BoJack, stop. You are all the things that are wrong with you! It’s not the alcohol, or the drugs, or any of the shitty things that happened in your career, or when you were a kid! It’s you! Alright? It’s you. Fuck, man. What else is there to say?

A source: https://www.tiktok.com/@star_boi_blue/video/7352184824850926879

A good summary:

Source: https://twitter.com/selimyaman_/status/1772172937073709293

Actual paper on the impact of ChatGPT on adjectives: https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.07183

I’ve added BÉPO and AZERTY (some letters I had to keep below). I think that BÉPO actually has an interesting pattern:
https://imgur.com/a/uupLDMJ

The site has tooltips showing letter percentages:
https://deykun.github.io/diffle-lang/fr?p=about-language

Peak for other languages: English - 9, Spanish - 10, Polish - 12, German - 13

Oh no: https://www.sadanduseless.com/cat-taxidermy/

There were some comments on Reddit suggesting that cutting the dataset at 15 and removing 40% of words was not the best move. I have locally built a version with the limit set to 30.

For the interested:
https://imgur.com/a/Rz7Cw6x

The paper: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcell.2023.1339390/full

I only have a prespellechecked list of words from here: http://www.aaabbb.de/WordList/WordList_en.php

Thanks. It should read prefers-color-scheme. I have dark mode by default, but it’s also possible to set dark/light mode too.

To clarify, it is not the total number of words but rather the number of unique words considered. Imho a million of unique words is okay. A bigger concern for me would be that words on Wikipedia can be overly specific.

A source: https://deykun.github.io/diffle-lang/de?p=about-language (It has tooltips displaying percentages for other letters)

Yes! I originally found it posted on their TikTok account:
https://www.tiktok.com/@thehuntington/video/7321812764421475630

;)

Most people don’t have an issue with it. But starting each interview with a question: “Do you condemn Al-Qaeda?” is sinister. It is not a good faith question.

If you are asked this question each time you want to speak about atrocities committed against civilians and have to proclaim that you do not in fact support terrorists, you have the right to be offended. Especially when the person asking you that question cannot condemn cutting off water to civilians.

After 9/11, thousands of Arabs living peacefully in the US were asked to condemn Al-Qaeda, which they did because who wouldn’t? That condemnation and support was used to justify attacking Iraq - the country where Al-Qaeda was not located in, and resulted in the death of a million people there. Imagine being an American Iraqi supporting the US’s right to “defend itself” and seeing your family in Iraq and their children being killed.

There is a level of analogy here where a person with relatives in Gaza is asked by interviewers that question while trying to advocate to not cut water or bomb one of the most densely populated places in the region.

You have the right to be offended if people start asking you to condemn segregation, Nazism, or bigotry when you never claimed that you don’t have an issue with those things. Especially when the person asking you is using it as a tactic while you are trying to alarm about human rights being violated, and civilians / children being hurt.

Classic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYWzMvlj2RQ

I’m not a native speaker, and it seems like you hear what you want to hear. My responses were polite, but please continue with your whistle-blowing, it’s evident that argumentation is not your strong suit.

Removing categories in sports would result in podiums filled with men, which is a root of that problem.

It is fine if you don’t mind it.

I prefer categorization for men, women, trans men, trans women, paralympics, and I would even leave that amusing category of not-tall-man basketball because they in fact cannot compete with tall players but they still can compete among themselves.

People without legs participate in runs in the Paralympics, and some of their prosthetics are quite bouncy. I wouldn’t be surprised if at some point they beat runners with legs using those prosthetics.

I would prefer for them not to compete with “regular” runners because the balance between having legs and bounciness of the prosthetics shouldn’t be the deciding factor when determining the winner.

Letting people with prosthetics compete with each other and not with people with legs is fair for both groups.

This argument has existed before Trans. I rememberan Olympic sprinter opened this debate. She had more masc hormones than average. She didn’t take masc hormones, she didn’t drake performance enhancing drugs, she wasn’t Trans. She was just born with more than the average male hormones than the average woman and there was a debate on if that gave her an unfair advantage.

Yes, it’s a valid counterargument to what I’ve written. Defining a woman is hard.

Every time you people shift the goalposts, you shift them even more when it’s finally met. If a naturally born woman gets the same argument, when will this argument end? When women can’t compete in sports at all? Back in the kitchen taking care of house and family?

But I see that being reasonable didn’t work for you in the long run.