UIUC_06

"you seem confused" definitely is, though.

Ah. Then you have to use their language. It signals that you're one of them.

Different strokes. Maybe you and your mother could subtly make fun of the crazies, in a way that you two could laugh about later.

I knew a guy whose standard answer to a crazy conspiracist was to look seriously at them and say, "It's even worse than you think!" Never tried that, myself.

"improve my team's writing skills" wouldn't sound quite so pretentious.

Nobody wants to use BS words like "upskill" and "learnings" except the corporate drones who are preaching them.

If you have respect for your readers, then you use language they can relate to.

What's hilarious is flame language like "castigating" and "personally dislike."

Corporate is widely and justifiably condemned. It's not just a personal thing. Even on this thread.

You're a nice person. I'm often alone, and I might or might not welcome the company, depending.

It's probably easier for a table of three or more to welcome a stranger. There are actually restaurants where "big tables full of strangers" are the rule, not the exception.

"Sit at the bar" is my recommendation. Being alone is more normal there, and it's easy to chat with the person next to you.

No, you're wrong. I made the same suggestion.

"Communication" starts with realizing that you have to meet people where they are, not expect them to adopt your style. You have to have some respect for them.

"Avoid unnecessary adverbs" would be another easy one ("unhelpfully signalling your disdain")

Here's one easy suggestion: stop using non-words like "upskill."

If you used "improve" how would that lose any meaning?

.. and Steph Curry!

Does anyone have any litigation history on "celebrities endorsing something that turns out to be a fraud"?

I would think they wouldn't end up having to pay much, if anything. Their lawyers would argue "Hey, you made your own decisions! Don't blame it on Steph!"

But I would predict they make a token payment and get dismissed from the suit. Just a guess.

Edit: I don't disagree with any of the answers. I'm just curious as to whether this has ever happened before. I think "sue everyone who has any money" is the plaintiff philosophy here.

Do you think there's anyone on HN who doesn't know "If you don't know what something is, just type its name into your search engine?"

this was on the first page of DuckDuckGo results for "SEO":

https://moz.com/learn/seo/what-is-seo

deja vu: 20 years ago, I was always hearing people in IT at Stanford bitch about Oracle Financials. They'd been struggling through a 2-year migration to it that was mandated by top management. Some things never change.

That was my second favorite one.

peanut cheese - "it's naturally non-dairy!"

My favorite, although there's so much amusing in here.

> That MSG—a standard amino acid glued to a sodium atom—is naturally present in lots of things like tomatoes, mushrooms, grapes, and parmesan cheese, meaning Italian food is high in MSG, which is good because MSG is harmless and delicious should be enjoyed by everyone including people with psychosomatic issues.

I read a comment by some chef, who, when asked by another chef why she has a giant tub of MSG beneath her sink, said, "Why don't you have a giant tub of MSG beneath your sink?"

MSG is wonderful. It does not give you a headache; that was debunked decades ago. If it had been discovered recently, instead of 1908:

https://foodinsight.org/msg-a-brief-history/

it would be as trendy as kale. I've heard only one compelling argument against it:

If a food has too much umami you can't taste all the other flavors in it.

assuming he means "million" not "billion" you two are pretty close.

> Through the years Armstrong’s widow would bring twenty-one patent infringement suits against many companies, including RCA. She eventually won a little over $10 million in damages.

Insert "(nearly a third of a billion in today's dollars)" there.

I don't know the actual figure.

You don't even need AI to get this behavior. Merely having something in writing to point to is enough.

How often have you talked to someone at an institution about some egregious wrong, and they defend it as "that's our policy?"

Or if they did, the "auditor" was a firm no one had ever heard of?

Temesek says:

> Similar to all investments, we conducted an extensive due diligence process on FTX, which took approximately 8 months from February to October 2021. During this time, we reviewed FTX’s audited financial statement, which showed it to be profitable.... We recognise that while our due diligence processes may mitigate certain risks, it is not practicable to eliminate all risks.

How about the risks that a16z had no trouble identifying, probably without spending 8 months thinking about it?

Like, the founder is an immature scumbag who plays video games during important phone calls, and who has no concept of "financial controls"? Was it practicable to eliminate that risk?

Both you and falcolas are off base.

Porn restriction for minors is not controversial, legally. Your first amendment argument will go nowhere.

So then the question is, should something that harms young minds be restricted?

You can argue that TikTok doesn't, and that's a fair argument to make. But if your argument is "yes, but it's free speech" then I think you lose.

Difference between "banning TikTok for people under 18" and "banning alcohol for people under 18" ?

Go.

Just to complicate things:

One usage that is definitely single-sex is, one male might say to another male,

"Hi guy, how ya doin'?"

"OK, guy, let me tell you how to do this."

But he'd never say that to a female.

However, it wouldn't be that unusual to say to a whole group of women, whether one is male OR female,

"Hi guys, let's get started."

... and yet no other doctor has that policy, or even a hospital. Pretty messed up that an ophthalmologist thinks he knows better than all of them.

I've been seeing the same ophthalmologist for years, but last time, they told me I needed to get the COVID booster for next visit. So there was no next visit. I have other doctors and a dentist, and none of them push that.

He's also absolutely dogmatic and dismissive about how LASIK is safe (although he didn't push it for me).

He did give me my PD, though.

> Quantum computers are promising technology, yes, but the same can be said about nuclear fusion and look how that worked out.

I've been following Sabine for quite a while. She's really working on her snark.

How many fat people do you see drinking Diet Coke? It doesn't seem to be helping, does it?

The answer: just indulge your sweet tooth, if you have one, but be real moderate about it. A quarter tsp of sugar in the coffee, just a couple cookies after dinner. And so forth.

And quit drinking soda, period. Get carbonated water if you have to have those bubbles. Don't eat between meals.

Next case.

It takes awhile, but one can already create the personalized Twitter experience Elon cited in his letter to advertisers.

You just Block everyone who disagrees with you, even slightly, as well as any nut job you see. It takes a while, but eventually, the only wrong or insane tweets on your TL are someone you Follow, "X", trashing someone of the wrong persuasion, "Y". So you Block Y.

It does get a little boring, but still, you're aware of what the morons on the other side are saying. You can't avoid it.

It's similar to watching MSNBC but not Fox, or vice versa.

A similar article (maybe the same one? not sure) appeared in the weekend WSJ. I have to admit I'd never heard of the Porter sisters.

I also just cited Sir Walter Scott as a possible model for Crichton & Grisham's reputation 200 years from now. He's also not widely read anymore, for maybe the same reason: this breathless, overblown, wordy prose. No one likes that these days.

Look, they were popular at the time, which sort of belies the notion that women were deliberately suppressed. Even Napoleon had heard of them:

> Napoleon himself understood the dangers the sisters’ books posed to him: He banned Jane’s novels from publication in France, presumably because they might encourage popular uprisings.

There are millions of would-be writers who'd kill for this sort of fame, even if they're forgotten after they're dead.

Crichton's and Grisham's books are both forgettable but quite enjoyable reads. In both cases, their formula is easily learned, and the 2nd and nth books you read just seem to scream out "formula." That's why I've read one or two of their books and don't feel the need to read any more.

It's a good formula. It can make very good movies. Sir Walter Scott [1] was hugely popular in his day. Some people do still read him. In 200 years, some analogous paragraph to this will appear for Crichton & Grisham.

Following the Modernist movement in literature in the aftermath of the first World War, Scott’s rambling and verbose text (indeed he was alleged to omit punctuation in his writing, preferring to leave this to the printers to insert as required) was no longer in vogue.

[1] https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofScotland/Sir-...