Joined the Mayqueeze.
That’s a matter of opinion. I suspect a big university like that quickly spends its budget and does way more than compile a dictionary. And if spelling is all you need, that still appears to be possible in front of the paywall.
For the longest time, it wasn’t free of charge. You had to buy expensive books. I fail to see a justification for the outrage. Also considering that this thread is rife with suggestions for alternatives and more dodgy solutions.
It’s a funny coincidence of history that gated communities for the well off folks in capitalism and mass housing for the not well off in communism follow the same design principle: few access points that can be controlled by a single tank each.
They aren’t under any obligation to provide the fruit of their labour free of charge.
As far as I can see their subscription prices have also only gone up over the years. Why? Do you think a Mr Burns like figure is sitting behind the scenes asking Smithers to relese the hounds? Or because running the linguistic operation, the database, and a website that people all over the world look at as the de facto authority of the language and gets queried thousands of times per day just cost shitloads of money? And they no longer get enough funding another way?
Did they ever put ads on their website? Do you run uBlock or similar plugins on your browser?
Is it possible? Yes. You can see examples in mainland China where foreign channels, including the more liberal channels from Hong Kong, routinely get blacked out when China news come on (unless they are gloriously positive).
Is it likely where you are? No. Especially it happening on broadcast channels you would hear a lot more about it. The socials would be full of it. There would have to be an office full of people censoring broadcast channels as they go out. We know the Chinese are operating such a facility because we heard about it. And we haven’t heard anything like that for the US. Ockham’s razor points at a buffering issue somewhere along the distribution chain from the news studio to your local antenna. A streaming video, like on YouTube, is just freeze framed when it’s buffering also. And I don’t think you as an individual consumer are important enough for somebody just doing it for your receiver.
Captcha, but for bots, I imagine. Fits in with the general conspiratorial theme.
I mean, they have to pay the bills somehow. And this shows maybe how bad financially they’re off. Before the internet, you had to buy a copy of the book. I suspect those sales fell off a cliff in the last 25 years. So I may not like this decision but I can understand it.
And as others have suggested, there are other ways to get what you need online. This is a strong atmospheric disturbance in a serving vessel for hot infused beverages.
There are certain crimes you will never be able to fully eradicate. You can only try to get them down to the bare flawed human minimum. For pretty much as long as there are laws and courts, killing in cold blood has been illegal. But to this day humans kill humans in cold blood. All we can do is make good laws, prosecute perpetrators, and increase awareness. If the latter is what you mean by grassroot change, then sure. If we stay within the hypothetical, I don’t think a mass accident (like an accidental gas leak) or mass murder (a gas leak made to look like an accident) of the whole bunch on Epstein island would bring about a cultural change. My personal fear is that this whole exposé of this particular case only served to make the rich fuckers even more careful when they do it, not do it less.
At the root of the Epstein case is money. Billionaires should not exist. The quality of legal representation should not depend on one’s bank account. If you want a grassroot cause, tackle that one.
I’m afraid that pedophilia is prevalent everywhere. We only hear about the rich people more because journalists take an interest and rich people think - not unjustifiably - that money is a good protective shield and therefore take more risks.
In this hypothetical scenario, if all these people were pedophiles or turned a blind eye to it, were assembled at the same time, and all punched their ticket to a delightfully shitty afterlife, I don’t think the problem would be gone. There will be willing successors standing by to fill all of these positions. And it would be a stroke of luck if the waiting successors were suddenly more moral beings.
Not to worry! And thank you for this civilized exchange that managed to stay clear of Godwin’s Law:)
Does a nation cease to exist after it is conquered? All the efforts to that effect by the English notwithstanding, it’s still there.
[Angry Welsh noise, probably involving a lot of consonants and a few double L’s]
We should not start accepting manipulated images as a replacement for real images
My point was that it is already too late for that. I understand how your feel. I also think that you’ll be part of a minority.
There is no such thing as a real image.
[Redacted], [redacted], or maybe [redacted]. We would all benefit if we just didn’t hear from him ever again and then his name or title really don’t matter.
It was Samsung and they were just ahead of the time. Consider that in the field of photography we’ve gone from a photograph being a big and often expensive black and white deal to snapping pictures willy nilly on a device everybody carries around in their pockets. We had already accepted retouching of photos even before Photoshop. Photoshop or similar applications are now also available to more people on the same devices they carry around to snap ask these pictures. Photographs today are an artifice of human intervention and/or computer processing. No image is just what happened. The RAW data has probably been heavily edited by the photographer to get the final effect they wanted. Even before so-called AI they have gone in and changed shit around. And they’ve become so masterful at it that most of us cannot tell the difference. They have probably, on occasion, replaced a whole sky or the moon on shots before they ended up in a brochure. This is nothing new. So if these tricks get automated now, that shows me more how widespread they already were. And I think we are not talking about this as much because we as a society like being cheated like that because it looks good.
Machine learning is so good now that it can ID your face as a baby as well. Not always, but with enough pictures you’ll reach statistical certainty.
Other than that you could maybe test DNAs. On a less invasive level, if you know your blood type, you could ask your parents for theirs and see if that makes sense.
Has anyone ever doubted their parents are their parents? Most teenagers about their biological parents during puberty.
Is it possible that you were abducted after running away? Yes. Is it very likely? No. These cases are rare but get lots of news coverage.
If you’re under 40, the lack of pictures of your childhood could be conspicuous. Most parents document the progress of their kids and after the advent of digital photography there should be lots of evidence to put your mind at ease.
Your wife made the decision for you collectively not break off the relationships all together. I understand that you don’t like it. The adage that blood is thicker than water applies here on top of any other concern. And that’s why I would tread carefully in the interest of your marriage. Another folk wisdom is that morals are something you need to be able to afford. And my guess is you will not be able to do so here in the way you would prefer. While her family is at your house, you mustn’t tolerate any bullshit and you should be free to express your dismay at the protofascist state of affairs. But I would keep it at a non-shouting, non-hostile level. Your wife has spent your morals money. Try to look at it as an opportunity to change minds. If they are at your house they cannot run away, you have a semi-captive audience, in which you can sow the seeds of doubt. If there is to be another election, this is better than a clean cut, breaking off contact, and entrenching opinions out of spite on their side. Grit your teeth and roll up that rock, Sisyphus. Calm arguments and facts, tackle the ball not the player. And find a way to channel your frustration elsewhere (punching bag in the garage, walk the dog, friendly ear that maybe isn’t your wife’s, etc.).
I’ll be glad when he is no longer in power. I’m equally afraid of who will succeed him. Could our angry Americans please use their anger to change the absolutely insane system by which a president is elected and then invest wholesale in education? That’s just two examples I could think of off the top of my head. What’s good about getting rid of the orange only to fall into a fruit salad?
On a list of priorities, having a ballroom for state dinners and what not would not be high on mine. But as a big government whose reputation 47 hasn’t ruined entirely (yet), I can see the usefulness of a dedicated ballroom for these functions. He is all about appearances and little to no substance behind it. Some government functions are like that, even when the people running it have decidedly more substance behind it than this shriveled mandarin. I would have looked at a gazillion other issues first if I were him but I also take pride in not being him or being similar to him in any way. So let him have his silly ballroom. The construction of which will reveal either that they cooked the numbers or [clasping pearls] it was built by immigrants without the proper visa. You can rename it the Obama ballroom or something when he’s gone (eventually/hopefully) and I suspect you can pawn the gold leaf from the walls to help reduce the budget gap he’ll undoubtedly leave behind.
Apple was the first big aggregator with then iTunes. Spotify is the biggest streamer that also hosts podcasts. I suppose it helped highlighting the ease of subscribing through these services to get subscribers.
I absolutely hate this triad of “you can find us on [insert propriatory source like Spotify], Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.” The last third includes the two preceding ones. Both Spotify or Apple are places where one can find podcasts. It is illogical to say it like that and I find it annoying. I don’t think it is necessary to remind people any more how podcasts work in 2025. They will find you. Stop giving free ads to other services. Especially services that have proven to be hostile to the open RSS architecture, like Spotify.