What are you talking about? The pink one has a line of scary warning symbols including a skull and crossbones just under the word humectant.

FFS, Hindsight dude. Glam Rock wasn’t even a word when they were popular and before metal shattered into a thousand subgenres for pedants to argue about.

Bon Jovi though; I have trouble believing anyone except some Jersey Boy troll looking for a fight ever called Bon Jovi metal.

We could use something like the international fixed calendar and just make the new year’s day and leap days a day of the week so that the calendar shifts by a day or two every year.

That Wikipedia article is surprisingly silent on Norris’ support of Trump.

Fair use is not disrespectful, it’s not illegal, it’s not worsening the climate crisis like your local models.

You don’t need a lot of logic to play tic-tac-toe. I’ve heard of a book that will play tic-tac-toe with you perfectly, except for one intentional mistake that allows a win. Every other game ends in a draw if you don’t make a mistake yourself.

I’m gonna guess that it’s durian ice cream.

That’s basically what these do. What’s the difficulty?

They should be equally acceptable without needing to be sexualized. But even if you like seeing tits, the best way to see other’s is to not be weird, dehumanizing, or non-consenting about it. That’s like the 1 rule of etiquette anyway, try within reason to not make other people uncomfortable.

I only have transition lens on my prescription safety glasses because construction sites are hazardous to glasses and eyes at all times. I don’t always have clean hands for switching. And switching itself leaves your eyes vulnerable to shit while switching. It’s also the only time I don’t want polarized lens because they often make screens difficult to read.

For everyday, I carry a polarized set and a regular set and get swapped between the same case. They are basically the same frames too so they both fit because my head is to large for most frames that aren’t sunglasses frames anyway. If I’m planning on being mostly outside, I may only bring the polarized lens because they don’t actually block that much light inside even though they block about %50 of the light outside. Tinted lens that aren’t polarized usually just cause additional eye strain for me anyway. Also only polycarbonate lens for outside also because even if they have no tinting they are blocking UV light.

Clip on lens are prone to trouble. They will either scratch your prescription lens or just get gunked up themselves since you’re doubling the surface area that needs to be kept clean.

In general I spend WAY more thought and money on things for or touching my eyes, feet, hands, and private sweaty bits. Try out things and see what works for you. For example, I was surprised how great wool socks are for hot sweaty climates.

Sand Hills aren’t very afraid of humans anyway.

Yes, that is the vulnerability that you are exploiting and making worse for an entire family of cranes.

I’ve seen this story before. It usually ends in tragedy for the cranes. You’ve likely already seen the results with the loss of their chick. You blame it on a wild animal without proof, but it’s just as likely that the reduction of their fear response to humans (as a direct result of your “kindness”) led to their death.

I disagree on ever single point you’ve said here.

While I envy your ability to get close to wildlife, loosing their fear of humans is really very dangerous for Sand Hill Cranes especially.

Sounds like a skill issue. Good translation is hard and is rarely a literal one to one mapping of syntax and diction. It’s an interpretive art.

Sounds like a skill issue. Bad translations are bad because they don’t find good ways to translate these kinds of things. As you say, translation isn’t just about the words, it’s about cultural context. But, bad translations aren’t inevitable just because good translations are difficult.

We all wear a mask.

I got my first Gmail address through an invite during the beta release in late 2004.

Just one paragraph? I understand why that feels like an indicator of LLM use these days, but that actually sounds like a fairly common mistake human writers might make. Author decides to move a topic to a different section, copies it and rewords to suite new placement and forgets to remove the section from it’s original spot. A pro shouldn’t be making that kind of mistake, but it’s a particularly difficult one to spot in reviewing the article. It’s an error that is especially difficult to spot if you’re the author because of your own familiarity with the article. The only effective way I found to combat those kinds of mistakes in my writing was to delay my own review of my writing (sometimes as long as a day or two) after significant writing or edits. Clearly that strategy is unworkable in a fast paced journalism setting, where that kind of space between writing and editing cannot meet deadlines.

This would look a lot different than the similar AI slop tell I see in news articles that repeat the headline across multiple paragraphs in a row with different wording and no new details or clarifications. I don’t see any of this in the article. I could not find the repeated paragraphs that you’re talking about. Calling back to previous points in an essay with various subsections, even repeating important points and details is often just good writing.

Removed by mod