I can burp at will. When my last partner revealed that burping excites them, it became a bit of a thing.

I don’t have much to add, but I just want to say I appreciate that you used ‘corporatocratic’ instead of ‘corporatist’. Mixing those up is a pet peeve of mine.

I think that makes sense, at least for a first pass. I want all of the prompts stewing in my head, so I want to take them all in, and going in order is the most efficient way to do that. If I don’t get one I’ll just try it later after the others.

I asked my optometrist friend and they said there was a thing going on about eye drops that can temporarily fix near vision, which is apparently different than nearsightedness. That would be pretty neat!

I learned from a Man Carrying Thing video that the Vape Nation guy cheated on his wife and is getting canceled by his peers for it.

Edit: I guess I’m not alone after reading the other responses.

First Contact is the first Trek media I remember sitting down to watch on purpose. The Borg messed me up for a good while. Dying is one thing, but having your very self be subsumed into a greater whole against your will is freaky.

Fair, I’d call “just running it” a point in its favor, and now I have something to do further research on!

Thank you! I was just looking through the recommended software list linked in the community sidebar yesterday and this wasn’t on there. I was going to try setting up MeshCentral this weekend, how does this compare to that?

The first one in the series? Yeah, it’s cool for being one of the first open world games but it gets very repetitive. I quit partway through and tried AC2, and that was a big leap forward in gameplay, story, and missions. I recommend giving it a try if you liked anything about the first.

First, don’t expect to change their mind with anything you say.

Second, keep it simple and only provide details if they ask.

Third, make it less about logic and appeal to pathos and ethos more. If they’re Christian, talk about your “God-given right” to privacy. Talk about how you don’t like your fourth amendment rights being stepped on. If they ask about that, then start adding in some actual arguments. “If the governments not allowed to invade my privacy, then who do these corporations think they are?” “The governments not allowed to invade my privacy without a warrant, but they just buy my data from these corporations anyway, it’s basically illegal!”

I didn’t realize people had been shot for not using literally figuratively. Plus one could argue that people waving the Confederate flag 150 years later means the war wasn’t fully finished, but I’m not here to debate politics.

I don’t understand why you compare “literally” to “really”. They’re two different words that are used differently. I really don’t have any problem with using really as an intensifier because it aligns just fine with using it to indicate fact. “It’s really hot outside” -> “The heat outside is real.” “He’s really the murderer” -> “His being the murderer is real.”

But using literally in your example adds absolutely nothing to the sentence. “It’s literally as hot as the sun out here” and “It’s as hot as the sun out here” convey the exact same meaning, except one has an extra word that degrades other uses of it. If your sentence could replace the word “literally” with the word “figuratively” and you would intend the same meaning, you should either use “figuratively” or nothing there at all. That way when the word literally is used there can be no doubt that you mean “in the literal sense.”

How can it literally be settled if people are still arguing about it? Unless you mean figuratively? Good to know people two and a half centuries ago could write poorly.

Because both meanings are opposites, literally is a more specialized form of homonym called a contronym. Unlike a contronym such as clip where it’s to tell whether the speaker is talking about clipping things together or clipping stuff off of something based on their use in a sentence, literally and figuratively fit into any sentence the same way. In any case where the speaker’s words could be interpreted ambiguously to be literal or figurative and they add literally to clarify they can’t because someone could mistake their literal literally meaning to be a figurative one.

That means the literal use of literally is functionally lost, and for what? So folks have another way to exaggerate? I don’t care if a language evolves, but if it’s going to I think it should evolve in such a way that expressing certain ideas isn’t lost, especially if there isn’t anything real to be gained. I literally don’t understand why people are so gun-ho to defend using literally figuratively.

You can’t block any community you don’t like on reddit because there’s a limit on the number you can mute. I know this because I hit that limit before I deleted my account.