Jump to content

TexasHooch

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    2392
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

6788 Surly 1%

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Fuuuuuuuuuck. The article I linked is not the article I quoted. https://www.startribune.com/heres-what-to-know-about-minnesotas-fraud-crisis/601542128 To your question, the only thing I've asserted is that the majority of posters here are making grand arguments based on tweets, articles, and political statements they've learned about in the past week, and that it makes many of them sound ignorant to me-- someone who's followed it for years. I didn't want to give my opinion. The whole point was for people to actually educate themselves on the information, not just the last week of propaganda and its opposition. But fine... There is, going back to 2006 really, a widespread, systemic fraud problem in Minnesota. For a variety of possible reasons, the the overall demographic of fraudsters have been over represented by people of Somali decent. While State, Federal, and state contracted third-party investigations are ongoing (and have been for years), there is no actual evidence that the fraud totals amount to anything remotely close to 9 B dollars.
  2. 2nd and last post here, but here's a link to a summary article from the StarTribune about what they've been covering for about a decade, leading up to now. https://www.startribune.com/walz-says-theres-no-evidence-of-9b-in-fraud-exposing-rift-between-state-and-feds/601549681 I've pasted the article, but hopefully the linked article isn't paywalled, because it itself in the body of it links 57 articles that the Strib has produced over the last 10 years. So, those of you who would like to know what's going on, there you go. For the rest of you, well, have fun, but know that you sound to me like a 4 year old making the argument that her sister is a poopie head.
  3. Ever watch a national broadcast of your favorite local team, only to be annoyed and frustrated that their talking points are largely surface level, superficial, hyperbolic, or outright old-news? Yeah. Me right now.
  4. Getting there. Breasts are ready for the wrap. Started on the pellet grill, but it's under 20 here, so switched to the 26 kettle.
  5. You corn-cobbed a stick, didn't you.
  6. I'm cheating this time.
  7. No budget specified. Bold strategy Cotton. https://cutleryandmore.com/products/miyabi-black-slicing-knife-36906
  8. Interesting. I did a similar prompt with Gemini: It is highly likely that this text was originally written in another language (most likely Russian) and then translated into English, or at the very least, it is a rough draft heavily influenced by non-native speakers. Based on linguistic markers and the specific errors included in the text you provided (such as the [sic] markers), here is the evidence that points to translation: 1. The "Comprehensive and Comprehensive" Error The phrase in Point 2, "A comprehensive and comprehensive [sic] non-aggression agreement," is a classic "translation stutter." Likely Origin: In Russian diplomatic correspondence, a standard phrase is "полное и всеобъемлющее" (polnoye i vseob'yemlyushcheye), which translates to "full and comprehensive." The Glitch: A machine translation tool or a fatigued human translator likely translated both distinct Russian adjectives into their closest English equivalent ("comprehensive") without catching the redundancy. The fact that your text includes [sic] indicates that the English editor noticed this error but left it in to preserve the original document's exact wording. 2. Transliteration of "Zaporizhzhya" In Point 19, the text uses the spelling "Zaporizhzhya". The Clue: Standard English diplomatic texts (like those from the US State Department or UK Foreign Office) typically use the BGN/PCGN standard spelling "Zaporizhzhia" (ending in -ia). The Origin: The -ya ending is a direct transliteration of the Cyrillic ending (я), which is common when translating directly from Ukrainian (Запоріжжя) or Russian (Запорожье) without using a standardized English style guide. The inclusion of [sic] again suggests the editor flagged this as non-standard spelling. 3. Grammatical Structure & Tone The sentence structure throughout the document relies heavily on passive voice and bureaucratic phrasing that mirrors Slavic syntax rather than native English diplomatic writing. Example (Point 1): "Ukraine’s sovereignty will be confirmed." A native English drafter would likely write "The Parties shall confirm..." or "Russia and the US affirm..." The passive "will be confirmed" is a direct mapping of reflexive Russian verbs (e.g., подтвердится). Example (Point 10): "If Ukraine launches a missile... without cause." The phrase "without cause" is legally vague in English. In Russian, there might be a more specific term like безосновательно (groundlessly) which makes more sense in a civil law context but translates poorly into a common law contract. 4. "False Friend" Concepts Some concepts appear to be translated literally rather than localized for Western diplomatic understanding. "Educational programmes... in schools and society": This phrasing (Point 20) echoes Soviet or post-Soviet bureaucratic language regarding "social engineering" or state-mandated ideology, which is less common in American legal drafts. "The US will receive compensation for the guarantee": This is blunt and transactional language ("compensation") that sounds like a direct translation of a business term (possibly компенсация or возмещение), whereas a native US English draft would likely use terms like "cost-sharing," "burden-sharing," or "financial offset." Conclusion The text is almost certainly a translation of a draft proposal originating from Russian negotiators or a non-native English speaking working group. The specific errors (redundant adjectives, non-standard transliteration) are "fingerprints" of a document that was thought out in Russian and processed into English, likely with some reliance on automated translation tools or non-native drafting.
  9. Oh, I definitely dry out after a wet brine. I just don't add anything to it yet, aside from the aforementioned butter under the skin. Honestly though, I really don't think doing that before the dry vs right before the cook makes that much difference. What does though, for me, is getting under the skin to separate it some from the bird. Again though, I spatchcock so it's pretty easy to do. Might be harder with a complete bird.
  10. It can be done in combination with a dry brine, or subsequent to a wet brine. I wouldn't personally do both. The closest I've done after a wet brine is herb butter under the skin.
  11. I always spatchcock, but yes. It works, particularly if you take the effort to pat dry really well, including under the skin of the breast and use a wire rack. Make sure your fridge is free of the odors of other food though, because it'll absorb them.
  12. The prompt is best cast, not most well casted (that may not be a word, but work with me). If it were the latter, I may go with The Big Chill or Dead Poets Society, in which both had mostly relative unknowns. If we're just talking about most talented cast in a single movie, Mars Attacks is just a notch below the big super hero movies.
  13. I didn't love the movie, but Mars Attacks has to be in the conversation: Jack Nicholson, Glenn Close, Annette Bening, Pierce Brosnan, Danny DeVito, Martin Short, Sarah Jessica Parker, Michael J. Fox, Rod Steiger, Tom Jones, Lukas Haas, Natalie Portman, Jim Brown, Lisa Marie, Sylvia Sidney, Jack Black, Pam Grier, Paul Winfield, Christina Applegate,
  14. Wordle 1,613 2/6 ⬜🟩🟩⬜🟩 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
  15. Yup. That filter should absolutely work, but it doesn't. The closest I've gotten is to pick same day or 2 day delivery, and poke around that way. They make it clear though that those prices are higher because they have the fees baked in.
×
×
  • Create New...