That’s a muppet.

Diaereses don’t indicate stress. They indicate separately pronounced vowels.

When you say OP, who are you talking about? The author of the post was talking about hyphens, and nothing about stresssed syllables, and I’m the one who brought up diaereses, and I wasn’t referring to stressed syllables, either.

Good catch. I fixed it.

Also, by your coöperative pronunciation example, people would be mispronouncing reëlect.

I’m not sure what you mean.

It’s pronounced co-operative and re-elect. Coöp needs it to not sound like “coop” as in chicken coop. Reëlect needs it to not sound like “reel” as in fishing reel.

It’s vowels only, and that’s funny. I hadn’t thought about it for my hypothetical “lineofsight” word.

I like to use them when words create a unit of thought. Like line-of-sight, and such. It really helps readability. It prevents people from having to think too hard about certain sentences when it’s ambiguous which words belong to what part of the sentence. Especially when the expression contains function words like “of”.

However, I’m a fan of just making multiple words into compound words, like bumblebee. That doesn’t work well with something like lineofsight, though.

As a side note, I wish we would bring back the diaeresis in favor of hyphens in words like co-op. It used to be coöp, and that is so much more fun. Or words like reëlect. Even when it’s not abbreviated, the diaeresis makes it more obvious to readers how coöperative is pronounced. Or any other time where two vowels in a row are pronounced separately.

But there is a smallest unit, which is called a bit. Data can be broken down into smaller, countable units.

That’s not a particularly compelling argument. There’s a smallest unit of sand, too, but we still use a mass noun for it.

Besides, dictionary researchers agree it’s both a mass noun and a plural noun. People use it both ways. Here’s what Merriam Webster says about it. (I’m going to rework it to reduce the wordiness because it was so dense!)

Data leads a life of its own quite independent of datum, of which it was originally the plural. It occurs in two constructions:

1. as a plural noun (like earnings)
   • taking a plural verb and plural modifiers (such as these, many, a few), but not cardinal numbers
   • serving as a referent for plural pronouns (such as they, them)
2. as an abstract mass noun (like information)
   • taking a singular verb and singular modifiers (such as this, much, little)
   • being referred to by a singular pronoun (it).

Both constructions are standard. The plural construction is more common in print, evidently because the house style of several publishers mandates it.

So OP’s post is only half right, if even that much. In common speech, data is a mass noun, but many scientists and publishers still treat it as a plural noun. I would even venture most do.

Working as a programmer, most people I’ve interacted with use it as a mass noun, but not all. Language evolves, and the mass noun version is just as acceptable in most circles, but it certainly isn’t worthy of a “you should know” or “today I learned it’s actually a mass noun.”

Do you need to have your opinions spoonfed to you? You can’t read a PDF that contains literally every applicable fact to the case and come to your own conclusions on whether justice was met?

A court case can be interesting to read simply because the case was interesting. You shouldn’t have this need to read other people’s opinions of it. To be told how to feel or how not to feel about it.

You are the embodiment of what’s wrong with the internet and people today. People want to be told how to think about every issue. And then merely decide if they want to agree to think that way or argue against it. Black and white. Love or fight. Use your own brain and come to your own conclusions sometimes instead of being so intellectually lazy.

I find it so funny that you took the time to express this feeling you have that you need to be told what to think in order to digest information. You cry out for preexisting “discussion” to tell you how you should or shouldn’t feel so you can either agree or disagree instead of doing any of the actual thinking yourself, or any other work.

I find it especially funny that you say they are “proclaiming statements” and then also criticizing them for not making any statements.

Should it only be journalists, bloggers, and YouTubers who start discussions so you can read their conclusions? You can’t read a source document and form your own opinions and conclusions? That’s fine. You can be intellectually lazy all you want. But to actually open your mouth and whine about how you’re too lazy to read a document and start the discussion? Wow.

Leave it to the journalists and bloggers and other people with more patience than you, but kindly shut up while you wait.

And, no, I’m not going to do your work for you, so don’t ask. I’m not interested enough in this case to read it. I simply found your comment flabbergasting.

LOL! “final supervisor”

How about you address my actual reply instead of changing the topic constantly?

The PGP public key still has to be shared plaintext… that makes it useless as anyone can sign it after that.

That sentence is incorrect. Just admit it.

an unsolicited message from someone you don’t know, asking you to email them could be suspect.

How is that any different from a matrix chat or unsolicited signal chat or literally any other communications platform? You were saying that specifically PGP was somehow fundamentally bad when it’s actually better than most other communication platforms, because the private key is private, and messages are signed with that private key, and cannot be spoofed by a third party. You can’t know who you’re actually talking to (just like every other chat platform!) but you at least know every future message is from that same person.

Did you even read that article? It has nothing to do with what I said. I pointed out that you don’t understand how public key encryption works, and you replied with an article about an exploit that does not refute what I said. An exploit that does An exploit that can be avoided by simply not clicking “load images”. An exploit that has probably been fixed in a client like Thunderbird anytime over the past six years. An exploit that has nothing to do with revealing your private key.

I don’t know why I’m wasting my time with you. You can’t even argue in good faith.

You need the private key to sign anything. The public key is only for encrypting outgoing emails which only the person with the private key can decrypt.

People have been using PGP over email for literally decades. You do not know what you’re talking about.

I imagine speed limits will be put on DMs at some point in the future. There’s no reason to have it wide open so you can firehose multiple people with the same message.

Like, if you’re sending a message to someone and they reply back, you can immediately reply back, back-and-forth, as fast as you want. Other than that, you should only be able to send a message once every five or ten minutes.

Sure, but did you at least add context about why you’re messaging them? Like some comment or post they made that you liked and you wanted to talk about similar stuff?

Because that would be kind of normal. That’s what private messages are for. But this one is just bait.

“Brown”?

How the heck did he do it?

It needs more color, and less green.

They are too adorable for anything less.

deleted by creator

Congrats?

Consider taking up scuba diving. It normally requires active ear pressure normalization (Valsalva maneuver), but it sounds like you’re one of the rare people who will have a wonderful time never having to worry about that.