Neat, but, I have to admit, completely incomprehensible to the uninitiated 😅

“\subseteq”?

dėfŭnct’, a. Dead (the ~, way of mentioning a particular dead person), no longer existing. [f. L ᴅᴇ(functus p.p. of fungi perform) dead]

The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English. Edited by H. W. Fowler and F. G. Fowler, based on The Oxford Dictionary. Fifth edition (1964). Revised by E. McIntosh. Reprint 1972.

Last year I had to fight tooth and nail to delete some bullshit article based on Cold War era propaganda that nobody bothered to directly scrutinise and criticise (there was thankfully enough related information out there that undermined the article indirectly). These days I checked a dozen books to confirm a term regularly used on WP is made up by whoever created the page two decades ago, so I’ll have to try and dispute it. A friend of mine has spent years looking for historical documents confirming some statement that’s been repeated by historians in passing since mid-20th century with no proper corrobating info, obviously repeated on WP as well. Sometime last year there was a reddit thread by a relative of some minor desceased celebrity from 90s who said the celebrity’s WP article is entirely based on one journalist’s sensationalist book that even got their year of birth wrong; the relative was advised to contact WP’s legal team to see if they can solve that somehow.

No, these are not major bits of misinformation, but in specific areas and for specific people they are important. Not claiming GWB is still the president of the US is a very low bar that Wikipedia has already passed like 15 years ago, rather I’m talking about the limits of their sourcing policy. Many sources will say who’s the current president of a country, but what do you do when there’s one source that got something wrong, two other ones that just repeated what the first said (a very common thing, obviously), and nothing else?

If there’s actual, provable lies about a notable person in the encyclopedia, then there should be actual, provable truths to combat it

No, not necessarily. Lots of false info spreads around, including serious academic publications. People who publish books and articles don’t always do additional verification of the stuff they read elsewhere. And if nobody publishes something containing the correct version of the story, you as a WP editor don’t really have a reliable source that you can use against the existing ones. I’ve seen this happen multiple times. Wikipedia is nominally meant just to convey what the sources say, not do active research or provide you with the capital T Truth.

Sanger was laid off from Wikipedia early on, started a competitor site that failed, and then returned to Wikipedia not so much to contribute but to rail against the project, his only credentials being setting up some of the crucial rules for the site two decades ago. It was really pathetic, like an ex pestering the other one years after the breakup, unable to move on. I hope he finds a better hobby now.

Do you remember the feel of switching from 1998 to 2001? It felt like stepping into the future.

Is that add-on good?

You’re by far the most rude and snarky person in this whole comment chain.

Even if I don’t need data or a scientific explanation of why the bulk (mainstream) music is getting worse.

I mean, you are the one who brought up scientific explanations and are currently trying to defend them…

but cherrypick loops

It was just one example. The other ones are more vague, but even going off the general meaning it’s obvious they’re meant to apply to modern western music and would fail outside of it.

It’s about OVER USE of the same loops and presets.

Yeah, ok, I understood that.

So this is irrelevant

It is irrelevant that your quasi-objective standards easily fail when applied to somewhat unconventional music?

I don’t think he was a dick. He wasn’t very tactful, but he wasn’t insulting you.

You can quantity it, but that doesn’t mean the quantification is meaningful and correlates with literally anything else. Like, loops are bad? I guess I should inform all those classical music critics they’re actually dumb for liking Terry Riley and Steve Reich.

I was wondering what song it might be as I was clicking on the link. Hmm, 1974, that’s the time when prog was going strong, maybe King Crimson…

Yeah, that “Lyrics style and emotion descriptors” section is absolutely ridiculous from the perspective of aesthetic judgment. No normal listener or professional critic judges music and lyrics on the basis of, I quote, “unique token ratio, repeated token ratio, pronoun frequency, line count, or punctuation counts”.

Are people already getting these AI-only, blue-link-less Google results? Mine are still normal.

Idk, just keep washing your hands and cutting nails as usual and it should inevitably go away as the nail grows pushes it out?

flyers ask if they want to work at ‘the Employee Data ​Extraction Factory’

Well, they do want to work at ‘the User Data ​Extraction Factory’ at least 🙄

They link them on the bottom of the page.

Well I’ve used Firefox before it was even publicly released. Checkmate.

I’m considering switching to Linux and at this point I’m trying to ignore the “recommendations” of this sort.

Talk him out of it, but take the TV anyway.

This article: https://www.thefp.com/p/i-thought-i-was-autistic-i-was-wrong Since it’s behind the paywall, a PDF copy should be available here.