> The obsession with AI (and other vapourware) in our industry ... fuelling the hard-right — who coincidentally are very much using AI.
Is it useless or not? If it's vapourware, why would you care if the other side uses it? If the far right is using it successfully, then by definition it is not vapourware, right?
Because the output from LLMs drowns everything else. So if people use it to drown actual discussions yes, it's useful for that. Everyone else though, has to suffer.
I think that's aligns with what GP is saying: if one is going to say people are using it, even if for things you don't like, then choosing to call it vapourware in the same paragraph is a confusing use of the term.
In a charitable reading I think the author was meaning something along the lines of "fails to be as useful as made to sound on things I think are worth valuing but very useful for things I think are slop" but chose a different meaning term by mistake.
The problem with using this as an analogy is that the commas attach to the interjection "well," not to the words "rich" or "richer." Remove the "well" and you should remove all the punctuation around it.
"I'm getting fed up of making the rich... richer" might be grammatically ok in informal text, but a comma is definitely wrong.
I think a lot of English speakers use commas to emphasize a pause in speech. I don’t think a comma was needed. I think the author was slightly mixing up the relative clauses and appositives rules with commas.
Source: native speaker, North America
it's not grammatically correct but reflects a pausing speaking style to avoid confusion generated from repeating the same word twice in a row, and also to emphasize the repetition (a thing becoming more of a thing after already being that thing). (others are telling you whether it's correct per textbook rules or that it's purely stylistic but not why it's used in practice and what it conveys)
There are “close” and “open” styles of comma usage. “Open” has been ascendant for the last few decades (it began to rise in the early 20th century, but wasn’t firmly dominant until later). It’s less precise and expressive, but “cleaner”.
Because native English users don't follow a style book. As much as English teachers in school want pupils to be prescriptivists in academic contexts, native English communication (writing/speaking) is better understood using a descriptivist lens.
There aren't fixed rules, even to the degree to which there are such rules for other grammatical questions in English. Much of comma usage comes down to preference.
I think part of why we've shifted so strongly against their use is because if you leave it up to taste, as had previously been common, most people make poor choices.
It's funny because even as we've moved away from prescriptivism, the "rules" around comma usage have tightened and people have gotten quicker to call a given previously-common usage incorrect.
> Native English speakers don't know how to use commas, so they throw them anywhere they want to have a pause.
Like with any language, there are wildly varying levels of literacy. Many native English speakers know how to use commas, and many others don't. I think that shades from using them grammatically (most literate), to using them ungrammatically as a generic pause, to not using punctuation at all.
Progressive movements have giant amounts of funding. Every big business in the US and mostly in the UK as well are donating to various Progressive causes. Loads of Progressive people are fairly rich tech workers. Most of Hollywood are Progressive. Kamala Harris took over the previous presidential candidacy from Joe Biden and raised $1.4bn in a very short amount of time, twice what Trump got.
That's why the joke is Progressive YouTubers are sponsored by Amazon and Google, and Conservative ones are sponsored by Freedom Water and other budget right wing brands.
In western politics, there are various definitions of the word "progressive". The definitions that include Kamala Harris are mostly used by right-wing Americans.
How much corporate funding did Bernie get?
Why do you think capital supported Kamala? Especially in hindsight?
And your joke about left vs right sponsorship of streamers has a very soft underbelly, which, if you don't know about it yet, kind of tells the whole story right there.
> In western politics, there are various definitions of the word "progressive". The definitions that include Kamala Harris are mostly used by right-wing Americans.
No, Kamala Harris had some pretty extreme "Progressive" positions such as open borders.
> And your joke about left vs right sponsorship of streamers has a very soft underbelly, which, if you don't know about it yet, kind of tells the whole story right there.
I don't see the point of insinuation. Make a point, or leave it, please. Doing this is just a waste of time.
Kamala Harris's voting record is extremely progressive. Nevermind the subjective approximation of her policy positions as the Democrat nominee, which was watered down as she tried to garner broader support compared to her 2020 primary run.
>The Voteview project (now based at UCLA) has, since the 1980s, employed the roll-call votes cast in Congress to locate all senators and representatives on a liberal-conservative ideological map. These data and methods have been utilized by academics in thousands of peer-reviewed books, book chapters and journal articles. Although no method is perfect, there is a general consensus within the academic community that the NOMINATE methodology employed by the Voteview project and its close cousins represent the gold standard.
Readit News
Is it useless or not? If it's vapourware, why would you care if the other side uses it? If the far right is using it successfully, then by definition it is not vapourware, right?
In a charitable reading I think the author was meaning something along the lines of "fails to be as useful as made to sound on things I think are worth valuing but very useful for things I think are slop" but chose a different meaning term by mistake.
Because I’m among those being tormented!
My point is: you can't say LLMs are a dangerous tool and call them vapourware at the same time. It's a contradiction in terms.
Like: "I'm getting fed up of making the rich... well, richer".
"I'm getting fed up of making the rich... richer" might be grammatically ok in informal text, but a comma is definitely wrong.
EDIT: I like qwertox’s answer best
Deleted Comment
Source: Garner’s.
Deleted Comment
I think part of why we've shifted so strongly against their use is because if you leave it up to taste, as had previously been common, most people make poor choices.
It's funny because even as we've moved away from prescriptivism, the "rules" around comma usage have tightened and people have gotten quicker to call a given previously-common usage incorrect.
Like with any language, there are wildly varying levels of literacy. Many native English speakers know how to use commas, and many others don't. I think that shades from using them grammatically (most literate), to using them ungrammatically as a generic pause, to not using punctuation at all.
Dead Comment
That's why the joke is Progressive YouTubers are sponsored by Amazon and Google, and Conservative ones are sponsored by Freedom Water and other budget right wing brands.
How much corporate funding did Bernie get?
Why do you think capital supported Kamala? Especially in hindsight?
And your joke about left vs right sponsorship of streamers has a very soft underbelly, which, if you don't know about it yet, kind of tells the whole story right there.
No, Kamala Harris had some pretty extreme "Progressive" positions such as open borders.
> And your joke about left vs right sponsorship of streamers has a very soft underbelly, which, if you don't know about it yet, kind of tells the whole story right there.
I don't see the point of insinuation. Make a point, or leave it, please. Doing this is just a waste of time.
>The Voteview project (now based at UCLA) has, since the 1980s, employed the roll-call votes cast in Congress to locate all senators and representatives on a liberal-conservative ideological map. These data and methods have been utilized by academics in thousands of peer-reviewed books, book chapters and journal articles. Although no method is perfect, there is a general consensus within the academic community that the NOMINATE methodology employed by the Voteview project and its close cousins represent the gold standard.
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4816859-kamala-harris-i...
You can look at the data yourself: https://voteview.com/data
And its not shocking right? She represented California, which is obviously one of, if not the most, liberal state in the country.
Dead Comment