unwarlikeExtortion

Use the word. Use it as much as possible. But never say "a quick Google search" - say "google it" "a quick google", "googling".

Saying "Google search" is a specific reference to the Google service, with an implication of how great and the best it is.

On my first read, I got the meaning right. However, I agree that it's very ambiguous. Were the "of" a "by", I'd swing the other way as well.

Being government-run, the store will obviously have:

• a poor selection of products leaving you with no choice
• ugly packaging meaning only the poors will go there
• long waiting lists for entry
• yearly, quarterly and monthly subscriptions, all required and renewed seperately, taking hours in a queue and three trips to the social services hq each to renew
• quotas on all items, groups of items and time limited - whenever one is passed the rest don't matter
• no added value like delivery or good customer service
• no market research or innovation
• no incentive to do better or improve service
• an active loss of money due to bueraucratic ineficiencies

(Likewise, also spined it (almost) as much as possible.)

Paid luches are nice. But if I get the choice between $10.000 yearly more or paid lunches, obviously i'd go for the cash. It's supposed to be a bonus (i.e. free), and not a way to cut corners and undermine your employees.

Maybe it does do the company some good in terms of retention, but counting on "I'll save $6k if I spend $4k on lunches per person on average by cutting pay for new hires" is not a good strategy. Same for ping pong tables, horseraces, pizza parties and whatever else.

It's basicallly just a label they beed to slap to suddenly be avle to circumvent some forms of non-consent. There's also overriding legitimate interest (just as vague btw so it covers everything).

In other words, legitimate interest is a form of rape (what with the circumcenting consent and all)

An interesting way to misspell "subscription"

You have free will, but you also have chains that bound you.

Starting from the social order, you need money and other social relations (friends, family, bosses) to literally survive in the modern world - you're not omnipotent.

Then you have the cognitive chains - stuff you know and understand, as well stuff you can invent (or reinvent) from your current knowledge - you are not omnipresent.

Then, as a consequence, without these two, you cannot be (omni)benevolent - you'll always fuck something up (and even if you didn't, most actions positive towards something will have a negative impact towards something else).

All these are pretty much categorically impossible to exist - you're not some god-damn deity.

But does this mean free will doesn't exist?

Hardly. It's just not as ultimate a power or virtue as some may put it. Flies or pigs also have free will - they're free to roll in mud or lick a turd - except for when they're not because they do it to survive (cool themselves or eat respectively).

We humans similarily eat and shit, and we go to work so we have something to eat and someplace to shit. Otherwise you die without the former or get fined without the latter.

So that's what free will is - the ability of an organism to guide what it's doing, how, when (and, to some extent, even why) it's doing it, according to its senses and sensibilities. It's the process with which we put our own, unique spin on the things in our lives.

Being an omnipotent, omnipresent and (omni)benevolent would in fact remove the essence of what free will (with all its limits) is, because our actions wouldn't have any meaningful consequences. It'd all just be an effective (what I'll call negative) chaos - a mishmush of everything only understandable to the diety.

So in fact, the essence of "free" will is that it's free within some bounds - some we've set ourselves, some we're forced with (disabilities, cognitive abilities, physical limits, etc.). Percisely in the alternative scenario would "free" will cease to be free - because someone already knows it all - past, present future, local and global, from each atom on up. There's perfect causality - as perfect as a movie. You can't change it meaningfully - any changes become a remix or remaster - they lose their originality.

With the limits on our thinking which cause us to be less-than-perfect, they cause a kind of positive chaos, one where one tries to do their best with what they have on their disposal - as they say, you get to know people best at their lowest. Similarily, everyone gets corrupted at a high enough power level - some just do it sooner than others. So surely, at an infinite power level, not even someone omnipotent, omnipresent and (omni)benevolent all at once would be able to curb this flaw.

It's a Linux subsystem for Windows. As in, you run Windows and within it run Linux. Thus Linux is the sub-system, while Windows is the "overarching" system. Therefore, it's Linux running as a subsystem on a Windows machine. Therefore, a Linux subsystem on/for Windows.

<edit>

That was just setting the two viewpoints equal.

Now, to add why this one is more "correct": when talking about Windows (or Linux or anything else fir that matter) subsystems, you don't call the Windows file system the Windows subsystem for Files or the Windows subsystem for Networking or Linux subsystem for RNG - You call them the filesystem, the networking system or the RNG system. And since none of them get the "for host" suffix, it seems natural to assume it's the guest system that's the "sub" system, with the other one being the whole.

</edit>

The EU is not an alliance, since member states give up a good portion of their sovereignty to the bloc. It's much closer to a "loosely bound US" than a "NATO on steroids".

And no such century lasted for a century either.

"You are right, I made a mistake. Here is a better answer." Continues to give wrong answers.

To be fair, the AI's not wrong. It's probably better, but just a teeny tiny bit so.

Honestly, AI is like a genie - whatever you come up with he'll just butcher and misinterpret so you start questioning both your own sanity and the semantics of language. Good thing these genies have no wish limit, but bad thing that they murder rainforests while generating their non-sequitur replies.