There’s some even older UI bits buried around in there:

There’s a good chance there will be a virtuous cycle, where the Steam Deck’s popularity makes it easier to game on Linux for regular PC users too, which will help out everyone gaming on Linux. Especially as Microsoft keeps dicking around with Windows and trying to turn it into a subscription OS and people just get sick of it.

They’d have to have a democracy in order for it to be called a democracy

I suppose there’s authority, consensus and tradition too

Those aren’t sources of knowledge. They can be a proxy for knowledge obtained through the scientific method. Crucially, you can fact-check them yourself, using the scientific method.

How did that authoritative source get their knowledge? If it wasn’t through the scientific method, then it’s not knowledge. So you can proxy your knowledge through someone else you trust that did the legwork of going through the scientific process, but that’s not another way of obtaining knowledge, it’s just the scientific process with extra steps.

Personal experience can also result in knowledge, through the use of the scientific method. You can drop an apple and see that it falls. That’s the observation part of the scientific method. You can go further and try to figure out why that happens, by using the scientific method yourself based on your personal observations of the apple.

There really isn’t another way. It’s the scientific method all the way down.

In that image, you could color yellow into purple since it’s not touching purple. Then, you could color the red inner piece to yellow, and have no red in the inner pieces.

Not so much a fact, but I’ve always liked the prime spirals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulam_spiral

Also, not as impressive as the busy beaver, but Knuth’s up-arrow notation is cool: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knuth’s_up-arrow_notation

Is there/should there be any community rules about filter usage? This picture looks pretty heavily filtered

Right, I quoted a bit from the whole-ass Wikipedia page on Singular they in my response to you. I’m aware that there’s multiple usages, and have said as much in my replies to you. I’m not sure what your point is.

Sure, that’s a great discussion to have, and I’m glad you spelled it out well. I just dislike people trying to claim that using “they” to refer to a specific, known individual is “nothing new because Shakespeare did it”. He didn’t, and it muddies the waters of the conversation to spread falsehoods like that.

See my other comments in this thread, but Shakespeare did not use singular they to refer to a specific, known person. That is a new invention.

Sorry, I thought your question was asked in good faith. I’m commenting because the claim that Shakespeare used singular they to refer to a known, specific individual is factually incorrect. I don’t know the entire history of singular they, but I do have access to wikipedia just like you. It says ‘In the early 21st century, use of singular they with known individuals emerged for people who do not identify as male or female, as in, for example, “This is my friend, Jay. I met them at work.”’ Does that answer your question?

Your Kelly example is similarly confusing. The “engineer” example is also confusing, but because English already conflates those two meanings, I at least know that I’m parsing a confusable sentence and can pick up on context clues.

If I were writing that, I’d say “Yeah well, that engineer don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about.” The “they’re” is then not confusing at all.

I’m not sure, and I’d be interested in reading more from someone that actually has done their research and doesn’t claim that Shakespeare used singular they in that manner

Sure, I think we agree?

Your comment makes it clear there is confusion. To clear it up, using singular they to refer to a specific, known individual is never something Shakespeare did, and is a recent invention. It’s not transphobic to be grumpy about people trying to introduce a new usage for an existing word. People as a whole don’t like change.

This misses an important distinction that singular they was never used to refer to a known, specific individual until recently, and was certainly never used by Shakespeare that way.

See my other comments in this thread as well, but using singular they to refer to a specific, known individual was never something that Shakespeare did, and that is the usage that people are up in arms about. Your example uses singular they to refer to an unknown person, which is a usage that’s been around for centuries, yes.

A few years is a loose term, but it was certainly not in use by Shakespeare, unlike what people try to claim.

Your confusion here is exactly what I’m trying to clear up. We know the gender of the person in the Shakespeare quote you linked to (“man”), but nothing else. It’s a placeholder term that doesn’t refer to a specific, known individual. Shakespeare never said anything like “Here’s Frank, they’re a cool guy”, that would be considered ungrammatical until a few years ago.