@EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted

@EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted,
@EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

Never seen it before in my life, let alone on here.

EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted,
@EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

Lol.

EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted, (edited )
@EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

One that is designed for revolvers, not shotguns? (And yes, I know about revolver shotguns, but those are mainly just a gimmick and not really ever used in most contexts. I’m talking about handgun revolvers.)

EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted,
@EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

It’s not even over-analyzing. A revolver does not take shells; they use cartridges, which are not shells. That’s just a simple fact.

EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted,
@EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

I mean in the technical sense, so shells ≠ cartridges, and sure they might be capable of it, but it is not really a thing that happens often enough for it to be a normal thing.

EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted,
@EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

…You know, thinking about it, I think you’re right. After all, artillery uses shells, and they’re not exactly buckshot, those things. Lol.

EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted,
@EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

I get it’s a joke, but that’s a revolver, which doesn’t take shells.

EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted, (edited )
@EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

Whelp, I am definitely going to be put on a list for seeing that.

EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted,
@EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

because another musician walked off with it after their show wrapped up at 2AM last night.

Rude.

EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted,
@EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

Yeah, that’s not what cisgender or any variant thereof means.

Also, we’re describing a stereotype, not saying it’s true. Don’t shift blame or topic.

EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted,
@EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

I don’t. I was making fun of this post.

It is using the age-old “girls vs boys” trope, and therefore juvenile.

EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted, (edited )
@EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

Now you’re just playing stupid, obviously to troll, a game I am not willing to play.

Goodbye.

EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted,
@EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

Then those people should say that as an addendum or side-note to an attempted answer to OP’s question, not as a replacement for said attempted answer.

EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted,
@EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

You’re not wrong, and I’m upvoting everything you say because I hate the smug SO people who ask why instead of actually trying to help.

Yeah, I hate those people too. I appreciate the support.

But in this specific case, there’s literally no reason to use OpenOffice, it’s discontinued. People shouldn’t have to explain how to use a defunct software with an addendum.

It’s not an obscure programming language with an edge case, it’s a word processor.

I can see where you’re coming from. Still, I personally try to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume until demonstrated otherwise that they have considered alternatives and decided their current program is best for their particular usecase.

Is it naïve? Possibly. I fully admit that possibility.

EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted, (edited )
@EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

All these people saying “Just use LibreOffice” is missing the point: if they ask about a program, then that means they have a usecase for said program.

This isn’t StackExchange; let’s not repeat that cycle.

EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted,
@EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

Exactly!

I mean, if you look in dictionaries, you’ll see both definitions, but as I said to another user in this thread, dictionaries include a definition because it is common, not because it is accurate. Just look up the term “literal”; most common dictionaries define it as meaning either “literal” or “figurative”.

Words exist fundamentally to communicate something; if a term is defined so as to be ambiguous, it has failed in that purpose.

EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted,
@EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

Prescriptivism vs descriptivism.

The technical definition is as I described above.

It’s only been expanded in common dictionaries because the dictionaries practice descriptivism, i.e. they reflect not what is the best definition, but how it’s most often used.

In other words, just because it’s in the dictionary doesn’t mean the word means that in a technical context; it just means that’s how it’s commonly meant when used in everyday parlance.

EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted,
@EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

You can’t tell me what to do!

You’re not my real mom!

EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted,
@EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

Wow, fucking rude. Some people mix up similar-looking characters in their heads, you dolt.

EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted,
@EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

Oh whoops. Thanks. He he.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • localhost
  • All magazines
  • Loading…
    Loading the web debug toolbar…
    Attempt #