silicon2401

> awoken is the most correctly

I thought of "awoken" initially, but if I hadn't seen the other wordings before, I don't recall ever seeing the word "awoken" at all! Or if I have seen it before, I second-guessed myself after reading variations of "woke/wake" so much in a short period of time. Thanks for your response

Thanks for the correction, it's been a while (too long) since I've seen it!

These abbreviations are among the stupidest trends in tech. We should learn from the Germans and embrace long words

The Century of the Self is a great introduction to this. Modern advertising literally uses techniques originally developed for wartime (WWII) propaganda. Commercial advertising is literally brainwashing applied for economic purposes rather than political (though often both, too).

p.s. if you like the Century of the Self, watch Hypernormalization as well. Amazing documentaries.

> The prime minister will be woken,

Totally unrelated but is this correct grammar? I realize I've never seen "woken" without "up", as in "woken up". To avoid using "up" I would've leaned towards some form of awoke, but am not sure I've ever seen something like "she will be awoke" either. Always fun to encounter grammatical edge cases you're unfamiliar with in your native language.

Paywall, can't read that

I completely forgot about the fire thing, and that only strengthens my argument/stance. The Triangle fire was a terrible tragedy in American history during which a lot of women died not even because of lack of windows, but because doors and windows were barred. Now imagine how many people would be at risk if they didn't even have windows in the first place.

> Why not let those without homes choose if they are willing to take the risks associated with ignoring those rules over l king on the streets?

I'd rather have a government that enforces a high quality of life.

I think it's simpler: if you're able to get a degree, you're already intelligent to some extent. That intelligence is then trained by having education in general. The difference is if you chose a major without good career prospects, you basically just have to do additional work to get the idealism out of your system and come around to a practical field. All these philosophy, sociology, literature, etc majors didn't need the major to switch into STEM etc, they were always ready for it. They just had to accept that the humanities weren't going to give them the life they wanted.

> Maybe X should relax the legal requirements of Y

That's a slippery slope. Lots of legal requirements exist to protect someone. Legal requirements for windows are pretty reasonable to ensure people have at least some bare minimum of access to natural light in their home, rather than just living in a box.

> I really don't see the point of these,

You just don't want to. It's very simple: they let you have a burger that mimics meat burgers, and they taste reasonably close for some of us. I love burgers and love some of the fake meat patties since I don't usually eat meat. Simple as that.

> whole grains and legumes covering most of my protein requirements.

What are your protein/calorie goals, and how are you meeting them with grains and legumes? I have to take pea protein and on top of that eat a lot of eggs because otherwise I can't imagine getting enough protein just from beans and oats. If you avoid oxalates, it becomes even more difficult.

> We'd all be happier if everyone was politically correct

Me 'being' politically correct doesn't mean me 'supporting' or 'enjoying' being politically correct. I don't, and 'being' politically correct makes me unhappy. I don't know how I can simplify further, but it does seem to be a semantic point.

> If you bought into the new age pro noun thing the SAME way you already buy into the pointless formalities we use like "please" and "thank you" there would be no argument.

"If you met the conditions that proved me right, then I'd be right". Well I don't, hence you're wrong, as I said