I went to a Cracker Barrel a few years ago and they has a sign that read "Proudly serving people of color since 1973" or whatever year it had. Weird brag
Found the series when 3 released. Like many people I thought fallout would he awesome with coop multi-player. 76 is not the experience myself or I'm guessing most people had in mind. I'm not saying there is anything inherently wrong with the game. Just not what I was looking for when thinking "multi-player fallout".
There is also FLOTUS (First Lady of the United States), or if you were me hearing that for the first time, you thought it was a shortened name for Flying Lotus.
My big issue with paying for an ad free experience is that there are ads on videos of stolen content, and that doesn't seem to be going away anytime soon. I have this issue with SoundCloud as well. Random people will upload mixtapes of other artists that were originally released for free, but SoundCloud will run ads over it. It's obvious the creators aren't getting paid. I don't understand how that's even legal. Even if you argue that the service of using the website shouldn't be completely free, they are profiting off of stolen content.
I had to rent one a year ago as it was the only car available when I flew out of state. The windshield wipers and headlights are also activated on the touchscreen. But they're not all on the same screen at once, you have to navigate through several menus to find each one.
If it makes more sense to put the unit before the number, then couldn't one argue we should be writing people1.5B or airplanes1.5B? That way we know what it is before we read the number.
Yes I agree with that. I think there was an issue with establishing what "source" meant in the given context. I wouldn't say the text of a single wikipedia article is a reliable source by itself, however that doesn't discredit the reliability of accurate information on Wikipedia in my opinion. If you stripped a textbook of it's listed citations and credited authors, then you can't really verify the information in it either.
You're missing a lot of other points I've made. Let me ask you then what is a reliable source of information? You're skepticism implies nothing is trustworthy if you have to verify information with various sources. Do you only trust what you can observe first hand?
It depends on the website. A Twitter post with no source? Untrustworthy. Wikipedia page with plenty of sources to back up the article? I would default to saying trustworthy, but of course I would still have to check the sources myself. Wikipedia is a tool. It connects you to outside sources of info. It has the reputation of being reliable enough to get trustworthy info in its summaries. As I've already stated before, mistakes have been made though.
Wikipedia isn't a person though. It's a website of articles that summarizes topics and ideally lists sources that contain the info within it. I agree a person that sounds like that is untrustworthy, but that doesn't mean anything on the topic of wikipedia.
I went to a Cracker Barrel a few years ago and they has a sign that read "Proudly serving people of color since 1973" or whatever year it had. Weird brag