The weirder part is that AI scrapers don't give a damn about selecting paragraphs out - so this feature is either incredibly poorly thought through, or was outright intended to prevent exactly what you're trying to do.

Select all -> Copy is working fine for me using firefox on android mobile, at least.

Wow, I had to look up who this is and you sure were not kidding.

The modification is expected to reduce the aircraft’s fuel consumption and associated carbon dioxide emissions by approximately 1%.

So that's very much not nothing, given the volume of greenhouse gases produced by the aviation industry - but also given the volume of greenhouse gases produced by the aviation industry that's uh. Kinda nothing. Fuck.

Then you got dumbasses like me that can't tell you're trying to flirt and aren't just actually really interested in my boots. Like hey thanks you're super hot - and now for a ten minute lecture on blake stitching techniques for platform soles!

I was at a show with some friends and wound up in a conversation with a girl I've had a crush on since I was a kid, which eventually escalated to her doing a full standing split against me with one leg wrapped around my neck while feeding me cherries by making me bite them off the stems she was holding in her mouth (gymnasts. Woof.) and I still managed to convince myself she was "just being nice".

Ohhh, I see what's happened!

Okay so, in this case you could make an argument that these aren't Peano numbers because this isn't an operation involving the set of all natural numbers (as in this hypothetical we're starting from 10, not 0) nor are they church numerals (as a term for a unary representation) for the same reason (and also they aren't for the other use of church numeral as the count of repeated composition [edit: and I will yoink that sidetrack ramble. bad warl0k3]), but I'm not going to do that because fuck me would that be a sign of near-terminal grass deficiency. Anyway, the above method of rationalizing grocery crimes is an example of what in computer science is generally called a church numeral, but only when working within a context that assumes base-10 representations of values are a shorthand for a unary representation of values. Whereas what generally gets called 'Peano numbers' are a purely unary expression of the natural numbers, but does not need the additional context to specify their use in this manner. I was assuming that compsci context, which I realize now that I shouldn't have been doing

Thank you, this was interesting and something I really should have been more aware of!

Weird to be agreeing with Peter Thiel...

Reinventing church numerals as a rationalisation for grocery checkout hijinks - I absolutely love this.

Would they not be equivalent systems for this purpose? Both use the successor function as a unary representation of the natural numbers.

Firefighting, not bombs. How unexpectedly refreshing.

I was little and going through that "ask an unending stream of questions to figure out how the world works / determine the limits of your parent's patience" phase. At one point during this my mother, who had up until this point used this as an opportunity to teach me how to research things and overall handled it with grace, began to hit her limit. And so one fine morning when I had perkily jammed myself underneath the toilet in a way that startled the living daylights out of her when she came in and I asked how toilets worked, she said in great exasperation "toilet gnomes, and you shouldn't be down there bothering them". This of course made perfect sense to me - someone had to crew the little boat, and humans would never fit in there.

I maintain to this day that it was an act of class solidarity that I shouldn't be mocked for when, several days later, she found me pooping in the yard because I "didn't want the gnomes to work too hard".

By the way, I'm the only one of us that ever got upvoted, so sure you won the hearts and minds (who the fuck cares about that lmao) and noone's reading this shit now

... I don't care about votes either? Which is why I never mentioned them. Why are you bringing them into in this in the same sentence you establish how much you don't care about them / the audience reaction? I guess I'm glad we're on the same page about votes, but it's weird for someone who supposedly doesn't care to have brought them up at all.

(Total side note: I don't know if you know yet, vote totals aren't the same across instances. Many instances go so far as to defederate from lemvotes (.ml included, I believe), so it can be difficult for users from there to check actual vs. displayed vote totals. This makes it fairly pointless to use vote totals in an argument, (as for example) right now on my client, neither one of us have any up/down votes after our very initial comments.)

You were the one making unnecessary corrections when quoting me to begin with

Nnno? Where did I do that?

you have not provided a single argument against that even onceso I guess you must agree.

Budude, you can do better than this. "I said nu-uh about your arguments, so that means you agree!" is entertaining I'll grant you, but it's not exactly well founded. You're welcome to explain how the definition of censorship doesn't apply to what .ml does but somehow does to .world, but well, there's probably a good reason you're trying to discredit the idea of the definition itself rather than actually engage with the argument.

Good luck becoming an English teacher or something!

Entertainingly I spend far more time lecturing about formal languages than my counterparts in lit. One of those amusing quirks of compsci...

If you lie, you get spots on your tongue

Oh lmao the spots on your tongue thing is ancient. Transient lingual papillitis, also called "lie bumps". Ton of cultures share the myth that you get them from lying - we don't know what causes them (and fuck do they hurt) and they're rarely talked about, so it's always weird to run into that in the wild; it seems so absurd you'd never expect it to be as widespread as it is.

"I don't care what wikipedia says" oh I'm gonna need some popcorn for this one.

Listen, you're trying the troll approach here, honing in on the whole grammar thing, and sure! Good attempt! But being a grammar nazi like this is only gonna frustrate you - the internet got over thinking it was cool behavior a decade ago, and now it just comes across as insecure and/or overcompensation. Like for example, it's worryingly telling that when I corrected my own typo you saw it and assumed I was correcting yours - but seriously, again, I promise I do not care about your lack of familiarity (or lack of lack of familiarity) with the language.

Anyways / I promise, you're not going to get a rise out of me with this approach. You've established you're not an authority on english prose, and while that is not a reflection of your character in itself, it does reflect on you that you're trying to present yourself as an authority. Shifting tack into trying the whole "reject everything and insist you're right to frustrate them" routine is really boring, so for the sake of sparing myself responding to the rest of this I'm instead just going to leave you with the following rather self-exemplifying wisdom:

It's just the two of us here any more, so I can just come out and say that you've long since "lost" this (not that that's a particularly useful outlook), and there's really nothing for you to gain here. I'm not, nor have I ever been, trying to convince you that what I said was correct (it speaks for itself); I was trying to convince the audience - which I rather evidently did.

This is why I'm boucing around so much tonally: I don't have any real goal in mind, and I'm certainly not trying to get a rise out of you like you are in turn. I'm just bored, and it's always interesting to see how behavior like this plays out. My apologies if it gets overly purple, I do sometimes write with my own amusement as the goal.

Feel free to go on doing what you want though - I for sure don't mind. I'm quite looking forward to a denial of your earlier quote confusion, which should prove to be a tricky thing to convincingly present! I believe in you though, you've got this lil' buddy (a diminutive I only include because of it's contraction)

Miranda Orozco, 50, was sentenced to 30 years in prison after admitting to arranging travel and accommodations for two people who died and another who was seriously injured.

Oh, so not the guy driving the truck or something, just the guy that introduced a couple of them to the coyotes. Great, that's solved it, justice served... Fucking trump administration.

(consolidating my responses so as to not fracture the thread)

Both spellings are correct.

The spelling y'all is the most prevalent in print, 10 times that of ya'll; much less common spelling variants include yall, yawl, and yo-all. ^(^^source^^)^

You're the only one here attempting to leverage 'reading comprehension' and minor semantic issues into a reflection of character - I very much do not care. There are plenty of typos in both our comments (for example, I corrected one of mine in the comment you're replying to), and such errors are in the nature of the written medium. Your attempt at posturing about reading comprehension earlier was in response to a statement you made that was structurally ambiguous, which I demonstrated and then moved on. I don't make value judgements about another person based on their facility with a language; as you yourself may be an example of, this is an international community, not a middle school english exam.

To really drive home the point about how tedious such nonsense is:

NOUN: Censorship (plural censorships):
1.) The use of state or group power to control freedom of expression or press, such as passing laws to prevent undesirable media from being published or propagated. ^(^^source^^)^

I'm curious what you think the other example is if not censorship, because it sure appears to meet the definition.

Insane high effort

... 30 seconds with a decades old grammar checker.

I believe I addressed the bulk of what you're saying already:

[...] litigating how [the] minor differences in the scope of censorship don't particularly change their impact sounds like a real waste of my time plus it's largely beside the point.

You can tell yourself you're part of a special group and it doesn't count when ya'll do it because actually you're not doing it in exactly the same way so that makes heavy-handed censorship okay, but lol.

You still haven't provided any proof of your accusations, you're mostly just being annoying.

Aside from your own repeated labeling of things you don't like as "liberal" and "wack" so you can dismiss them, there are ample sources discussed elsewhere in this comment section. I encourage you to take the initiative and educate yourself on the people you associate with; learning is fun!

::: spoiler ... dude, the subject is ambiguous.

:::

What isn't ambiguous is that you've already described equivalent behavior from .ml as 'totally fair':

No, it just doesn’t accept wack opinions, which is totally fair. World consists of mostly wack opinions, while piefed is created with the purpose of only showing wack opinions.

.ml censors "wrongthink", which evidently is the majority of things found on .world and all of what's found through piefed (unless you want to try and argue that "wack" isn't "wrongthink", which please do that it would be very funny). The difference between not allowing almost everything from an instance (or possibly an entire activitypub interface) because it's "wackthink" and what the OP is requesting, blocking an instance wholesale, is pretty minor - and litigating how there minor differences in the scope of censorship don't particularly change their impact sounds like a real waste of my time plus it's largely beside the point. Criticizing someone else for not wanting opinions they disagree with in their 'echo chamber', when you're outright admitting to (and nigh on openly advocating for) doing exactly the same thing, is hypocritical.

... Comparing to animals? Weasel in this case is a verb, do you also mean "game?" (Edit: Ohhh sorry, ape. I hesitate to point this out, but that was (presumably) a 100% accurate comparison)

Anyways: describing entire instances as being full of "wrongthink" is... spectacularly not a defense of the criticism here. "From my perspective the jedi are evil liberals" is not a convincing argument. The topic has been from the start that this is a hypocritical thing to decry another user over and I've been very open about that - the censorship is a secondary topic used to illustrate the original point. Go look at any of the dedicated communities for evidence if you're genuinely interested; I'm not looking to play three card montte and bailey about the tendencies of an instance with exhaustively well documented behavior you yourself serve as an example of.

Nah, that's very much the issue that was being discussed - I was just dragging the discussion to absurdity in an attempt to highlight your behavior to you. Ah well. To be less subtle: You're trying to spin this by asserting that it's only fascists et. al that are censored, when that simply isn't the case and has never been the claim I made. Your instance has a pattern of censoring damn near everything that disagrees - and slaps the label of zionism / fascism / liberalism on anything you dislike to justify the censorship (behavior you ape here).

It's a game attempt to weasel your way out of having (at least tacitly) said .ml is an echo chamber, but nah, nobody is falling for it. You can baselessly dance around outright calling me a liberal all you want (lmao), but that only reinforces that the OP's desire to find an instance that doesn't allow your own instance's "wack opinions" and bad faith interaction is behavior you can't criticize without massive hypocrisy.

(edit: weird formatting issue, sorry!)