If you have an enemy that’s trying to eradicate you, your choices at either to allow them to eradicate you, or to eradicate them first. Any middle ground will just bring you back to the same position you started in.

From busting up chiffarobes to father of the emissary. What a life.

It’s an apocryphal quotation invented by Hollywood screenwriters.

CUT IT IS HEAD OFF

“He thought he was hot shit but I took him down a peg” kinda vibe. Doesn’t strike me really as “justice”. Too emotional.

If anything, the “reddit attitude” is making judgements based on vibes instead of the established facts…

I might be more inclined to go to the cinema if the employees would ever actually do something about noisy children on their phones during the show. But even if we ignore them, we have to pay an arm and a leg for tickets and popcorn, then we have to sit through 20 minutes of commercials, and then instead of a real movie, it’s just a bunch of boring ass CGI action sequences

The best game in history just keeps getting better

There are lots of adaptations of Greek myth, but none of them are especially faithful to the source material

“Quething” rather than “quothing” FYI

This is not a terrible idea, but making you solve all the yellow before you can solve the puzzle is stupid. If I get the answer right away, just let me enter it!

Only if they don’t want to be condemned to hellfire for the blasphemy of monotheism

Wordle 1,368 3/6

⬜⬜🟨🟩🟩
🟩⬜⬜🟨⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

There are plenty of high quality sources, but I don’t work for free. If you want me to produce an encyclopedia using my professional expertise, I’m happy to do it, but it’s a massive undertaking that I expect to be compensated for.

Your doubts are irrelevant. Just spend some time fact checking random articles and you will quickly verify for yourself how many inaccuracies are allowed to remain uncorrected for years.

With all due respect, Wikipedia’s accuracy is incredibly variable. Some articles might be better than others, but a huge number of them (large enough to shatter confidence in the platform as a whole) contain factual errors and undisguised editorial biases.

I’m a doctor of classical philology and most of the articles on ancient languages, texts, history contain errors. I haven’t made a list of those articles because the lesson I took from the experience was simply never to use Wikipedia.

This, but for Wikipedia.

Edit: Ironically, the down votes are really driving home the point in the OP. When you aren’t an expert in a subject, you’re incapable of recognizing the flaws in someone’s discussion, whether it’s an LLM or Wikipedia. Just like the GPT bros defending the LLM’s inaccuracies because they lack the knowledge to recognize them, we’ve got Wiki bros defending Wikipedia’s inaccuracies because they lack the knowledge to recognize them. At the end of the day, neither one is a reliable source for information.

What a weird coincidence that the members of this pedophile cult keep turning out to be pedophiles…

Then why are you in a thread arguing about what they choose to call themselves if that distinction is irrelevant to you? The fact is, Christians who hate gays and Christians who love gays are both Christians. They’re not fake Christians or real Christians just because you declare them so; they’re just Christians. Christians are Christians are Christians are Christians. They choose to be Christian, and thus they are Christian. That’s literally all that’s required.

That’s wild. I couldn’t imagine having to write documents using only a touchscreen, or having to switch back and forth between PDF and web browser and text editor instead of just putting the windows side by side.