noun: hypotheses

a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation."

Did you fail to read the thread, or do you actually think you said anything that has bearing on the conversation?

If context isn’t given, in a professional setting- then that is a failing on the person communicating. Again, your examples are cleared up with context. The meaning isn’t gone, there is just more than one definition to those words now.

“Lost?”

None of those terms have been lost. They’ve just come to have a wider definition than before. Language evolves over time as people are exposed to new ideas, words, or terms. As non-technical people begin using the terms, the meaning has an understood meaning to the public that most people use (e.g. AI/genAI), and a technical definition that is still understood by those it is relevant to. It just requires context.

Yes, words have meaning- but words also change over time as the public understanding shifts. Just like the word “literally.” It used to mean something that is/should be interpreted exactly as it is said/written/shown. Now “literally” also means “figuratively,” even within the dictionary.

So, no. It isn’t lost, you just need to give context about what form of “AI” you are referring to.

No one is letting them off the hook, they can be stupid and evil- and deserve to burn. The people at the very top of the Nazi party did all of the organizing and made sure the Nazi army was efficient. Those people were smart and evil, and made up a tiny fraction of the Nazi party.

There were a handful of actual, smart, Nazis. The VAST majority lacked any kind of critical thinking or education.

The average Nazi wasn’t exactly known for their keen minds. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have ended up as rank-and-file Nazis.

Yes, because I’m not an amoral psycho that runs a multi-billion dollar corp, or one of their brainless sycophants that goes through social media simping for them to make more money.

So close! Tariffs SHOULD be used to create incentive to buy local and invest in your local economy. However Microsoft is a US company- so that kinda negates your entire point. Since they are included in the group of corps not paying forward the refunds to the ones that actually deserve the money back. Why are you simping for multi-billion dollar corps?

lol They paid it directly, then raised the prices of every good effected by the tariffs. So then they got paid back directly by customers. Now they get the tariff refund, and the extra profits from raising their prices in the first place. But sure- it’s understandable that they wouldn’t do the moral thing. They gotta make sure their bottom line go up, regardless of it being the obviously wrong decision for their customers.