If you’re going to be doing this what style guide are you using? Why did you choose that one? Why is it the most useful option? You’ve made an entire account about enforcing apostrophe usage but don’t have any sources or explanation to back it up on your bio.

I thought it would be fun to try 90’s since that looks more appealing than '90s. We don’t use this ’ to cut off preceding symbols in anything other than 'twas which also looks wrong.

Then I thought It was useful that you were doing this because imposing whatever the current most used trend for apostrophes would help facilitate communication between the greatest number of English readers and writers. It would be democratic even.

Then I realized I had no idea what the current most used trend for apostrophes even was and without any sources no way of knowing if your style was anything resembling that. (I like 90s now btw.)

So then I looked up who even made grammar anyway and it turns out a lot of people but a couple individuals stand out.

https://www.wordgenius.com/who-actually-created-all-these-grammar-rules/Xr0yWBPAJQAG8w-n

The First Grammarian

Modern English grammar can be traced back to William Bullokar, a printer from the 16th century. Back in 1586, Bullokar wrote the Pamphlet for Grammar, which we now know as the first English grammar resource. His grammar resource compared English to Latin. He also created a phonetic 40-letter English alphabet, addressing the 40 different phonetic sounds he identified. His goal was to increase literacy in England and make it easier for foreigners to learn the language.

Robert Lowth is one of the more notable grammarians who built upon Bullokar’s work. He wrote A Short Introduction to English Grammar in the late 18th century, and this book formed the groundwork for many other grammarians as they standardized English grammar.

Lowth’s book became known as one of the first examples of prescriptive grammar, or one establishing the rules for how grammar should be used. By contrast, descriptive grammar simply explains how people actually use grammar.

Creating a System

Lowth wasn’t the only one who tried to standardize grammar. Many others preceded him and many more followed. British schoolmistress Ann Fisher was the first published female grammarian and an early user of an all-purpose pronoun. She wrote A New Grammar in 1745, shortly before Lowth’s work came on the scene, and her book was released in 30 editions over 50 years. Fisher’s work was one of the first to detail modern grammar practices, many of which are still in use today.

That all being said, what’s the style guide or grammar reference book every English writer on lemmy should refer to?

Wrong to who? You?

*in the 90’s

This is meaningless gatekeeping imposed by older people on younger people. If you were a child in the 90’s you were a 90’s kid. The validity of your lived experience doesn’t depend on your current ability.

By OP’s reasoning people who no longer remember their childhood no longer count as a kid for their decade. Eventually everyone will be dead and then according to the OP no one will have lived either.

I remember watching Power Rangers and Barney in the 90’s which I was born. Take that meaningless distinction.

The first country to adopt LLMs for everything is the one that will collapse first. This is a race where the winners never start and at best stop before they reach the end.

It turns out that there is a lot of profit in making the world a worse place.

5 8 7 2 4 1 6 3

Left Handed Morty

Based on a google search it is. It looked kind of familiar. I need to watch that movie again. Thank you!

What is this image from?

The rise of fascism globally isn’t an intelligence test. People are trapped in information silos. No matter how smart a person is, if all they have is propaganda it’s rational to assume they are going to believe the propaganda. We need to get true information into these information silos to help these people.

3. A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.

This one definition covers all humans so it’s not particularly useful.

Also, this implies treating life as a zero-sum game is at least a correct strategy if not outright claiming it to be the preferred strategy. Part of trying to solve our problems involves overcoming this impulse and avoiding pointless tit-for-tat cycles which often land people in the situation your argument’s definition states as problematic. Namely, in game theory terms, two people cheating in a prisoner’s dilemma in order to gain and thus ensuring mutual loss.

I bring all that up because this just happened in the last election where pro-Palestinian activists and Democrat supporters of Kamala Harris could not get on the same page despite sharing the same goals.

5. A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.

We are consciousness running on meat sacks in a physics based universe. It only takes one person acting on self-destructive ideas and false information to be a danger to themselves and others. edit: typos

It’s automating the enshittification. A large language model doesn’t need to sleep and doesn’t have a conscience.

AI as we know it now is, in a nut shell, the automation of “I was just following orders”. Or a digital factory line of evil. Either way, this is about removing the human element from as many decisions as possible.

It would be tricky, unethical, and in some cases illegal to get people to do the sort of things the owner class and fascists want to do to society. But it’s easy to let an AI program go nuts. The cruelty is the point in the case of the fascists. And in the case of the owner class it clears out anyone who couldn’t afford a lawyer.

This is what the incoming Trump administration wants to do to the US.

Not sure if you noticed, but the attitude in America is dominated by proud ignorance and failure to discern real data from propaganda.

The people who know better have to educate the people who do not. There are people who aren’t trapped in right-wing information silos who are interested in learning. But there have to be people who are willing to teach.

Not yet, but the stage is set for that scenario.

There are worse case scenarios after that one as well unless we work to make things better.

That time is past.

People are always coping. Might as well do it in a way that is enjoyable and doesn’t require us to misrepresent our current and approaching circumstances as the worst case scenarios, when there are worse.

I was going to refer you to a doctor who is also a ninja to learn more about using humor to deal with stressful situations. But his website is down. So you get to read these instead.

This explains what RCPs and SSPs are.

https://docs.theclimatedatafactory.com/info/faq/whats-the-difference-between-representative-concentration-pathways-and-shared-socioeconomic-pathways/

These are SSP scenarios.

https://www.vox.com/22620706/climate-change-ipcc-report-2021-ssp-scenario-future-warming

This was considered to be the worst case RCP scenario. But I wouldn’t be surprised if there has been some new work done on this.

https://www.weforum.org/stories/2020/09/the-worst-case-climate-change-scenario-could-look-like-this-we-need-to-avert-it/

Presumably researchers will need to start looking at what were considered to be less likely scenarios given the results of this election.

You don’t understand. We ALREADY tried the Trump thing and it failed miserably.

I was there. I’m from the 20th century. I remember the videos of college students on our campus running around late at night like chickens with their heads cut off.

We don’t listen. We don’t learn.

We don’t with that attitude.

We’re doubtful to ever experience a more black and white election than what we just experienced. And we still managed to fail.

I would love to see the encounter table you’re referencing. Rather than assuming things are as bad as they could possibly be, they aren’t, I recommend using humor as a coping mechanism. The former, assuming things, plays into accelerationism which falsely, without evidence, claims there is some bottom to how bad things can get. The latter, humor, is enjoyable.

We already haven’t.

It’s a week since election day.

We already have.

It’s a week since election day.

This was the most blatant decision we’re ever likely to make as a society in our lifetimes.

This was the most blatant decision we’re ever likely to make as a society in our lifetimes so far.

We have enough of those people to do this for the majority of Americans?

Only one way to find out.

Pessimism may feel true, but just because something feels true doesn’t make it true.

No one knows the future. But if we don’t learn from out mistakes, it’s likely we will keep making them.

Namely, even though they were all, broadly speaking, Christians

The majority of the founders were deists.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Founding-Fathers-Deism-and-Christianity-1272214

Although orthodox Christians participated at every stage of the new republic, Deism influenced a majority of the Founders. The movement opposed barriers to moral improvement and to social justice. It stood for rational inquiry, for skepticism about dogma and mystery, and for religious toleration. Many of its adherents advocated universal education, freedom of the press, and separation of church and state. If the nation owes much to the Judeo-Christian tradition, it is also indebted to Deism, a movement of reason and equality that influenced the Founding Fathers to embrace liberal political ideals remarkable for their time.

it was only a matter of time before someone whose religion was not agreeable to take over and start doing things that you don’t like

Not just a disagreeable religion, but any religion.

https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/establishment-clause-separation-of-church-and-state/

Both Jefferson and fellow Virginian James Madison felt that state support for a particular religion or for any religion was improper. They argued that compelling citizens to support through taxation a faith they did not follow violated their natural right to religious liberty. The two were aided in their fight for disestablishment by the Baptists, Presbyterians, Quakers, and other “dissenting” faiths of Anglican Virginia.

The christo-fascist MAGA movement is not consistent with the origins of our nation and the Constitution despite originalists claims to the contrary. We are not a christian nation, but a secular nation. All religions, including Christianity, were deemed dangerous to mix with the government.

I’m sure you didn’t mean anything by it in your argument, but these misconceptions are what the MAGA movement will use to push christian nationalism on all of us and to exclude people based on their faith or lack of faith.

That’s where cult deprogramming comes into play. There are people who specialize in getting people out of that kind of mindset your argument describes. The rest of us need to do our part and educate, even if it doesn’t always have the impact we hope in the moment.