Is this more like the scam email practice of including typos and grammatical errors in your message? Everyone who responds to your message is gullible and less-educated, so your on-the-surface flawed message actually attracts a better-filtered population to you.
"We" is such an imprecise word for a pool of people. I believe Chinese has two flavors, "zanmen" including the listener too, and "women" excluding the listener. Obviously "we" did not elect Trump, only "a majority of the US voters who voted", and even the others may sadly use "we" though they didn't, because they are members of the political body that did. Just like the "they" of Israel that harass Palestinians and throw up West Bank settlements do not reflect all of Israel, and the average Soviet citizen did not reflect the behavior of the Soviet government.
We isn't an imprecise word at all, it's very precise in it's definition.
I can honestly not come up with a single example of the distinction between 'zanmen and women' being useful besides this specific case where you really want to be able to say in 1 sentence that you identify as the same group as someone else, but that that group is subdivided into 2 groups, and you're talking about the sub-group that you're specifically not a part of.
They can be perfectly aware of nation-state hacks. These are exactly the weasel qualifiers used by the NSA when they were claiming not to be watching the communications of US citizens. "No intercepts were made under program X" specifically sidesteps all the shady stuff under program Y.
In the current environment, those are more expecteds than scandalous.
Insider trades around government activities, same-sex behavior, overt racism for example might nudge the needle.
It might be weird if you haven't read a lot of English. It's actually quite normal to say that process X is a way to make effect Y happen. "Makes your mout water" is more effective than "waters your mouth". "Makes your breath fresh and tolerable" is better than "freshens and tolerablerizes your breath". Etc.
Actually, what you are describing is what happens when LLM-generated prose cycles and then trains humans to use equally dull thinking.
We have no true idea what things will be like with widespread UBI. Current experiments show some good things only in tiny subsets of the economy. Anything can be priced high enough to be out of reach except to a few, and prices will certainly rise to consume as much of available income as possible. The control enabled by depending on direct government assistance in an era of intense surveillance will change many aspects of daily life and discourse. Perhaps the generations that grow up within it will adapt to not expect anything better.
This. Childhood experiences are formative, and the peer environment from early years through adulthood is usually brutal. My expectation is that confidence and grace is evenly distributed at birth, but is added to the physically attractive and denied to the unattractive almost immediately. I've always found the physically-unattractive-but-socially-attractive especially interesting because they've succeeded, often along with a very cool peer group.
>My expectation is that confidence and grace is evenly distributed at birth, but is added to the physically attractive and denied to the unattractive almost immediately.
I don't think it would be evenly distributed, but it goes something like that. You can choose to behave confidently up to a point, but people reject such behavior from an ugly person. Ignoring this social feedback can get you into a lot of trouble.
>I've always found the physically-unattractive-but-socially-attractive especially interesting because they've succeeded, often along with a very cool peer group.
Some of these are brutal too. I've known some real busted dudes who got attractive girls to like or marry them somehow. I assume it's often money, connections, and/or encountering the right person who is a sucker for your particular characteristics. Imagine being the ugly brother or nephew of a solid 10 (guy or girl), or being a multi-millionaire. You'd easily get many times more opportunities in all areas of life.
reply