![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/04400cf8-1f04-473b-afb4-88bf86cb61e2.png)
![](https://fry.gs/pictrs/image/c6832070-8625-4688-b9e5-5d519541e092.png)
Retro gaming?
Refugee from another, less-friendly instance. Please forgive the youth of my account— I’ve actually been around here for a while. Still, glad to be here!
Retro gaming?
It can also reduce stress
What… like, more?
Oh. I thought I’d heard him say that… I guess I misheard?
He and his brother started run the channel now, but they didn’t start it.
Edit: fixed
I was into that app for a while, but, a while back, their development almost screeched to a halt. Now they’re behind everyone else.
Shame.
You’re right! Although, I have already heard the news. Hooray!
Thanks for sharing anyway!
don’t forget Star Trek: The Motion Picture!
Now no person is going to directly report the drug money, it will be reported via a front company where cash transactions are normal and expected.
aka money laundering
while it’s probably true that the IRS is more interested in you paying your taxes than prosecuting you because that income may have been “illegitimate,” that doesn’t mean that other agencies might not be interested in the information you provide to the IRS. The FBI/DEA/DHS could easily get a hold of those records and use them to pursue an investigation.
and, yes, your tax returns can be used as evidence in court.
this is why money laundering (obfuscating the origin of illegitimate earnings to make them appear legitimate, esp for tax purposes) is such a lucrative trade.
my advice: never volunteer information which could later be used against you.
I believe what they were separating was Fascist leaders versus fascist followers.
I don’t care. I don’t wanna watch ads, ever. The point is, YouTube will never be able to stop ad blockers. They can try, and the only ones who get hurt on the content creators.
Edit: and whining, “boo-hoo for the trillion dollar megacorp!” Isn’t going to elicit any sympathies
Content creators get nothing from a subscription To YouTube premium.
You’re not paying for the content, you’re paying for and-free access to the content.
i’d really have to know more about it, but, yeah, sure. i’m all for the idea of cybernetic enhancements, but, as i said, i’d have to know a lot more about it before i ever committed to anything.
Now you’re equivocating and using personal insults.
And there were “experts” who said that COVID vaccine causes autism.
Facts make one correct. Not authority.
Wrong. Authority is not what makes an argument correct— facts are. And those exist regardless of any claimed authority— therefore, to argue that one’s authority makes them correct is a fallacy, for it is facts and evidence, not authority, from which truth is derived.
If Neil Degrasse Tyson said something that’s incorrect and then claimed he was correct simply because he was a physicist does not make him correct.
Thanks for playing!
Nope, as I explained in my other comment, it’s standard usage.
you explained more or less what i did, except the whole “using the grammar and spelling of a 3 year-old is valid because language is fluid!” BS argument i outright reject–
and your claims of being an English teacher? it bears no weight here.
An argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of argument in which the opinion of an influential figure is used as evidence to support an argument.[1]
The argument from authority is a logical fallacy,[2] and obtaining knowledge in this way is fallible.[3][4]
so, this comment…
In English, we often use the definite article when speaking in general about a specific activity or action that involves a non-specific object. E.g. “go to the bathroom” or “catch the bus”, or “read the newspaper”. It’s not poor form at all.
and if you can’t comprehend that this is simply another way of explaining what i did, then i certainly question your claims of being an English teacher.
“You have something on your face; go take a look in the mirror” is just as grammatically correct in English
yes, but only if you’re referring to a specific mirror. so, “go look in the mirror” would be appropriate if you’re also indicating to/pointing at a mirror, or there’s been a specific mirror under discussion already (or if the audience already knew there was only one mirror they could be referring to.)
also, it’s not technically a grammatical error, but one of poor style/form.
edit: also, i’m not a fan of the “using the grammar and spelling of a 3 year-old is valid because language is fluid!” argument. bad grammar and poor style/form are just that. just because doing so may be popular doesn’t magically make it “valid”. to me, that whole argument reeks of, “I’m not wrong for being ignorant, you’re wrong for pointing out my mistake-- so it’s magically not a mistake anymore so I can avoid acknowledging ever being wrong!”
That reality is not defined by our wishes, but by observable, verifiable facts.
Sadly, a large amount of people cannot accept this.