Ok, sorry, 2 hours. But either way, one hour would have sufficed for it to no longer be legitimate confusion anymore. And I can for sure go away, just stop posting things you are trying to get responses to. Although I think at this point, this is my last response even if you keep doing so.
Tarquinn2049
Well, not at first, but after an hour of everyone explaining the sentence, and how it was a proper well-written sentence, at some point maintaining that you were correct that it didn't make sense had to start being a character you were playing.
Whether unintentionally manifested through ODD, or intentional, same difference.
That's fair. Though it was more in response to how consistently negative you were being to everyone else. Like you were trying to prove to everyone else the sentence was as hard to read as you thought it was. I was more attacking the character you were playing with ad hominem, to show you how your position was coming across.
While it may be difficult to start reading books at the point you are at, it seems like it might be worth the effort to overcome the initial difficulties.
Anyone I know that had success with apps, it was eHarmony. Mostly because it costs money and takes work to make a profile, already filtering out so much just from those two steps alone. But the work that it takes to make a profile also helps to actually find who you want to find, and for them to find you.
You have to actually know what you are looking for though, and ideally why.
If your post said what you wanted it to say, without missing a sentance explaining the part you kept in your head, people wouldn't have to "figure out" that you are saying the opposite of what it sounds like you are saying, because "you know" you would never say what it looks like you are saying.
You just need a second sentence about how it's hypocracy that they said that or something. The part that you know in your head, but didn't put "on paper".
It's like, in speaking, you could just emphasise the right syllables the right way and that string of text would read exactly how you intend it to. But in text, that doesn't work.
It's like putting down the lyrics to a song without the melody and expecting everyone to sing it the same way you hear it in your head. Only works if they already know the melody. There is no way for us to know your melody, so you instead can't write ambiguously. If you want other people to follow along.
Half your thought is still in your head. When you read this to yourself, it sounds like what you intended to say. When everyone else reads it, we are still missing context.
This comment, or a comment like it has been on pretty much every piece of trump/maga/doge news, and has been valid every single time.
At this point, yeah, a bit. But it is a common racism to have right now, and the first step on the path to getting rid of it is knowing you have it.
Plus, the headline is really leading in that direction too, the article itself makes it pretty clear that it is a real, reputable product. Their wording in the headline is technically correct, they specifically call it a company "you've likely never encountered" rather than "noone has heard of", the company has already been at the forefront before and announced that they would be again in 2025, this is fulfilling that promise.
You are about 20 years too late for any of this to make sense. China tech is on par with other countries now. It is still lower cost for bad reasons alot of the time, but good quality tech is readily available now. You don't have to go very far up from the absolute cheapest unit price to get to the quality either, but of course, it's the American way to always seek out the absolute cheapest product, quality be damned. And the absolute cheapest will often come from China, despite needing to cross an ocean.
A "made in America" sticker also does not carry the meaning it used to 20 years ago either. You can get some of the shittiest cheap stuff "made in America", it just won't be the cheapest shitty stuff, despite being made locally to you, since the company still needs to make sure they are infinitely increasing profits forever...
So, why doesn't anyone do that, if it's so "possible".
Ukraine themselves reports it at 105ktons of munitions destroyed. And honestly, I trust their remote intel better than russias direct intel on how much it was. Hehe.