"Guy" and "guys" are not the same, at all. The s appended to the end, along with the context, drastically changes the semantic meaning of the word. This is how language works. Even an unchanged word can have totally different meanings depending on the context. You argument here is a strawman that ignores context to the point of pedantic absurdity.

> The s appended to the end, along with the context, drastically changes the semantic meaning of the word.

Yes, words have meaning that change depending on context. That's how English works. It's a bit like how "man" can be used to mean the entirety of the human race, but "man" is in no way a gender neutral term.

To the same end, "guy" is considered by some to be quite gendered, and "guys" is often not, but even with the plural, asking a heterosexual man "how many guys have you slept with?", is often perceived very differently to asking "when did you guys get married?"

The problem here is that the first question, sans context, is going to be interpreted by a number of people to be exclusively male, and essentially never interpreted as exclusively female.

This isn't pedantry, it's just the way the word is perceived.

Except "guys" and "you guys" is not the same. The latter is neutral, the former isn't.

It’s not neutral, it’s gendered and used as a neutral.

You admitted, yourself, that the word itself it gendered.

The fact that it is default-male and used as neutral is the entire argument.

You seem to have ignored the comment.

"you guys" is two words, and when used together is entirely different than the single word "guys". Otherwise people would just use "guys".

If it appears that I ignored your comment, it's because I was assuming you weren't making the mistake you now appear to be.

Your argument seems to be that the inclusion of the 2nd-party plural "you" somehow removes the gendered nature of the word, which is not the case for this word or for any other.

I assume you believe that "boys" is gendered, and I assume you will admit that "you boys" is still gendered.

You admit that "guys" is gendered, but you will not admit that "you guys" is still gendered, without being able to provide any sort of evidence as to why.

The second case is identical to the first, the only difference being your specific idiolectical definition, which unfortunately is not generalisable to the English language as a whole.

Please don't make wild assumptions. This isn't a trial. There's no evidence or admittance of anything needed.

These are accepted grammar rules. "you guys" as a second-person plural term is accepted as gender-neutral. "guys" in the third-person is not.

Arguing that the 2nd-person usage is not neutral is the new challenger position and you would need to provide the argument for why the accepted usage should change for the rest of us.

Having a ministry of truth totally sounds like an idea that can't backfire. /s

I built a new computer and for the first time in over a decade I wanted to try Windows, but apparently I was missing drivers for something. It never told me what I needed drivers for, and even with all the drivers for all the parts I could find on a separate USB drive, it couldn't find the drivers that I supposedly needed, so I gave up and chose to install Ubuntu instead.

Ubuntu apparently knew all the drivers I needed, fetched them from beyond the great ether, and all was in harmony.

Why is this so easy for Canonical, but not Microsoft?

I like the copyright pun at the bottom.

Yeah, I'd love to read it, but (on mobile, at least) there's infinite scrolling kicking in every time I reach the bottom. Ironic.

That’s the internal joke of ours nobody appreciates.

Ah, ok, wasn't obvious to me, either. I always wonder, if it's legal in Germany, because you need to have an imprint easily accessible (from any page I think). Might not be relevant for here, but am just curious.

I thought so. You may want to make it more explicit :)

It being this obscure is part of the joke by now ;-)

I can’t see it because of infinite scrolling, which is pretty ironic given the website’s subject.

In your web inspector, add the following CSS to the <body>

  display: flex;
  flex-direction: column-reverse;

and that will render the footer at the top of the page.

It shows up on individual post pages (click "hyperlink").

Simply click the “refresh” button in the header to easily access the footer.

Is there an easy way out of it after? The first time I used that button I had to turn off my Wi-Fi so I could down to the "top" and click the button again without infinite scroll kicking in.

Simply restart your computer and clear cookies.

For the lazy ones:

> 2019. All fights retarded.

While all that may or may not be true, that is irrelevant to this study.

This study mentions antioxidants rather than glucose.

Why the hell would you want your diet to be salt free? Sodium is essential to proper bodily functions. You're going to hurt yourself by over-limiting sodium and using potassium chloride.

Open source offices are a result of companies not willing to train. Everyone wants to hire someone with experience in their tools, and also only hire young people, so what are young people going to do? They're going to teach themselves free tools.

EDIT: I'm apparently a blind idiot in the morning. Misread the parent comment.

It seems autocarrot did not only change one word in the beginning your text but fittet the rest of your text to find a new meaning.