Yes but he serves a different community

No, but I’m gonna run his code anyway

One could argue his actions for a bit are almost him trying not to get reelected, but yeah.

Or even just a board game night.

Maybe it just means boring guys. Drinking is a secondary activity, not a primary one.

He’s already unpopular with all his coworkers, no one will be excited to vote for Rafael from Canada.

I’ve never had the problem of not being understood.

You are either a uniquely spectacular communicator or a liar. It’s not for me to say which. Regardless that’s not the point. If you use the soft g sound and are not understood then, by your own explanation you are saying it wrong. That’s something you need to contend with.

And regardless of how long the time period was

So no time requirement on archaic then?

there was a time when one guy spoke aloud the word when he invented it.

As is true of every word and yet I’m sure there are words you say differently than the first person. I’ll bet you don’t say the name of the element with the atomic number 13 the same way the man who discovered it does. Not to mention who knows how many words England took from France, mangled, and then got adjusted again in America. Who is the correct first person there, or does the first person only matter with this specific issue?

You can use the new pronunciation

I will as well many others.

as I have for 30+ years,

Me too! Still doesn’t make yours right and mine wrong no matter how hard you try to deride it as “new” when it’s barely newer than the format.

and I will continue to do so

I can’t stop you. I can think you ridiculous for doing so but my suspicion that this would be the only reason I would think that of you diminishes with each response you send.

both are acceptable

Perhaps, but one seems to be falling out of favor. Just like a double space after a period or writing out words greater than ten but less than one hundred.

I could call it a moving picture and not be wrong, doesn’t mean people wouldn’t think me weird for doing so. I would have to deal with that the way you need to deal with what your choices cause people to think of you.

If you don’t like it, that’s a you problem.

Sure, but it won’t stop me from making my own conclusions just like any other thing. The same is true for all of humanity to varying degrees.

people only started using the new pronunciation in the last 10-15.

As someone else pointed out already, this is untrue. While it may not have been popular in your circles, it definitely was in others. I’ve been saying it with a hard g as long as you have with a soft and I’m not the originator either.

English linguistics doesn’t indicate anything at all.

They absolutely do. That’s why you can sound out a word you’ve never seen before. You may not always be right when you do because they indicate, they don’t define.

There are no rules about word construction or pronunciation.

There are, there are just exceptions. For example, an e at the end of the word is silent. I’m certain you can give me a word where it’s not, but there are at least six in this paragraph alone where it is.

if you are understood then you have pronounced them correctly

In this logic if someone has been pronouncing a word all their life with a single pronunciation and travels to another location with a much different accent they can only now be pronouncing the word wrong.

If understanding is also the only metric then a hard g would still be preferable. Not only does a written g tend to make people lean to a hard g in my experience, but there’s more words that could be mistaken for a soft g pronunciation.

You could argue that the original pronunciation is archaic,

Could I not argue that the original pronunciation has fallen out of favor?

the word itself is like 35 years old

Is there a time requirement for pronunciations to become archaic?

since there was only one acceptable pronunciation

Which isn’t a time that existed, as we’ve established

who aren’t likely to change.

Given your stance on language this is absolutely a you problem. If the rest of us collectively decided to understand it as only with a hard g, you would not be understood and therefore be pronouncing it wrong by your own logic.

Telling me not to is what makes English worse.

In your opinion. “Jiggawatt” is not a common English pronunciation outside of back to the future references at this point. People mostly settled on one over the other because it makes sense to pronounce a word a similar way to be more easily understood. It’s not always the case, sure, but I think you’ll find multiple pronunciations are the exception, not the rule. That’s why you can come up with a good handful of such words, but you’ll be using words with single pronunciations to talk about them.

Become popular? It’s been popular roughly for the lifespan of the format. It’s hardly language’s fault the developer wanted to make an unfunny reference to a since forgotten peanut butter slogan.

On the other hand linguistics indicate a hard g sound with the construction of the word, constituent words aside. Plenty of four letter words starting with the gi combo have a hard g, including but not limited to gift which you may notice is very similarly constructed.

Whatever else the English language may throw at us, people appreciate consistency because we can make some sense of the world. A hard g is the consistent, predictable, sensible choice for the limited availability of those virtues English offers.

The given answers, and so they can act like there wasn’t that much of what happened.

No one can watch all that, so they’ll claim that violence is cherry picked and it’s the mostly peaceful protest they’ve been claiming the whole time.

It’s still a lie but it’s one they’re giving “evidence” to their supporters for.

I literally provided it, just read.

Rich from the person insisting they didn’t read a username right in front of them.

Neat, your personal education as well as mine are wholely irrelevant to the matter.

Glad we agree on something.

It is, just because you don’t agree doesn’t mean it isn’t what it is and no matter how much you insist otherwise won’t change anything.

Funny, I was thinking pretty much the exact same.

Bro, I’ve provided sources your best argument is "nuh uh!.

If I provided a source, for who but you knows what, that was unrelated, would you telling me such be a “nuh uh” argument, or would it be unrelated. Twice I asked for you to relate it. Twice you have not. Likely because it doesn’t do what you want it to do.

I provided sources,

Nothing relevant

where are yours.

For what? What is my claim? That I don’t think you’re right? There’s not a source for that. It’s why I want a source for your claim. So far we both have “that’s what I think”. The difference is that I admit that. You’ve repeatedly hidden behind one thing that doesn’t say what you say it does.

And yet you’ve decided talking down to me and insulting me is the proper approach to a good faith argument.

That implies you’ve made a good faith argument. You haven’t. You’ve repeated the same crap over and over and acted like it’s anything but.

also can’t support your claim

What claim?

while crying about some perceived slight

Amusing

I already have, the fact you’re unwilling to accept it doesn’t change anything.

The classic “good faith” argument where you provide an irrelevant source, ignore when it’s pointed out, even with quoted text from said side, that it’s irrelevant, and refusing to acknowledge any notion otherwise.

As said, I’m done here now. You can give your response to the void behind me if you must. I’m sure tired of talking to one.

Didn’t even know your name was Doug until just now

What a fun coincidence you just happened to pick the username of the person you appeared to have issue with. I’m not buying it. I’m equally sure you “don’t really care”. Life goes on.

this is quite literally a subject of study, one in which I provided reference

That’s not a reference for your claim at all. You dropped a link to little more than a definition to something somewhat applicable. I’m looking for something to back up “most people don’t want that, they want bias just bias that benefits themselves.” That’s not even really what’s defined as “self serving bias” you linked.

If it’s a subject of study it still shouldn’t be hard to produce a study that supports your claim.

You’d bet wrong buddy there’s tons of statistics in particle physics

Great! That’s a thing I know now that I didn’t know before. Personally my own higher education only involved a single stats class and a lot of people grumbled about that. We took more English course work than stats.

one quite literally provided you the sources you demand

Again, that is not a source for your claim. I’m discomforted that you think it is.

I can’t help you and trying to demean isn’t exactly helping your point.

Saying something isn’t a thing that it isn’t is not demeaning that thing. If you said my dog is not a world champion it isn’t demeaning to my dog, she is not. Similarly the link you gave is not a source for the claim you made.

Sure, you claim I’m uneducated.

No, I claimed you’re poorly educated. There’s a difference. Uneducated is a lack of education. Poorly educated is a lack of education of value. As that’s subjective it’s hard to solidify one way or another. If you want support for it I can point as close as your seeming inability to differentiate uneducated from poorly educated.

I said let’s not get into politics

Yes, after bringing up politics. You popped that bubble and then tried to unpop it. We can drop it, sure, by not without acknowledging that it’s popped from your end.

but clearly I’ve struck a nerve.

stop crying

Buddy, you need a timeout, you’re in your feelings and acting out.

The kind of person who can’t admit to being wrong about something and their habits for casual gaslighting are tiresome. You’re reading in to something that isn’t there the only “nerve” you’ve struck is the one about being unwilling or unable to recognize the claim you’ve made and support it with any kind of evidence.

When compared to other types of evidence, anecdotal evidence is generally regarded as limited in value due to a number of potential weaknesses, but may be considered within the scope of scientific method as some anecdotal evidence can be both empirical and verifiable

From the Wikipedia link, emphasis mine to draw a direct connection to my statement where I called it “generally contradictory”. Yes, there are places it applies but generally it’s not terribly worthwhile.

Your feeling about it doesn’t change the opinion of experts who spend lifetimes studing it.

That’s correct. Just like it’s correct for yours. This is why I asked for any kind of support for your claim. Support you seem unwilling or unable to provide.

Again ive provided my evidence,

Again you have not. I even gave you the benefit of the doubt and asked for clarification on where in that link the support exists. Nothing from you.

if I’m wrong

I don’t know if you’re wrong or not. That’s why I wanted to see if you had more than “common knowledge” to back it up. If you can’t provide anything in your next message I’ll assume you don’t have anything and move on with my life.

make your argument and provide your sources ya damn hypocrite.

I’m not making arguments and I’m not making claims, as such I have nothing to support. I want to see what source backs up your claim. It’s. That. Simple.

One last time, your claim is “most people don’t want that, they want bias just bias that benefits themselves.” That implies >50% of people behave in a certain way in regards to bias. I don’t believe such an amount of people do in the way you claim they do and want you to provide the evidence you have, have seen, or can locate that suggests they do. Thus far you have not done anything remotely close as far as I can tell.

Now, do you have the ability to provide such support for your claim, or have you been talking out of your ass the whole time like it appears?

Let’s get one thing straight, shall we?

sure that just didn’t really represent Doug who flies a trump flag or Doug’s neighbor who doesn’t but really wants Doug to stfu.

I assume you’re taking my trump flag comment to assume I was casting aspersions at you, I wasn’t

Both your quotes so let us not pretend reality isn’t reality.

They do want their side to win

This is your second claim and would be absurd to refute.

they just want to feel like it’s because the right choice morally, legally or otherwise

This is where you’re making a big logical leap and claiming it as fact. This is what I asked you to back up expecting a “look around” type response and getting pretty much that.

Yes the poor education of a particle physicist

I’ll assume you’ve heard the line about “what do you call a person who graduated at the bottom of their medical school?” before. I may not have studied particle physics but I bet it’s unlikely to have a lot to do statistics. Still, you think you’d have a better command of the importance of data over assumptions as well as a keen understanding of the value of being wrong.

I’m also sure there are poorly educated particle physicists as there are with any profession.

“Republicans” are a big umbrella and let’s not get into unrelated politics that were clearly solely mentioned as a comparative example.

One that makes a consistent habit of circling the wagons and rooting out opposition. But sure, let’s not get into a can of worms that you opened because it has become inconvenient for you.

that’s anecdotal evidence

I would’ve expected a particle physicist to avoid using such a generally contradictory term.

there’s quite literally hundreds of years of bias research that proves otherwise

And you could’ve avoided this whole thing by citing one such study. You made a claim, I asked you to back it up, you jumped into the absurdity of being asked to back up a second, different claim.

I’ve clearly read and responded to everything put to me

Except the first thing, where I asked if you could back up your claim and you completely changed direction? Sure.

your opinion of me personally doesn’t change that.

Did I claim it does? I haven’t had much opportunity to form an opinion of you, personally. However you’ve been doing a bang up job of reinforcing what I have made.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-serving_bias

I further wonder where you were educated. That aside…

Individuals with an external locus of control are more likely to exhibit a self-serving bias following failure than those with an internal locus of control.

From the linked page. Which in itself implies that self-serving bias is not universal. If it refers to the prevalence of such bias across people, I’m not seeing it. Would you care to point out where that is, or did you think that a blind link about a known cognitive bias was going to be of any use to anyone?

legit you don’t know what you’re talking about

So far you’ve done nothing to demonstrate that at all. I’m open to the idea and am more than happy to learn. Maybe I’m the outlier and a large part of people fall blindly into bias in all things, but I’d really like to see actual data on that and not just a generic Wikipedia article.

Or for you to understand the gap between what you said and what you’ve been trying to say since, and how it’s a problem. Admittedly I don’t expect the last one to happen more than a lip service fashion at best at this point.

Man you’re great at making assumptions but bad at being right. Trump can fuck right off to prison and rot there for the two or three years he’s got left.

But “want their guy” to win wasn’t really the claim you made that I asked you to back up. You said people want their bias. Maybe the poor education available to you caused you to not be able to tell the difference, but there is one.

Maybe this will help. I don’t want Republicans to lose everywhere because I like the other guys better. I want them to lose because they’re worse for the county, the world, and the majority of people. They could even be better for me and it wouldn’t matter. I have come to this conclusion not by digesting information that makes me happy with one side and angry with the other, but by looking for the facts as often as they can be found.

Just because people are fed partisan shit, and often appear to choose along those lines doesn’t mean it’s what they want.

So, one more time, if you can involved enough to read something and respond intelligently: do you have anything other than your own opinion to back up “people want their own bias” or do you only talk out of your ass?

You got stats to back that up or are you pulling out of your ass and calling it your own experience?

Yes, that’s nuts. I used to be very happy to have less than one and a half megs on something wider than a deck of cards. Now you’re talking about terabytes on something the size of a pinky fingernail. I could store a half dozen in a pocket in my wallet without noticing them. That’s a lot of storage.

For the record, only 6-10 games is also about 5-10 games more than I could store on one of those floppies, and if it was one it was an old game. It’d be akin to putting Halo: CE (not remastered or anything, original) on a micro SD.

So, yeah, storage is plentiful and readily available.

Nah, portable devices use portable storage. The space available in microSD is nuts

And readily available resources. No need to put effort into space saving tricks when space is so easy to come by

You don’t need to go all the way to Tumblr for that. You can find plenty of it on hexbear

In which case the article isn’t even applicable as it doesn’t answer that question.

Why are we still having this conversation? Did you honestly look at that page and feel it was an effective source? Do you still?