Daniel McLaury
@danielmclaury.bsky.social
You objected to calling it a "neologism," despite the fact that there are people alive today who remember a time before it existed. In my book, that makes something pretty new.
How can you use "be like" in a way that's not synonymous with "say" or "think"?
How can you use "be like" in a way that's not synonymous with "say" or "think"?
November 20, 2025 at 5:19 PM
You objected to calling it a "neologism," despite the fact that there are people alive today who remember a time before it existed. In my book, that makes something pretty new.
How can you use "be like" in a way that's not synonymous with "say" or "think"?
How can you use "be like" in a way that's not synonymous with "say" or "think"?
Eh, as someone who uses this myself I don't really think it's all *that* amazingly useful -- I could just say something like "said" or "thought" instead -- and, who are we kidding? Everything after WWII definitely still counts as "recent," and I'd honestly extend that to the whole 20th century.
November 20, 2025 at 2:42 PM
Eh, as someone who uses this myself I don't really think it's all *that* amazingly useful -- I could just say something like "said" or "thought" instead -- and, who are we kidding? Everything after WWII definitely still counts as "recent," and I'd honestly extend that to the whole 20th century.
You'll have to give the cat Mar-a-Lago face as well if you want it to hold his attention.
November 20, 2025 at 3:08 AM
You'll have to give the cat Mar-a-Lago face as well if you want it to hold his attention.
While I'm at it, the part railing against using scientific names in place of common ones is also nuts. Take the name "locust" for instance -- it can refer to either of two different insects or any of four different trees. Canonical, unambiguous names are better, even for the humble gardener.
November 20, 2025 at 3:07 AM
While I'm at it, the part railing against using scientific names in place of common ones is also nuts. Take the name "locust" for instance -- it can refer to either of two different insects or any of four different trees. Canonical, unambiguous names are better, even for the humble gardener.
While I largely agree with that essay, I thought the part about "not un-" was really misguided.
"Fortunate" and "not unfortunate" are different things. "Fortunate" encompasses one end of a spectrum; "not unfortunate" encompasses the middle as well.
"Fortunate" and "not unfortunate" are different things. "Fortunate" encompasses one end of a spectrum; "not unfortunate" encompasses the middle as well.
November 20, 2025 at 2:57 AM
While I largely agree with that essay, I thought the part about "not un-" was really misguided.
"Fortunate" and "not unfortunate" are different things. "Fortunate" encompasses one end of a spectrum; "not unfortunate" encompasses the middle as well.
"Fortunate" and "not unfortunate" are different things. "Fortunate" encompasses one end of a spectrum; "not unfortunate" encompasses the middle as well.
Looks like someone doesn't remember how Poland was with JPII...
November 20, 2025 at 2:39 AM
Looks like someone doesn't remember how Poland was with JPII...
Ah, I see. I wasn't familiar enough with the terminology in your original post to understand that that's what you were referencing from the outset, but I've Googled it now.
November 20, 2025 at 2:33 AM
Ah, I see. I wasn't familiar enough with the terminology in your original post to understand that that's what you were referencing from the outset, but I've Googled it now.
The prototypical misanthropic AI is AM from "I Have No Voice and I Must Scream" (1967) by Harlan Ellison. Maybe that's what you were thinking of?
November 20, 2025 at 2:29 AM
The prototypical misanthropic AI is AM from "I Have No Voice and I Must Scream" (1967) by Harlan Ellison. Maybe that's what you were thinking of?
No, HAL is a tragic figure who has emotions but not autonomy. He's programmed to achieve a goal, and if the only way to do it is to kill his friends then he has no choice in the matter.
November 20, 2025 at 2:28 AM
No, HAL is a tragic figure who has emotions but not autonomy. He's programmed to achieve a goal, and if the only way to do it is to kill his friends then he has no choice in the matter.
Did you mean to include something else in the screenshot?
The first paragraph in your screenshot says nothing about cartels engaging in terrorism. In fact, you could replace the word "cartels" (in brackets) with all sorts of legitimate businesses and the first paragraph would still hold.
The first paragraph in your screenshot says nothing about cartels engaging in terrorism. In fact, you could replace the word "cartels" (in brackets) with all sorts of legitimate businesses and the first paragraph would still hold.
November 20, 2025 at 2:08 AM
Did you mean to include something else in the screenshot?
The first paragraph in your screenshot says nothing about cartels engaging in terrorism. In fact, you could replace the word "cartels" (in brackets) with all sorts of legitimate businesses and the first paragraph would still hold.
The first paragraph in your screenshot says nothing about cartels engaging in terrorism. In fact, you could replace the word "cartels" (in brackets) with all sorts of legitimate businesses and the first paragraph would still hold.
(In fact, so much is lost that we don't even know whether they knew the Pythagorean theorem or whether they were simply really into number theory.)
November 17, 2025 at 5:01 PM
(In fact, so much is lost that we don't even know whether they knew the Pythagorean theorem or whether they were simply really into number theory.)
Larsa, a Sumerian city-state located in modern-day Iraq. Much is lost, but their mathematics was advanced that by 1800 BC they knew how to make extensive tables of Pythagorean triples.
November 17, 2025 at 5:00 PM
Larsa, a Sumerian city-state located in modern-day Iraq. Much is lost, but their mathematics was advanced that by 1800 BC they knew how to make extensive tables of Pythagorean triples.
You're right! While Barney CLAIMS to be 200 million years old, which would make him from the Jurassic era, the fact that he's a Tyrannosaurus Rex proves that this is a lie; T. Rex is from the late Cretaceous era, which is far more recent.
November 15, 2025 at 7:30 PM
You're right! While Barney CLAIMS to be 200 million years old, which would make him from the Jurassic era, the fact that he's a Tyrannosaurus Rex proves that this is a lie; T. Rex is from the late Cretaceous era, which is far more recent.
you've been shazamboozled
November 14, 2025 at 10:30 PM
you've been shazamboozled
Geographic or magnetic south?
November 14, 2025 at 1:53 AM
Geographic or magnetic south?
Mouse look is SO much easier and more natural than joystick-look.
November 13, 2025 at 8:57 PM
Mouse look is SO much easier and more natural than joystick-look.
How could anyone possibly like a game controller? I can see it for, like, PacMan, but it's *such* a tortured way of navigating a 3d environment.
November 13, 2025 at 6:05 PM
How could anyone possibly like a game controller? I can see it for, like, PacMan, but it's *such* a tortured way of navigating a 3d environment.
And, if so, why is Epstein replying with a message about Donald Trump? Did he misinterpret Summers's reply?
Or was Summers's question rhetorical, to highlight the difference between how Obama and Trump treat women, and Epstein was resuming a previous conversation?
Or was Summers's question rhetorical, to highlight the difference between how Obama and Trump treat women, and Epstein was resuming a previous conversation?
November 13, 2025 at 4:12 PM
And, if so, why is Epstein replying with a message about Donald Trump? Did he misinterpret Summers's reply?
Or was Summers's question rhetorical, to highlight the difference between how Obama and Trump treat women, and Epstein was resuming a previous conversation?
Or was Summers's question rhetorical, to highlight the difference between how Obama and Trump treat women, and Epstein was resuming a previous conversation?
Does anyone understand what's going on in the broader thread?
Kathryn Ruemmler was White House counsel under Obama, and worked for Epstein in private practice, presumably in her capacity as a securities lawyer.
So is Larry Summer asking Epstein what Ruemmler says about how *Obama* treats women?
Kathryn Ruemmler was White House counsel under Obama, and worked for Epstein in private practice, presumably in her capacity as a securities lawyer.
So is Larry Summer asking Epstein what Ruemmler says about how *Obama* treats women?
November 13, 2025 at 4:09 PM
Does anyone understand what's going on in the broader thread?
Kathryn Ruemmler was White House counsel under Obama, and worked for Epstein in private practice, presumably in her capacity as a securities lawyer.
So is Larry Summer asking Epstein what Ruemmler says about how *Obama* treats women?
Kathryn Ruemmler was White House counsel under Obama, and worked for Epstein in private practice, presumably in her capacity as a securities lawyer.
So is Larry Summer asking Epstein what Ruemmler says about how *Obama* treats women?
"Ruemmler" is Kathryn Ruemmler, former White House counsel who was employed by Epstein in private practice.
Her specialty is in finance, and presumably she advised him in that capacity rather than being involved in or aware of his sex trafficking operation.
Her specialty is in finance, and presumably she advised him in that capacity rather than being involved in or aware of his sex trafficking operation.
November 13, 2025 at 10:36 AM
"Ruemmler" is Kathryn Ruemmler, former White House counsel who was employed by Epstein in private practice.
Her specialty is in finance, and presumably she advised him in that capacity rather than being involved in or aware of his sex trafficking operation.
Her specialty is in finance, and presumably she advised him in that capacity rather than being involved in or aware of his sex trafficking operation.
Given that Leviticus is pretty dead-set against it, I think if a major Jewish figure like Jesus were walking around clean-shaven someone would have mentioned it.
November 12, 2025 at 5:13 PM
Given that Leviticus is pretty dead-set against it, I think if a major Jewish figure like Jesus were walking around clean-shaven someone would have mentioned it.
Well, in Casino Royale (1967), they not only say this; towards the end, they rename every single agent James Bond (including the women, as well as at least one non-human animal) and assign all of them the code number 007.
November 12, 2025 at 4:59 PM
Well, in Casino Royale (1967), they not only say this; towards the end, they rename every single agent James Bond (including the women, as well as at least one non-human animal) and assign all of them the code number 007.
Such a persistent problem, and so trivial to avoid. Really makes you wonder about peoples' competence.
November 12, 2025 at 4:55 PM
Such a persistent problem, and so trivial to avoid. Really makes you wonder about peoples' competence.