Gander5739

Relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/2020/

Smells of AI writing - just look at those emdashes.

Some species of the Scunthorpe problem, then.

Apologies if I'm being totally thick, but you're saying the lack of a word is acting as an onomatope (or an onomatopoeia if you prefer)?

You mean an onomatope (to be pendantic)? In any case, it's not clear to me exactly what you mean.

I think you dropped a word.

I think a pelican riding a bike is fairly random. (https://xkcd.com/221/)

I don't think quality is really much of a concern for the majority of people, only enthusiasts. I suspect, analagous to 128 kbps opus (on youtube music), most people can't really tell the difference between a 1080p bitstarved stream and a 4k bluray rip.

The library for the music streaming platforms is much bigger than for films, of course (about 250 million for Spotify), but there's also a much lower barrier of entry. So perhaps the higher work needed to produce a film necessitates more profit, to a degree that only the fragmented streaming platforms can fulfill. After all, netflix started making originals to counter studios launching their own streaming platforms to raise profit margins, and pulling their content off netflix.

Do you think the difference between film piracy and music piracy is inherent, due to the differences between film and music; or is there some alternative reality where we ended up with a one-stop shop for films, as well?

For the history of music piracy, I found" How Music Got Free: The End of an Industry, the Turn of the Century, and the Patient Zero of Piracy" was a good book to read.

How far back do we take it? In pre-historic times, did people crawl accross the ground to better enjoy it?

There's little correlation between people complaining about something being better in the good old days, and it actualli being better. Not for no reason is "rose-tinted glasses" an expression.

https://xkcd.com/1227/

For a certain definition of intelligence, perhaps.

The problem is, I tnink, that most people actually prefer apps over websites - even just a wrapper - for whatever reason.

Due to EU regulation, you can use a different browser engine in the EU (and I think Japan too), but thus far none have been developed (it's too much work to maintain two versions of the browser).

There's garden path sentences, where the sentence is phrased in such a way as to cause you to misparse the sentence when you first read (e.g. "The old man the boat"); but those typically confuse humans (I'm not sure how effective they are on LLMs).

Relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/2793/

Unrelated, but I feel it's unfair to rob the word "bookkeeper" of its peculiarity of having three subsequent double letters by inserting a space in the middle.

Franglais?

Such as?

People in glass houses should be free to throw stones.

If locks are to keep honest men honest, then driving monitoring cameras are to keep attentive drivers attentive.

https://youtu.be/ahgjEjJkZks

I couldn't see anything supporting your claim in the text, and to see the actual interview I apparently need to accept some cookies. Oh well, I'll take your word for it. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people to provide sources for their claims when asked.

Citation needed. But I don't suggest putting too much stock in what he says. For instance, he calls himself, as you call him, founder, yet by any reasonable measure he co-founded it with Larry Sanger. But neither holds much more than a historical role in Wikipedia now; Wales lost the elevated rights he had in the backlash to him mass-deleting images, and Sanger was banned quite recently after canvassing on twitter.

According to whom? As far as I can tell, the purpose of Wikipedia, since inception, has been to make an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. That doesn't necessitate there being limits on what articles can persist without being deleted, but neither does it preclude it.

If you're looking for a wiki site that doesn't limit the articles that appear on it, you can have a look at EvedybodyWiki.

In broad strokes, the reason is because the line has to be drawn somewhere.

If you want, you can read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Existence_%E2%89%A0_... and the links there to gain some idea of the reasoning behind it.

Apologies for not catching this in my last reply.

I know of many undisputed topics on Wikipedia which have less prevalence.

Then by all means, flag them for deletion. Although I would understand if you don't want to make that effort (I mean this genuinely, not as a rebuke).

I'm curious where you draw the line? Is 9,999 github stars (or any other metric) too few, but then one more magically makes it worthy of inclusion? Or maybe it should be done by degrees: at 1,000 stars, maybe a sentence or two; a paragraph at 5,000, several sections at 10,000, and so on?

The problem, of course, is that such measures are arbitrary and probably gameable. Not that the current criteria aren't, of course, but it's the best we've got.

The topic is relevant and of sufficient interest.

According to what authority?

GearsDatapacks appears to be a pseudonym, not an organisation.

The problem is there's no monolithic "Wikipedia". If no one nominates the old articles for deletion, they don't get deleted.