• 0 Posts
  • 55 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: August 9th, 2023

help-circle



  • my_hat_stinks@programming.devtomemes@lemmy.world•Brian.
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Partly right, but they don’t decide if a word is “official” (whatever that’s supposed to mean). For a word to be a so-called “real” word it only has to be in common use among some group, dictionaries simply document words that have been in common use. Merriam-Webster is an authoritative record of words in use specifically in US English (with some records for other English variants and dialects, I think? ) but they are not a prescriptivist organisation. A word which appears in their dictionary is almost certainly a word that is or was in use in US English but a word that doesn’t appear might also be a real word, particularly if it’s a relatively new word or meaning.

    So with that in mind, arguing that a word is real when it doesn’t appear in the dictionary can be valid in some cases, but arguing that a word isn’t real when it does appear in a dictionary (like Brian did) is generally not smart.

    tl;dr, a dictionary, not the dictionary; not all English; “official” doesn’t make sense here; in some (but not this) cases disagreeing is valid.









  • Lucky you, you must have grown up very middle-class. The cops in the UK are just as shitty as they are elsewhere.

    As a kid I was walking a friend home when some cunt came up behind us and attacked me, busted my nose open then ran away. The cops must have waited at least a week to follow up, by which time they couldn’t do anything because I didn’t have a good enough way to identify the attacker.

    Some years later I’m delivering newspapers, there’s one particular street where I always get harassed in some way. It escalates until one day I’m literally jumped by three fully grown adults, absolute scum attacking a kid on the street. I call the cops as soon as possible afterwards and they actually show up, but as I’m sitting crying in the back of their car they strongly encourage me to drop it, some excuse about how they’ll all deny it so it’s not worth investigating. I’m young and naive so I listen to them, but I’ve regretted that ever since.





  • A little ham-fisted, sure, but if you think it’s irrelevant you evidently didn’t take any time to actually think about it (you did also reply instantly, so I’ll take that over you lacking reading comprehension).

    I’ll simplify.

    Digital piracy is illegal copying of unlicenced content.
    Alice creates content.
    Alice licences the content to Bob.
    Bob decides to distribute the content with advertisements from Charlie.
    You download the content.
    Charlie does not pay Bob.
    You did not breach any licences.
    You did not pirate the content.

    And just to further clarify, Alice is the person who made a video, Bob is Youtube, Charlie is an advertiser. Your argument is not an ad is piracy if “the advertisement company [hasn’t] paid the content creator.” The advertiser pays the distribution company, and the relationship between those two companies is irrelevant. The advertiser failing to pay does not retroactively turn you into a pirate.

    The whole argument is pointless in the first place, it’s irrelevant whether or not you consider ad blocking to be technically piracy. A sensible adblock argument would be around the ethics of manipulation versus payment, or security versus whatever it is advertisers want. Arguing semantics doesn’t matter.