It’s also a non-archaic English word.

My point is that there is a difference that creates a category of error in bilingual speakers.

French speakers are likely to use the word fairly commonly; whereas, people with English as their first language are unlikely to know it.

So, via translation, the readability level has changed considerably.

Yeah, my girlfriend—a native Spanish speaker—was astounded when I told her most English speakers didn't know the word "quotidian", although its calque "everyday" is quotidian.

This might misunderstand how science authorship works.

I was once congratulated for publishing a paper I had no idea existed, after I gave someone permission to use my research work in exchange for credit.

It took me some effort to view a copy of what I had "written".

> That's a point of view, and a pretty cynical one.

Twitter can and do ask for user feedback all the time, without making a press release about it.

I don't find it cynical to ask why they are doing this in public - it seems likely that the parent has hit upon a good part of the reason.

I understand "credibly neutral" here to mean the idea that you appear neutral, whether or not you are actually neutral. Compare with: plausible deniability.

The goal of credible neutrality is to convince people that you have acted fairly and gain political acceptance [Vitalik does this by appealing to the standards for property ownership under capitalism]; the goal is not to act fairly [as Vitalik softly admits, the true goal is to do whatever is necessary to support (his) wealth accumulation].

I would much rather credible neutrality did not exist as a justification for particular actions, and that it faced automatic criticism.

Give Bob 1000 coins and admit that you did so, rather than set up a system of rules which is designed for Bob to receive 1000 coins. The use of passive voice is an indicator that someone has disguised their responsibility.

> But the betrayal at the end just makes zero sense

It's more surprising than we expect from Disney: there's no 'villain song' explaining the villain's private intent.

I liked it that way. It felt real to me. I felt that I had been tricked, even after the naivety of the love/relationship was heavily foreshadowed. (I felt that) we experience the scene more exactly as Anna does.

The song in the position of the Villain Song is "Let It Go". Which is quite remarkable.

The ways that Frozen breaks the expected beats make it a lot of fun -- the "twist" is genuinely unexpected because the story isn't following the tropes. But those tropes exist for a reason, and Frozen feels a little disjointed for failing to follow them.

You feel tricked because you were tricked. And yet it works, if for no other reason than the way a magic trick is fun. It has strong performances, great animation, and a positive message about the power of sisterhood.

A good twist/betrayal certainly requires it catch you by surprise, but relatable villains can add a lot to a story.

Electricity in the UK is provided in two ways - some pay at the end of the month on a contract basis, some pay via a pre-payment meter (on different terms - more expensive and more dependent on regular servicing).

Wealthy people typically get cheaper utilities with less hassle. People renting somewhere with a prepay meter don't have the same level of access (whether they make reliable payments, or not).

We might agree that it is reasonable to differentiate when it comes to private loans, but when it comes to utilities, this is pure discrimination.

> I've also noticed that even fact-checking is being weaponized for political reasons.

I don't think fact-checking exists for any other reason. People like fact-checking that confirms their beliefs.

Even if objectivity is possible in fact-checking, objectivity is not going to build your audience, nor find you clients.

I feel sad about Snopes, which used to be about exploring urban legends. It had a good sense of humour; it was delightful. I spent countless hours exploring it.

From my recollection, it previously had no explicitly political content (unfortunately, it has been blocked from the Wayback Machine).

I don't have any interest in what I see on the current version of snopes, which I guess must be following some money.

I imagine my consciousness as a communion of all my cells... a central decision-making council, if you like.

If my cells are in conflict or disagreement about what action to take (which I presume they often are), my consciousness resolves this by taking a decision.

As such, I find it likely that this sense and experience of consciousness is shared by all, or almost all, multi-cellular organisms on the same evolutionary tree of life.

Governments have taken the decision to pause vaccinations with AZ, on the basis of this emerging information.

It's only right that we, the people, can see what our elected representatives are basing this decision (to pause) on. It makes sense to me.