Some Americans clearly must do this, but personally, I've never heard this in my life until I saw it on a YouTube video of a British person complaining how Americans pronounce words. Obviously, your experience may vary - it's a big country.
The transatlantic dispute over "aluminum/aluminium" seems minor when you consider how English is used globally. Even within Britain, there are considerable variations.
The one that gets me, as an American is nuclear vs nucular. Both have been in use verbally and written for decades... academics have adopted the former, even if the latter was more common in most early use. And that's just one, pretty recent example.
A different version of this argument is: why should it matter if I'm querying the content using the API directly versus by using the HTML web interface? If it's the case that different consumers of the API might put different load on the system than the web page that the provider can't/doesn't want to support, why isn't rate limiting the solution?
This also provides providers a way to fairly monetize their API: we're giving you some basic level of access that matches what you get through the website for free, but if your access pattern is such that you put a load on our system that we can't tolerate, then we'll charge you (by providing a paid tier).
This is a fantastic point. The commentary about the passports is really a sideshow: if other nations that are part of a larger state are allowed to participate, so should the Iroquois.
What if Congress revoked all (or nearly all) implicitly and explicitly delegated powers to the Executive? The jockeying over who runs for President and how we elect them always seems to miss the point that the modern Executive is much too powerful.
Make the Presidency weaker, and then let's have this discussion about how we elect them.
This isn't a spatial metaphor any more than "upperclassmen" and "underclassmen" are for high schools or "left" and "right" are for politics. We call it the "upper" chamber because it's supposed to be the higher status, more "dignified" chamber.
Words have histories of course, and probably at one point this was a spatial metaphor - maybe some bicameral legislature literally did have one of their higher status body on a different floor than their lower status body. But the words upper and lower when applied to the legislative branch have evolved since then.
This is critically important. As a PM, I view it as one of our responsibilities to keep pushing to address the problems - even as we focus on external facing features.
I was curious so I looked it up, Wikipedia has Jeff Bezos born in 1964, and the Pentagon Papers leak in 1971. I'm too tired to bother with months, so for the sake of convenience we'll go with Jeff was 7 when this happened. In response to the parent post here-- I know Jeff is an impressive guy, but using technology that wouldn't appear for half a century or so to create a conflict of interest with the CIA at 7? Holy shit! If I were 1/100,000th that awesome I'd have a Turing Prize to go with my Fields Medal :P
Yes, but the movie was filmed this year and the quote was included in the movie. It might be a real quote, but framing and selection are tools of propaganda.
...that was my point. The quote was cherry picked from a movie that was filmed in the 2010s. The quote would have been selected to be included by modern film makers to expose to a wide audience. People say a lot of things, which things to include in a movie? Without looking, I'd even say it's probably a real quote. That doesn't affect my point, which questions that statement's truth value.
