Did you prompt an LLM model for this text or did you come up with it on the spot? In case it’s the latter, you did a great job.

Can you remove that “update” part from this post, please? Having something in the post that mentions a different, unrelated problem you’ve had becomes a bit confusing.

The police officer did the right thing. As we all know, computers are always right /s

Baguette

That’s why it’s better to just say anti-fascist. Anti-fascist is nowadays the clearest term for it. “Antifa” is constantly being used as a word for “your enemy”, so using the same word but with another meaning can become confusing to people who don’t know the antifa movement that well (which, let’s be honest, it’s most people).

What’s a B2B application? Backend To Backend?

“Your Honour, my client is not referring to their ex-wife by any pronouns, and stating otherwise would be false.”

Assuming you aren’t joking…

“It” being a pronoun would only become a problem if the challenge was the following: “while talking about that person, you cannot use any pronouns”.
However, the current challenge is instead “you cannot refer to this person using any pronouns, because the person has none”. That means we can refer to things other than the person with pronouns. And that’s what Anarki_ does. If you don’t believe it yet, look at the spoilered text above, where I show what each of the pronouns is referring to.

Maria says gets it, and that it makes sense.

I don’t know if “Maria says gets it” is a gramatically correct English phrase. In case it isn’t, I would either use…

Maria says Maria gets it, and that it makes sense

…or get rid of the passive phrasing for clarity, like this…

Maria says something similar to the following: “Maria gets it. It makes sense.”

Fair. In that case, if I were to teach you a board game, I’d just quickly say the game’s goal and immediately start a trial run of the game, and only explain rules when I deemed them relevant, or when someone would ask something.

For more complex games, I’ve also made people play “simplified” versions of the game, and adding rules of the game to the mix whenever I saw that people were getting more comfortable with the game (for example, that’s imo that’s the best way to teach Mahjong).

I can imagine that could also be annoying to many people, not knowing how to fully play a game while playing it. But I think it’s WAY better than something like people listening to every rule of the game for 20 minutes, without them interacting with the game. If I did that, they wouldn’t even remember all the rules whenever they would start playing, so I don’t think the explanations would be that useful at all… @~@ I also can imagine lots of people who like board games either being unable or not wanting to take the same approaches as I do with teaching board games.

tbh I’d still interrupt the crap out of Satan, ignoring the glares, to ask a bunch of questions until I would feel somewhat confident that I sort of understand the rules. I know, I’d be super annoying. Or I would give up and say “shut up and let’s start playing”.

Woah, great job!

As someone who loves board games, I don’t really understand why there are so many people that are “afraid” of learning new games. In most situations, it’s not that painful to learn a new game! And the process can be totally worth it!

“Useless”? That’s mean! Maria’s very useful! >:(

Yeah! That feels like the right approach!

I think this post is about rules of society. But even if I’m mistaken, it doesn’t feel very hard to give a simple, even if a bit shallow, explanation of why rules must be followed in the nuclear industry.

“Follow this rule.”
“Why?”
“Because, if you don’t, the process isn’t as efficient and/or things can become dangerous. If you really want a more in-depth answer to it, you’d have to study a lot about the history of this rule. I can kind of explain it, but if I were to explain it right now, we’d be here for hours, which is not time we have right now.”
“👍”

You’re right. You can also learn a lot about the culture and society around you because of that questioning, even if you end up still following the rules.

On the other hand, what’s there to gain from following the rules without question and forcing others to do the same? The only thing I can imagine right now that could be gained is the feeling that you are helping society “stay in the right track”.

This means that there are about 3 options:

1. Learn something new;
2. Continue to follow the rules without question while trying to force others to not learn something new, and feel good about it.
3. Do nothing and continue to follow the rules (you’re not bothered enough to learn something new, but also don’t want to be a pain in the ass);

Notice that when questioning the rules, you might come to the conclusion that there’s no harm in following the rules, or that following the rules is what’s the best for you or those around you. Questioning ≠ opposing. Question = checking validity and understanding why.

For the reasons Michael has outlined above, questioning the rules feels like the most productive approach.

I’m worried that he may be able to do it…

I’m pretty sure it was Ringo Starr

I don’t think they care about those markets (even though they could make a lot of money out of them)