- 0 posts
- 19 comments
9 daysYou’re making sure not to add any acidic ingredients until they’re fully cooked? That’ll stop the cooking.
Besides that, I think age matters.
To ignore is always willful, isn’t it?
But I think one of the examples I picked has finally talked me out of this. I would happily use “vacant” to also describe a place that has never been occupied, so it didn’t require vacating to be vacant. In that case, vacate means to make vacant, not vice versa. I’ll apply that to ignore/ignorant, and I think I finally understand how people have been so comfortable with that definition.
I like this take!
I cope by just being a little extra specific when I can find the words to do so, like calling out botanically squash are fruits and mushrooms are fungi, while culinarily they work as veggies.
“Ignorant” does mean wilfully ignorant. It doesn’t just mean uninformed.
To be vacant is to have been vacated.
To be an applicant is to have applied.
To be a claimant is to have made a claim.
And to be ignorant is to have ignored something.
(Of course, not all “-ant” words seem to stand alone without their suffix–at least, not in today’s vernacular. Does an arrogant person arrog? Does a fragrant flower frag? Rob Words might have more to say about the vestigial origins of some of these.)
Can’t wait to learn how I might just be ignorant about this (by my definition or the “real” one).
On the grammar subject, it’s “couple of whatevers”, not “couple whatevers”. The word “couple” is like the word “group”. It wouldn’t make sense to say “a group people walked in” (instead of “a group of people walked in”), and that’s why it doesn’t make sense to say “a couple people walked in”. It can be spoken slang, like “you gonna gimme a couple bucks?” “I would of if I had it.” All that makes sense to local speakers where I am, but it only fits in casual speech and written dialogue, and I believe that’s because it’s lazily dropping a sound when spoken, not because it’s not understood to mean a collection of something.
But somehow like half of everyone has too much skin flora or overreacts to it, something like that, so lots of us get dandruff and dermatitis if we don’t wash to control those populations.
Some training content for work (I think it was for an in-browser code security training). And I’ve run into one or two sites where they required me to try in Chrome for a support issue, just can’t remember what it was. And newbs vibe-producing corporate tool proofs of concept as Chrome plugins because it’s simpler and doesn’t depend on any gatekeepers to deployment. (Fortunately, other gatekeepers still got a chance to say “no” and forced it to become a real web application.)
There was a time when Chrome was fresh that it seemed to be a fast, lightweight feeling new alternative. I didn’t switch back until I was looking for more control over content presentation options.
I tried it a few years ago. It was expensive compared to popular alternatives, and it didn’t directly integrate with my mainstream chest strap anymore. You still had to run multiple apps to collect your data, then go upload it to Strava separately. And that was it’s new policy at the time; previously, it did support heart rate monitors directly, and I guess they decided “nah, that’s not what we’re here for.” No idea what it does now because switching to a much cheaper app gave me more functionality. I think its shtick was the training feedback. So that tells you what it was trying to be, at least back then–a personal coaching app, not a comprehensive workout tracker.
Ah, a fellow golfer, I see.
What, Wired? Looks great to me–one of the most pleasant-looking article sites I like to read, but that’s on Firefox with uBlock Origin and Dark Reader.
That didn’t quite explain everything. I want to add that there are “type your name to sign” forms that are just what you described, just bytes spelling out your name. In those cases, you’re right, those bytes don’t have your handwriting to prove anything, but they do accomplish something. If the form is secured behind a login and not a totally buggy heap of garbage, then the act of typing your name on that form demonstrates that whoever logged in deliberately expressed their approval. And whatever level of identity verification is needed for login is then playing the part of demonstrating who did that. That’s not perfect, but the level of evidence might match the level of risk enough to justify that mechanism to the company providing it, and it’s important to consider all factors: not just system cost, but end user tolerance.
E.g., there was (maybe still is?) a “ham” radio logging system that had end users generate their own PGP signing key pair to sign their log books, which are simply a list of who they talked to over the radio, always for non-commercial purposes (by law). Many questioned whether a secure web site with good 2FA might suffice and be much more convenient, manageable, and adequate risk level for most users.
“Digital signature” is a proper term that should mean what the parent comment explained–public key crypto “signing” (a hash of) a document’s content–but “sign here by typing your name” will inevitably get called a signature and, obviously, is also digital, just not a real “digital signature”.
Yep. I also still remember the last PS blackout. That was 24 days.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_PlayStation_Network_outage
There’s no changing Sony because there’s no changing its users.
At least Carach Angren is using their borrowed name appropriately.
Those recyclable metal ones are awesome.
Google Wave tried to replace email with a come-and-go / bulletin board / long-form chat kind of thing. I’d still like that for occasional things, like organizing holiday get-togethers with the family, but that has been the only time I think about using something like that.
For most personal communication that isn’t biz-to-biz, it’s chat nowadays. And the rooms/teams/channels concept (like IRC) is the main medium for what I used to want Waves to be. At least on Teams, it still supports more than just a “tweet”, and people can come and go on those threads, and depending on the service, you can pin messages, associate a wiki for persistent content, etc.
But all those still require people to be on that particular chat service.
Perhaps that’s the end result for personal and group communication. The format feels pretty right for the job, to me. I just hope it eventually morphs into a federated system like email and Lemmy, as I just don’t imagine everyone agreeing to sign up for yet another chat service every time someone else wants to start a group chat. Then instead of “did you add so-and-so to the group chat”, we’d just pivot the problem to “oh, we were discussing this on the Slack group, but on the Teams group someone else said blah blah…”. Same problem–fragmentation.