What surprises me isn’t that AI failed, what surprises me is that Zuckerberg believes in his own hyping of AI so much he had the confidence to try to do this at all, live, unstaged. Is this courage, honesty, stupidity, hubris?

The most favourable explanation I can think of is that they tried it out ahead of the presentation, it worked well enough, so they trusted it could be repeated.

This is just avoiding the issue of having a short attention span.

I used to be easily distracted during online lectures yet had little difficulty following live lectures. It’s a fundamentally different experience, for whatever reason.

Also, the attention span has to be trained. And training it by working without a distracting computer sounds like a good idea.

With all due respect to Guido, creating software does not have the same weight and responsibilities as leading a country.

No, because “benevolent dictatorship” can’t exist (the only benevolent action of such a dictatorship would be self-abolishment).

It’s been moved to the archive but is linked on top of the talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&oldid=1310806574#Including_the_video / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Killing_of_Charlie_Kirk/Archive_2#Including_the_video

Looks like they’ve decided against inclusion. It’s also unlikely the video meets “fair use” standards so they’d have to delete it anyway…

They had a whole edit war about whether it should be included and locked the article.

Kirk’s killer seems to have used some large calibre weapon which probably made it look so particularly brutal and bloody.

Yeah, you could keep usual moderators as the basis and ultimate arbiters, but it would be, at the very least, interesting to try your approach. E.g., anyone can check the mod queue and be randomly assigned to moderate a recently reported post, and to avoid abuse or mistakes it could require 2 or 3 people agreeing on how to resolve something.

This you?

In the case of English, it’s because of the knowledge of and prestige of Greek (and Latin). The higher more educated classes, who were traditionally taught classical languages, preferred to stick to the original declension, and they could spread this preference through grammars, dictionaries and schooling - but only to a certain degree. So it’s a somewhat artificial phenomenon, and it tends to have only a limited spread outside of those who were taught Latin and Greek (so people do spontaneously say octopuses, and sometimes they try to make a classical plural that is nonetheless “wrong”: octopi).

Similar stuff happens in some other European languages, I could list a few examples from my native Croatian where Latin grammar is supposed to be used, according to the wishes of some classical philologists, even when it clashes with all rules of native grammar (and, as expected, the latinate grammar is not used by anyone outside of a handful of academics).

At worst, such usage could be interpreted as social signalling of superiority (class + education). Obviously, nobody expects people to use “original purals” in cases such as gulag-gulagi, or wunderkind-wunderkinder, because Russian and German aren’t all that sexy, even though German is much closer to English than Latin or Greek are.

But there are more natural cases of loaning inflectional morphemes, in communities with a very high degree of bilingualism. I’ll admit I could only copy-paste some passages from books regarding this, I don’t have much knowledge of languages outside of Slavic and English.

This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back.

You take the right one – the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the left one – you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes

foot -> feet is ablaut, changing the vowel in the root, also in break-broke, etc.

-i is a non-native plural suffix, e.g. cactus-cacti, octopus-octopi (from Latin), it’s very unusual to loan these purely grammatical elements (morphemes)

Alternatively, labubu-labibi is a case of a changed transfix (singular: u_u, plural: i_i), or of vowel harmony. Either way, all very exotic for English standards :D

Wtf, they made a gay language??

Interesting, a combination of native Germanic ablaut and loaned inflection!

You wouldn’t, by any chance, provide examples of that censorship and how it can be traced to FBI/CIA?

Sure, but the duration of the ownership doesn’t matter a whole lot in this sort of situation. If you’ve missed the news about the selling when it happened, it’s relatively unlikely you’ll learn about it afterwards. I don’t periodically do a background check of all the devs and owners of my apps.

Reminds me of how after WW2 people stopped calling their kids Adolf or even changed their name Adolf into something else. I mean, I’m not saying Zuckerberg is literally Hitler or something, but it sure is funnily similar.

I’m on Facebook because many people I communicate or work with and pages and groups relevant to my interests are active there.

Ah, you reminded me of that classic