Language is defined by how it's used, if it's common for people to say "less" then that is correct. Trying to define the only "correct" usage counter to how people actually use the language is prescriptivism, which rarely changes how people actually speak. The only real use of prescriptivism is elitism.
You clearly understood what was said, you just wanted to announce you're "better" at English.
Hard disagree; it's not a useful comment precisely because it's prescriptivism. It's suggesting people are incorrect because they're using a commonly accepted meaning of a word, that's just not how language works.
Edit: Perhaps I should be clearer. The "less vs fewer" rule was invented roughly 200 years ago and doesn't actually hold true, "less" has been used this way for far longer. It's the epitome of "I want English to work this way, fuck everyone else".
According to this list it was used figuratively by Jane Austen, who I believe died more than 200 years ago. That page also claims the earliest known use is 1769, so it's probably less than 300 years in writing? It's moot either way, if you're going for an etymological argument you could go further and say literally should mean anything to do with letters or writing, from the original Latin literalis/litteralis "of or belonging to letters or writing".
Urine isn't sterile. While it's true that paper towels are better than dryers, drying your hands (even with a dryer) is better than not drying. Washing your hands is, obviously, better than not washing your hands.
If you don't wash your hands you're already in the worst case. It makes no sense to complain about the methods of drying available.
I'm not sure I follow your logic here. You believe you'll come into contact with other people's piss and shit less often when people don't wash their hands?
This probably isn't going to be available to you then, though it is possible it paves the way for a tooth-replacement treatment. This article seems like bad science communication. The video, tweet, and website they link to all state that they're researching congenital conditions, the inquiry form linked to on the website explicitly states in English they're not considering people who lost their teeth later in life and specifically calls out articles like this one as misinformation.
We are currently receiving a large number of inquiries that differ from the purpose of this research, which is very troubling.
This research is a study of therapeutic drugs for people who are missing teeth due to congenital (from birth) diseases (diseases, etc.).
This research is not aimed at restoring teeth to people who have lost their teeth due to acquired causes, as some news and social networking sites have reported.Additionally, we are not currently recruiting candidates for clinical trials (adult males).
I work with a person that went presented with a problem, works through it and arrives at the wrong solution. When I have them show me the steps they took, it seems like they interpret things incorrectly. This isn't a language barrier, and it's not like they aren't reading what someone wrote....
Have you considered events from their perspective? From what you've described, they were told to wait until a notification was sent, then they were given a notification with the instruction "send this". If it was me my first thought would absolutely be that that's the notification to be sent, the only reason I'd hesitate is because those sort of communications are well outside my job description.
The reason they sent the product afterwards is obvious; they were told to send them after the notification was sent, and they had sent the notification.
From what you've described, you are communicating incredibly poorly then blaming your workers for misunderstanding.
I hear some cities call the larger area as metro (Vancouver) and other cities call it greater (Toronto). Is there a functional difference? Generally speaking, is one more urbanized than the other?
The concept of net neutrality definitely existed long before Obama so it's a bit questionable to say it was created under him. Did anything specific happen under him to enforce net neutrality more than it already was?
You're definitely right about Trump though. It seems like he took every opportunity to screw over the US public in favour of corporate interests.
Obama may have enacted some legislation around between neutrality (again, your link 404s so I can't tell what specifically you're referring to) but it certainly wasn't created under Obama.
"We've almost got some of their telecommunications cracked; the front end even runs on a laptop!" The Mac that sunk a thousand ships could have been merely clunky product placement, not a bafflingly stupid tech-on-film moment....
People calling you out for being wrong isn't astroturfing. It's not an anti-AI licence and by definition does not restrict use (including AI-related) more than standard automatic copyright.
By using one of our public licenses, a licensor grants the public permission to use the licensed material under specified terms and conditions. If the licensor’s permission is not necessary for any reason–for example, because of any applicable exception or limitation to copyright–then that use is not regulated by the license. Our licenses grant only permissions under copyright and certain other rights that a licensor has authority to grant.
It says it right there in plain English, it only grants copyright permission where they need your permission anyway. The restrictions are to the additional rights you grant, it does not revoke other parties' already existing rights unless they invoke this licence to use your work. The licence does not restrict commercial use for people not invoking the licence. It's incredibly unlikely anyone "fears" you giving them more rights.
If you keep hearing the same arguments maybe you should consider what they're saying instead of instantly dismissing them as astroturfers for disagreeing with you? Do any of them actually complain about the fact you're licencing your content or are they complaining that you're saying the licence does something it does not do?
As for "what business it is" of mine; this is a public forum. If you're not ready to defend yourself don't spread misinformation.
You're entirely missing the point; you are under no obligation to follow the rules for a licence you did not agree to. The CC licence restrictions apply only to those who use that licence to use your work.
I licence a work to Alice for display in one commercial location only. I licence the same work to Bob for display non-commercially, who then displays it in a different location. Charlie has no licence, but reproduces part of the work using fair use doctrine as part of a paid review. Alice's use breaches Bob's licence; Alice did not agree to those terms so is not in breach of copyright. Bob's use breaches Alice's licence; Bob did not agree to those terms so is not in breach of copyright. Charlie's use breaches both licences; Charlie does not need a licence at all so is not in breach of copyright.
What? It's called a licensing agreement for a reason; both parties must agree. It's like any other written contract, if you never agreed to it you are not bound by it's rules. That's simply a fact, choosing to disagree with that is like choosing to disagree that two comes after one. You're just wrong.
Likely because it's blatant misinformation and very spammy. Licences permit additional use, they do not restrict use beyond what copyright already does. I imagine there'd be fewer downvotes if they didn't incorrectly claim licencing their content was somehow anti-AI. Still spammy and pointless, but at least not misinformation.
Imagine if someone ended every comment with "I DO NOT GRANT PERMISSION TO LAW ENFORCEMENT TO READ THIS COMMENT. ANY USE OF THIS COMMENT BY LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR ANY REASON IS ILLEGAL. THIS COMMENT CANNOT BE USED AS EVIDENCE AGAINST ANY NON-LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONS IN RELATION TO ANY CRIME."
Ironic, considering you are undoubtedly not a lawyer and have evidently never even dealt with copyright issues.
CC licences are handy copyleft licences to allow others to use your work with minimal effort. Using them to restrict what others can do is a fundamental misunderstanding of how copyright works. If you want to restrict others' use of your work copyright already handles that, a licence can only be more permissive than default copyright law. You can sign a contract with another party if you want to further restrict their use of your work, but you'll generally also have to give them something in return for the contract to be valid (known as "consideration"). If you wish to do so you can include a copyright notice (eg "Copyright (c) 2024 onlinepersona. All rights reserved.") but that hasn't been a requirement for a long time.
It's ironic because you demand someone be a lawyer to refute an obviously incorrect claim made by a non-lawyer. If you consider me answering the question you asked directly of me "irony" then I suppose I can see how you might consider that comment ironic.
It's definitely worth noting that you've attempted to shift the topic well away from the absurdity of using an open licence to do the opposite of what licences do and instead onto the topic of who is a lawyer and the definition of irony.
The problem with your argument is everyone's only telling you exactly what your own link also says; the licence only applies if someone needs your permission anyway. If they don't need permission the licence doesn't matter. You don't need to be a lawyer, you only need to be literate.
If the licensor’s permission is not necessary for any reason–for example, because of any applicable exception or limitation to copyright–then that use is not regulated by the license.
And all that's still ignoring the fact you're putting a higher bar to refute the claim than to make it in the first place which is nonsense; anything which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
There's definitely some issues that jump out to me on first read.
1. I'm not sure about "indivisible". An area should be able to self-govern if desired. More detail needed.
2. Awful. Removing people's voting rights in general is bad, and something as nebulous as "a criminal offence" is incredibly easy to abuse. Are people no longer citizens if they steal a loaf of bread? Also, voting age here is 16/18.
4. No. Guns are incredibly rare where I am. I'd rather not have one, and I'd prefer not to risk getting shot every time some asshole on the street gets mad.
7. Limiting land to a single use is generally not a great idea. What if for instance you have too much agricultural land and not enough housing?
10. A central state-owned bank isn't a bad idea, but abolishing all non-state banks is iffy. Should the government really have so much direct control over everyone's finances?
12. Your salary should not be based on the amount of unprotected sex you have. That's just silly. Other support should be available for those who need it.
"cool" and "hot" are both compliments
We don't like being average
How Dating Apps Are Squeezing More Money Out of Less People ( youtu.be )
Lemons(?) of Lemmy, what is something that feels so obvious to you that you just get lowkey pissed at the world for not knowing?
World-first tooth-regrowing drug will be given to humans in September ( newatlas.com )
What should i be thinking about this?
How to work with someone that regularly arrives as the wrong answer?
I work with a person that went presented with a problem, works through it and arrives at the wrong solution. When I have them show me the steps they took, it seems like they interpret things incorrectly. This isn't a language barrier, and it's not like they aren't reading what someone wrote....
What's the actual difference between greater vs metro cities?
I hear some cities call the larger area as metro (Vancouver) and other cities call it greater (Toronto). Is there a functional difference? Generally speaking, is one more urbanized than the other?
FCC explicitly prohibits fast lanes, closing possible net neutrality loophole ( arstechnica.com )
What plot holes could be adequately explained away with a single shot or line of dialogue?
"We've almost got some of their telecommunications cracked; the front end even runs on a laptop!" The Mac that sunk a thousand ships could have been merely clunky product placement, not a bafflingly stupid tech-on-film moment....
What is the Anti Commercial-Al license and why do people keep adding it to their comments?
I know what the Creative Commons is but not this new thing or why it keeps popping up in comments on Lemmy
What do you think of these 17 political policies?
The whole of Germany shall be declared a united, indivisible republic....