kacey's recent activity
-
Comment on How I feel about LLM (AI) writing in ~tech
-
Comment on āItās shamefulā: New Yorkās elite lash out at Zohran Mamdaniās second-home tax in ~finance
kacey Link ParentI spent a couple seconds on Google searching "difficulty setting up worker cooperative" and it turned up this reddit post, where a tech worker asked about what makes starting a cooperative...The general idea that people just spontaneously produce good outcomes left to themselves is trivially debunked by the lack of worker cooperatives competing in the market.
I spent a couple seconds on Google searching "difficulty setting up worker cooperative" and it turned up this reddit post, where a tech worker asked about what makes starting a cooperative difficult. Response:
It's not that the legal setup is that much harder, the tougher part is finding capital. The traditional startup model is that a small number of wealthy folks contribute the capital and own the large majority of the company, getting full control as well as most of the hoped-for profits.
Worker coops can't sell control (otherwise it wouldn't be a coop anymore), so they need to either get the capital from the worker-owners (tough since most people don't have that kind of money to risk), get people willing to buy non-voting shares (a tough sell for wealthy folks used to control), or take on debt (tough if you don't have assets and a track record).
Not impossible by any means - it's something I'm working on myself - but definitely a challenge!
^ that feels like it refutes the notion of a trivial debunk, at least? But may I ask if you've run into anything else concrete which could constitute a systemic disadvantage against co-ops that can't be traced back to investors wanting to exploit labour? For instance, in papasquat's example, the business owner takes out cheap loans then squeezes employees for profit. In the linked example, private equity cuts out the middleman and refuses to finance business owners that will not crush labourers for cash.
... also I read the rest of your comment, which I'll acknowledge, but not address if that's acceptable. Hopefully you'd agree that it's acceptable to mutually disagree on a topic.
-
Comment on Nobody understands the point of hybrid cars in ~transport
kacey Link ParentAah, gotcha! I mean hypothetically steel wheeled vehicles are more energy efficient in many situations. But my guess has been that it's probably because busses are seen as inferior to trains,...Aah, gotcha! I mean hypothetically steel wheeled vehicles are more energy efficient in many situations. But my guess has been that it's probably because busses are seen as inferior to trains, socially, even if they're near identical in throughput and accessibility (with BRT). People can just develop weird notions sometimes and cling to them.
-
Comment on Nobody understands the point of hybrid cars in ~transport
kacey Link ParentI think there's some objection to the overhead wires being unsightly? Plus, rarely, someone will try to cut the catenary lines down for scrap, but I haven't heard of that happening for years. Re....I think there's some objection to the overhead wires being unsightly? Plus, rarely, someone will try to cut the catenary lines down for scrap, but I haven't heard of that happening for years.
Re. The hybrid battery busses, there are actually some on the way! I believe the next fleet refresh will use them.
-
Comment on Nobody understands the point of hybrid cars in ~transport
kacey (edited )Link ParentJust piping in briefly, but the Vancouver trolleybuses are actual busses -- not a rail in sight! Iirc they're more common in places with steep grades, since they maintain traction much better, and...Just piping in briefly, but the Vancouver trolleybuses are actual busses -- not a rail in sight! Iirc they're more common in places with steep grades, since they maintain traction much better, and as a cyclist it's great not to have to dodge another road hazard (slick rails in the rain) -- the few parts of the city roads with rails in them are death traps during the rainy season.
-
Comment on OpenAI's WebRTC problem in ~comp
kacey LinkI'll try to add more later, but if they hate the audio transport so much, why not push audio buffers over RTCDataChannel? It's how you do arbitrary data transfer with WebRTC. Maybe it gets QoS'd...I'll try to add more later, but if they hate the audio transport so much, why not push audio buffers over RTCDataChannel? It's how you do arbitrary data transfer with WebRTC. Maybe it gets QoS'd badly by ISPs ...?
Also I don't follow how Discord implements a bunch of extra protocols for their web clients ... I guess they're saying that they wrote their own WebRTC server, and instead of putting in placeholders for the features they didn't like, they implemented a full stack ...?
(the author probably can't say much due to NDAs, so some imprecision is likely understandable)
-
Comment on Woman covertly filmed for 'humiliating' social media content - then told to pay for removal in ~tech
kacey Link ParentSorry, I don't feel qualified to comment on much in this thought. Hopefully someone more level headed and competent will come around š this stood out, though: I'm curious what technology you're...Sorry, I don't feel qualified to comment on much in this thought. Hopefully someone more level headed and competent will come around š this stood out, though:
We have the technology for social media companies to identify and remove comments that say degrading things about people featured in a video like this.
I'm curious what technology you're thinking of? Women are degraded and dehumanized in such a myriad of ways I'd be stunned if even an LLM could keep up without completely shutting down 99% of your average social media interaction.
"Amusingly", in casual research for this topic, I ran into the Wikipedia category page for pejorative terms for women, which is ~80% longer than the equivalent for men (and the latter seems to include many terms I take to be gender-neutral, so the actual ratio is likely much larger, but ymmv). Really feels like one would be fighting an uphill battle by attacking this problem at the leaves, so to speak.
-
Comment on Why I find woke criticism of veganism and effective altruism so outrageous in ~society
kacey Link ParentFair enough! As noted, I'm completely unaware of the author's other works, so all I have to go off of are his linked words. Typically I'd assume that a professional (?) writer would make clear...The lack of the word "all" prior to using the term? There are obviously vegan and EA leftists that Matthew Adelstein (the author) is aware of, is friends with, and has co-written with. Maybe I'm biased from knowing the author in question, but he never said anywhere that this criticism is exclusively from leftists and constitutes what all leftists say. Obviously the biggest opponents of vegan causes are conservatives, but they are less hypocritical in their responses, as they are mask-off ghouls on all of their positions.
Fair enough! As noted, I'm completely unaware of the author's other works, so all I have to go off of are his linked words. Typically I'd assume that a professional (?) writer would make clear that distinction, but I guess it's super implicit to everyone else.
Are you a vegan?
If you put a gun to my head, yep! I don't like to associate in groups, but since you're asking me a direct question, I lean further into that one that out of it. I repeatedly fail -- especially when my favourite restaurant slips ham into their tofu sandwiches (>:|) -- but I do all the vegan things (avoid meat and animal byproducts, leather, etc.). This is transgressive, but I extend forgiveness to myself (and others!) when I screw up or have to pause for a moment due to health issues (it's effectively impossible in my area to get cost effective, prepared, vegan meals, so it's oatmeal for every meal otherwise). That also goes for any prepared food with sugar as a listed ingredient, since it'll often use bone char, and eliminating everything that has not been marked with the big 'ol V is outside of my budget. Then there's veganic farming, which is not even in the same postal code as my budget!
Feel free to call me whatever you'd like, however! I've almost certainly been called worse.
The charitable reading of your comment is that Adelstein is moving from "anti-vegan leftists are wrong about veganism" to "anti-EA leftists are wrong about EA" which I wouldn't find as objectionable as the original claim.
Thank you for reading my comment charitably; I hope that we are both doing the same! I was being hyperbolic to make a point, as I felt that Mr. Bulldog (Adelstein?) was equally exaggerating his points for effect. I do not think you dense, fwiw, I just expect that I'm making unexpected arguments -- coated in a crunchy layer of sarcasm, which never helps with comprehension -- and that's likely hindering our ability to communicate.
First, we can care about more than one thing at a time, and if you care about donating to charity at all, it seems good to care about your contributions being effective and high-impact.
[...]
Like a Marxist revolutionary party or something? Are we not allowed to participate in charitable giving unless it is to The Correct Leftist Revolutionary Movementā¢ (which is, incidentally, incompatible with all other leftist revolutionary projects). I don't think we have a good reason to think there's a project like this that just a little bit of funding away from transforming the lives of the global south, the working class, and factory farmed animals, such that in expectation it does the most good to donate to them.I dunno! I'm neither rich enough to be an Effective Altruist, nor a marxist, or a leftist! I'm just sitting on the sidelines musing about how a movement that promotes "using evidence and reason to figure out how to benefit others as much as possible" -- as depicted in this article, I am really not into this subculture, so maybe you can dig up some alternate views -- apparently doesn't expend effort dismantling the institutions which gave them inequal power and influence to start with. It's terribly fascinating. The implicit conclusion seems to be that the Effective Altruists' perspectives' are superior, since the alternative would be giving the power of self-direction (i.e. shitloads of money) to the rest of us, which per their stated philosophy must mean that doing so is a globally inferior alternative than deciding for them?
But yeah these are just the musings of a spectator; as an individual without a large stake in this, I'm mostly going to be swept by the wayside anyhow, so I'm just enjoying the show.
-
Comment on Why I find woke criticism of veganism and effective altruism so outrageous in ~society
kacey Link ParentCould you quote a part of the article which indicates that it's aimed at only "leftists who provide awful critiques of veganism and effective altruism"? From my read, the author very clearly...So to address this, many leftists are effective altruists. The critique is aimed at leftists who provide awful critiques of veganism and effective altruism. This is a subset of leftists. And even non-EA leftist vegans constantly criticize leftists who are okay with paying for factory farmed animals, look at any leftist vegan online space.
Could you quote a part of the article which indicates that it's aimed at only "leftists who provide awful critiques of veganism and effective altruism"? From my read, the author very clearly delineates between "leftists" and "Effective Altruists", and never states that there's an overlap. Maybe their other works are more precise in their wording, but I'm unfamiliar with the authorship of Mr. Bulldog?
I've seen this take constantly, primarily from white liberals, defending their financial support of factory farming. Also the article linked an example of someone making this exact argument...
Eight billion people. Because this is the Internet, I can find you a person who genuinely believes with their whole heart that the Earth is sealed under a clear dome and flies through space as our little blue disc. I'll be more specific: in the thousands of people I run into IRL -- sometimes in spaces populated very heavily by people in vegan/animal rights circles -- I have never met a single soul who pushed the rhetoric that Mr. Bulldog dug up.
Can you link literally anything from the article you just read that could even possibly imply this?
I ... literally did. That's why we're discussing the first paragraph, which creates a false equivalence between the "leftists against veganism" argument and the "leftists against effective altruism" argument. I suppose to quote it again:
(emphasis mine)
A common talking point from leftists whenever veganism comes up is that veganism is white and privileged. These leftists see nothing wrong with eating the flesh of tortured innocent animals who didnāt want to die. What they find really objectionable is if you suggest that people should stop eating animals in a way that sets off their privilege alarm (a highly delicate instrument, never too far from going off). Similarly, the woke love to snipe at effective altruism as being white, privileged, neglecting colonialism, or whatever else the complaint of the month is.
The author creates a false narrative about leftists and veganism, somehow, and then links it to their argumentation against effective altruism. Which as I noted in my lead comment, is completely different to my primary argument against it: if you're so fabulously wealthy that you can donate large sums of money to vanity charity projects, the system is broken and you are behaving inherently undemocraticly. Hey, it can be effective, idc, but it seems that the truly most effective altruism would be donating towards groups that are attempting to end the systems which make it effective to start with.
I'm not even sure there's anything to say about this one...
Hey what the heck, I'll quote the article at you:
(emphasis mine)
And their critics, from within the comfort of their Marxist reading groups, talk endlessly and achieve nothing. Yet they have the nerve to lecture us about our behavior. What have the EA critics achieved that can hold a candle to the good that EAs do routinely? What has all this highfalutin theory achieved?
And to be clear, and break down my jokey tone a bit:
- "they're all poor" -> if they were rich, they could be effective altruists; alas the common folks must descend into marxism
- "marxists" -> literally in the text
- "elitists" -> if 'highfalutin theory' isn't anything less than a sideways glance at anti-elitism rhetoric, I don't know what to believe.
-
Comment on Why I find woke criticism of veganism and effective altruism so outrageous in ~society
kacey Link ParentThank you for jumping out ahead of this! And yeah, I wasn't going in-depth in any of my arguments, since I didn't feel that the author did their bare minimum of performing adequate research to...Thank you for jumping out ahead of this! And yeah, I wasn't going in-depth in any of my arguments, since I didn't feel that the author did their bare minimum of performing adequate research to establish their baseline premises.
I would note that I have a slightly different take? I haven't dug into the agricultural side of veganism, and was focused more on the practicalities of immediately converting diets of at least ~18 million people in the USA -- that they can't get access to any decent quality ingredients, on the regular, let alone vegan ingredients. But I should add the agricultural perspective to my reading list, too, thank you for the suggestion!
-
Comment on Why I find woke criticism of veganism and effective altruism so outrageous in ~society
kacey Link Parentnp; I'll break down the argument a smidge for ya. The first paragraph does a decent job explaining why I can barely read this: This intro paragraph uses three rhetorical tricks in order to lend...- Exemplary
I'm not sure why (or even if) you think food deserts falsify the claim linked.
np; I'll break down the argument a smidge for ya. The first paragraph does a decent job explaining why I can barely read this:
A common talking point from leftists whenever veganism comes up is that veganism is white and privileged. These leftists see nothing wrong with eating the flesh of tortured innocent animals who didnāt want to die. What they find really objectionable is if you suggest that people should stop eating animals in a way that sets off their privilege alarm (a highly delicate instrument, never too far from going off). Similarly, the woke love to snipe at effective altruism as being white, privileged, neglecting colonialism, or whatever else the complaint of the month is.
This intro paragraph uses three rhetorical tricks in order to lend credence to a poor argument:
- They group "leftists" into a monolith, in order to attack the group as a whole without addressing several of their underlying concerns (i.e. food deserts exist, so gaining access to vegan meals to begin with is difficult),
- They then create a straw man argument to knock over: leftists (now addressed as a singular whole), are hypocritical ("nothing is wrong with eating the flesh of tortured innocent animals") and anti-white (you've got eyes and can see this XD),
- Now that you've established your enemy as stupid, pivot to giving them another argument you want them to lose -- namely, that effective altruism is bad.
As a result, your readers get the impression that "the leftists" are a bunch of dumb people (since they argue against something as obviously wholesome as veganism), so now their arguments against effective altruism must been examined with the undertone that they're incapable of reason.
The author does this again, actually!
If you talk about veganism, you will inevitably get many complaints from leftists. They will point out that indigenous people eat animals sometimes and claim that not everyone can afford to go veganāeven though the cheapest vegan food is much cheaper than the cheapest non-vegan food. Though they eat meat for trivial pleasure, they seem to have much more to say about those who are overzealous in condemnation of the meat industry than about the industry itself.
Genuinely in my time on this great planet I have never seen a flesh and blood, real, actual living human being make this argument. I assume someone has -- eight billion people and all that -- but this is truly the strawest of strawman arguments. This is the freaking 21st century; the noble savage stereotype needs to die.
I can keep going about analyzing the article if you'd like? It's pretty much slop tbh but it's always useful to hone my literary criticism blade, so to speak. One lens I like to use for analysis like this -- which I learned from the Less Wrong forums many moons ago! -- is Schopenhauer's 38 Stratagems, or 38 Ways to Win an Argument. It's a pretty succinct list of how to be rhetorically dishonest and seem convincing!
This wasn't the argument; respectfully I don't think a sincere effort to honestly engage with the substance of the article was put forward.
Respectfully, disagreed. I'm responding to this subsection of the author's rant:
And weāve been amazingly successful. Hundreds of thousands of children live because of effective altruists. Hundreds of millions of chickens have been spared from a cage every single year. The future is in safer hands because of the actions of EAs. And yet these spectacular, overwhelming successes are wholly ignored by the leftist critics, who prefer to make narrow ideological complaints about how EAs talk or supposed bits of EA ideology that are inessential to the core things EAs advocate.
[...]
EAs are out there giving big portions of their money to effective charities to save the lives of children. And their critics, from within the comfort of their Marxist reading groups, talk endlessly and achieve nothing. Yet they have the nerve to lecture us about our behavior. What have the EA critics achieved that can hold a candle to the good that EAs do routinely? What has all this highfalutin theory achieved?The unspoken subtext is that we should be grateful to the rich people, exploiting systems that they perpetuate, tossing fat wads down at us. Wait, no, sorry that's actually in the text nvm:
If you criticize something that has been overwhelmingly good, then your commentary shouldnāt be exclusively critical.
[...]
We all fall short of doing as much good as we can. Thatās a normal, human thing. But when you throw sand in the faces of those who consciously aim to do a lot of good, that is pathological.In conclusion, like, I don't know what the actual substance of the article is, so it's difficult to engage with it. Roughly I think the author's reasoning goes like this:
- Lefty people all universally have a bad take on veganism, which is that it's bad (?) because the Indians use all of the animal, and Indians are good.
- Because this is wrong, all Lefty People takes are also wrong,
- One of their takes is that effective altruism is bad, but because they're all poor and marxists and elitists, they've accomplished nothing. Proving that effective atruism is good!
But that's ... not an argument. Or at least, it's barely worth engaging in. This feels like commenting on a tumblr post.
-
Comment on Why I find woke criticism of veganism and effective altruism so outrageous in ~society
kacey (edited )Link(edit) (just as a heads up, since I feel that the fact that top level responses are sent to one's inbox can seem aggressive, I'm not attacking you. Please understand that I'm slinging digital ink...(edit) (just as a heads up, since I feel that the fact that top level responses are sent to one's inbox can seem aggressive, I'm not attacking you. Please understand that I'm slinging digital ink at Mr. Bulldog, and at the general concepts at play for discussion)
Several reactions š
-
woke
To quote Inigo Montoya ...
-
In wealthy countries, almost everyone could go vegan if they so chose.
Nah. I'll put as much effort into my rebuttal as this blogger did into their research ā¤ļø
- Vaguely, the argument: "Poor people are making me feel sad for making a lot of money, then donating a portion of it (for tax receipts). They need to stop hurting my feelings, or I'll stop building [1] hospitals!!"
Ooh, thank you Mr. Bulldog! That was my argument, actually: effective altruism inherently requires [2] wealth disparity, and a dysfunctional democracy, to function. It's a moral philosophy that can only exist by ceding power to the 1% of people who have sufficient wealth to make choices for the unwashed masses. Hypothetically, in a democracy, we all get one vote about how our collective country's resources are spent -- but when you hoard cash, and dole out a pittance of it for posterity, you're kinda expending 107 billion votes to my one. But I guess I should be thanking my abuser for pulling one punch out of ten?
[1]: "I" and "building" are used loosely, since the occasion is rare that an EA-enthusiast physically performs labour, given that useless occupations such as construction worker or volunteer are opportunity cost sinkholes. Obviously.
[2]: _In_effective altruism is the one where Sarah McLauchlin convinces your mom to donate one dollar to a sad puppy, taking a year to raise what Jeff Bezos makes in roughly half a day's "work". -
-
Comment on Google Chrome silently installs a 4 GB AI model on your device without consent in ~tech
kacey LinkI think this is the PR which added this ... in 2023? I guess Google takes a while to roll out their features, unless I grabbed the wrong change ... (edit) also the article has a few AI-writing...I think this is the PR which added this ... in 2023? I guess Google takes a while to roll out their features, unless I grabbed the wrong change ...
(edit) also the article has a few AI-writing hallmarks; not sure if that's been pointed out already. Could also be that they're a wee bit uncreative in their wording, however.
(edit 2) I'm not familiar enough with chromium internals to understand much, but it looks like this is the logic which determines if one's machine is eligible for downloading the model. Not sure if someone else sees a nice way to disable it from doing so there.
-
Comment on Did wokeness leave us worse off? (gifted link) in ~society
kacey Link ParentI'm certainly not aiming this comment at you, either, fwiw. If anything, I'm aiming it at myself: I probably burned my morning + a chunk of the afternoon fuming about this podcast transcript, and...I'm genuinely trying not to make a monolith out of "them" in any sense because "they're" not. I just want people to own their own actions and be honest about their motivations - and if they're not honest that "we" or at least "I" don't believe the bullshit.
I'm certainly not aiming this comment at you, either, fwiw. If anything, I'm aiming it at myself: I probably burned my morning + a chunk of the afternoon fuming about this podcast transcript, and I needed to pen a reminder to myself to "remember the human", then check out. Hitting enter was intended to share that sentiment with anyone else in a similar predicament.
-
Comment on Did wokeness leave us worse off? (gifted link) in ~society
kacey Link(not aiming this comment at you, ~TreeFiddyFiddy, fwiw :3 just responding to the article) ^ I have never in my real life heard a single person -- white or otherwise -- describe themselves as...(not aiming this comment at you, ~TreeFiddyFiddy, fwiw :3 just responding to the article)
Spiegelman: And does it go further than time? If a white person says to you, āIām woke,ā what do you think of that?
^ I have never in my real life heard a single person -- white or otherwise -- describe themselves as "woke". This is an article targeting a cultural milieu that I don't exist in.
So instead I'll share something I learned the other day! The out-group homogeneity effect.
[It] is the perception of out-group members as more similar to one another than are in-group members, i.e. "they are alike; we are diverse".
Probably something to keep in mind while thinking through these sorts of topics? A lot of the topics that the linked podcast transcript glazed over touch on the safety and rights of vulnerable populations, which is ... emotionally jarring for me, at least. But it seems important to avoid reading too much into others' reactions to all this, if only to avoid expanding the blast radius of those podcasters' poor takes into this community, too.
-
Comment on Did wokeness leave us worse off? (gifted link) in ~society
kacey Link ParentSick, same. So my point stands: I push back on the notion that this renaming is stupid. It should've been handled better, but it is literally less than the least that we could do w.r.t....Sick, same. So my point stands: I push back on the notion that this renaming is stupid. It should've been handled better, but it is literally less than the least that we could do w.r.t. reconciliation. Equally, in the current political climate, backlash against trivial matters -- such as adding a second name to a renamed street -- is being used as a cudgel to divide us, and cause harm to minorities.
Please feel free to disagree; I'm just restating here to clarify my point. Not trying to convince you of anything, I just don't want to see a statement which furthers our current divides go unaddressed in a public setting. I won't respond to this comment if you'd like to have the last word.
-
Comment on Is British English actually better than American English? in ~humanities.languages
kacey Link ParentAh! I didn't have an impulse, fwiw XD I just recalled a lecture from back in my university days about the critical period hypothesis re. language acquisition, but was fuzzy on the details. Agreed...Ah! I didn't have an impulse, fwiw XD I just recalled a lecture from back in my university days about the critical period hypothesis re. language acquisition, but was fuzzy on the details. Agreed that the development of home signs into full on sign languages is likely our strongest, most ethical evidence for what language development would've looked like!
-
Comment on Did wokeness leave us worse off? (gifted link) in ~society
kacey (edited )Link ParentMy point is that this is a bad take: It is in fact a fine thing to do in any sane country, with sane people. We do not live in sane times. It is for the ravenous hordes of conservative voters that...I donāt even know what point you are trying to make here.
My point is that this is a bad take:
[Naming?] āÅ”xŹ·mÉĪøkŹ·ÉyĢÉmasÉm Streetā as well as Musqueamview is a stupid thing to do.
It is in fact a fine thing to do in any sane country, with sane people. We do not live in sane times.
This isnāt about indigenous people.
It is for the ravenous hordes of conservative voters that are screaming about repealing DRIPA, ending wokeness, etc. A true statement is that it isn't about indigenous people for you, but it absolutely is for others.
I would be as irritated if some politician decided to legally rename a street in Chinatown using hanzi or a street in little Japan in kanji.
Vancouver is built on unceded First Nations land, as they note in every meeting run in the darned city. This land wasn't owned by the Chinese or Japanese. There are valid reasons for wanting First Nations names to be used here.
Just to clarify: are you aware of the state of politics in BC right now? Issues like this are important because they're galvanizing the public against First Nations, in a moment where the provincial Conservative party is well positioned to fan the flames and wreck havok in the next election. I'm aware that this whole kerfuffle has been broadcast across the nation (and potentially into other countries) in order to ruffle conservative feathers, so it's plausible that you're simply commenting on someone else's local politics without understanding the broader context they live in.
-
Comment on Is British English actually better than American English? in ~humanities.languages
kacey Link Parent(bit off topic, apologies š ) May I ask if you recall if bandwidth referred to literal acoustic spectra (i.e. frequency range) or the bandwidth used by an encoder (assuming it was pushed over some...(bit off topic, apologies š )
May I ask if you recall if bandwidth referred to literal acoustic spectra (i.e. frequency range) or the bandwidth used by an encoder (assuming it was pushed over some digital connection)?
Not being a Chinese speaker myself, I was surprised to note that it seems like the language uses phonemic aspiration, and I would totally buy that the high frequency component of an aspirated plosive could be cut off by a notch filter naively attempting to cut down on analog bandwidth. I would hazard that that'd render it much more difficult for a Chinese speaker to understand, since consonants would largely sound the same even though they're aspirated/unaspirated. That wouldn't apply to most digital protocols, though, since they're typically tuned to work on a large variety of languages (and are dramatically more efficient at transmitting data regardless).
-
Comment on Is British English actually better than American English? in ~humanities.languages
kacey Link ParentAch; apologies, I played fast and loose with my terminology :/ reworded, so that hopefully I'm not misleading anyone reading through at a later date! (context: while writing that, I dug a bit into...Cultures developing language independently is technically a mildly controversial take [...]
Ach; apologies, I played fast and loose with my terminology :/ reworded, so that hopefully I'm not misleading anyone reading through at a later date!
(context: while writing that, I dug a bit into language deprivation experiments, but I couldn't find anything conclusive enough to back up my claim. I then proceeded to hit enter and forget about that missing fact check š¤¦ me am dumb)
I don't think this is done unilaterally, ime š when I (rarely) share an article, I include excerpts so because skybrian does it, as I'd found it useful. But it's just a cultural thing, and tonnes of articles are posted without excerpts. I agree that it's cool that it's become a cultural thing, though, for the reasons you outline!