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".
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".
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.
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?
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.