Hehe, we’ve got Neuro for that. She was largely raised by Twitch chat, so she is sassy as hell.

https://youtube.com/shorts/lWSba6xp1Nk

https://youtube.com/shorts/3VztddaRAaQ

And her ‘sister’, Evil Neuro

https://youtube.com/shorts/GeIg1TwVdo8

https://youtu.be/AQ1op4EHuag

The joke at the end is that while his name is pronounced like ‘medal or petal’, neuro can’t pronounce it that way. Her ‘sister’, Evil Neuro could, but chooses not to. Often further emphasizing the incorrect pronunciation.

If you are ‘hoping’ to find one. The answer is more that you will find that in other individuals. Everywhere has some people that are personally averse to it. And it’s ok if you are too, you will have to advocate a bit, but most people will be accepting of it.

Ah, well there is an official classification, that is what I am going by. An origin story can still be called an origin story even if it’s the first story, if it follows the origin story format. If however the first story doesn’t follow the origin story format, then it isn’t an origin story even if it’s the first story.

An origin story is named that based on what happens in it, it doesn’t have to be a pre-quel to qualify.

Origin stories tend to resonate with people, it’s basically “how did this person go from being a normal everyday nobody, to one of the most powerful people in the universe” and, if done right, you can empathize with their journey.

Some origin movies maybe suck at that, but that is them squandering an opportunity, you get alot of potential baked-in just from the concept alone.

The Matrix was maybe one of the most successful uses of an origin arc, but most origin movies have a similar free boost, whether the rest of the movie supports and earns that boost is up to them. But many still do.

I liked reloaded and revolutions even on first viewing, but I didn’t need them to feel the same way the first matrix movie felt in order to consider them good. Like, The Matrix stood out from pretty much every other movie I had seen before. You don’t get that a second time right away, especially from another movie of the same type about the same thing. They continued and closed the story very well, but none of them were an origin story, and origin stories are pretty much always more awesome than the other movies in the same series, no matter what order they are made in.

The Matrix was unfollowable, and they managed to follow it ok. They were always gonna be worse in comparison, but they aren’t actually bad.

I haven’t seen Resurrections, not for any particular reason, just keep forgetting anytime I do manage to remember it, before I remember it long enough to see it.

It might be about general knowledge of how colliders work, the sentence structure does it no favours, but half way through I realised it had to be intentional/beneficial due to knowing the only possible way a collider generates heat as a byproduct.

Where as someone that doesn’t know much about colliders might read that sentence and assume it’s like radiative heat or something.

Ok, so it’d be like if a wikipedia page about jesus said he was “our lord and saviour” instead of saying “some people consider him to be their lord and saviour”. A page for “Lord and saviour” as a phrase might still list jesus as one possible link.

Only his followers actually use(d) that title for him, everyone else when using that word about him, would say it’s the title his followers call(ed) him. Like how wikipedia is using it. Grok is just using it as his title, like a follower would.

You can think of it kind of like “dear leader” in north korea. Anyone calling him that outside of north korea is at least doing it sarcastically or using air quotes. This would be like if the news called him that with a sincere reverent tone.

To be fair, the wikipedia article says he was called that by the people that followed him. It never calls him that itself.

The grokipedia article, just calls him that.

Yeah, that’s fine, a bit outside the metaphor as there is no analog.

But we are allowed, and encouraged to read it, just not post. It is public.

I’m not sure the specific name of it. Something like “women only” but I’m not finding it in search. I browse lemmy by all, so it comes up every now and then for me.

We are fully allowed to read it, just don’t post. Reading it is very insightful.

Lets say you go to a public building and in that public building there is a room marked women only, lets say in that room are some toilets, would go in that room? Since it’s a public space in the same building as all the other public space, the only difference is that portion of the space is understood to be only for women, or those that identify as women.

You may stumble in accidentally, and you will be gently corrected, but if you keep stumbling in, it’s gonna start to seem weird.

Umm, does he not realise we would also want those pedophiles in jail too?

Like sure ‘every pedophile’ is better, but half is a good start, we’ll get the rest in due time. Stuff is constantly leaking.

Is that not what the other commenters here are arguing? Cuz even when I ask them if that’s what they are saying they keep answering like it is what they are saying, that I must not have gone to an american school. No, I didn’t go to an american school, is it really that bad there? Like Canada is right next to the states, it can’t be that much worse just crossing one border.

I don’t get what you are saying? The kids didn’t do anything wrong? Or they shouldn’t also be in trouble? I don’t get why everyone is saying the kids should be allowed to steal?

Yes I have been to high school, no kids didn’t steal food from the teachers in my high school. But even if they did, they would have been wrong to do so…

Is it really a common thing nowadays for kids to steal from teachers? And not considered wrong when they do?

I really thought the reason it didn’t mention the trouble the kids got in was just cuz including underage children in news articles has to be so redacted as to essentially be pointless unless they are the main focus of the article. Not that they are considered to have not done anything wrong nowadays.

I’m not arguing that she wasn’t wrong, I state multiple times that she was wrong. He’s arguing the kids aren’t wrong at all. I maintain the kids also did something wrong.

So, it’s your opinion that the kids did nothing wrong by stealing and eating the teachers food? They aren’t even partly responsible?

Eating a parents food is a little more understandable, though still not something a kid should do without permission. Eating a teachers food, is down right actual stealing. It is different even if the teacher is supposed to act like a parent, though I haven’t heard of that being the case, if anything teachers are restricted from acting like parents to the children.

They may have some legal burden, but it doesn’t mean it should be treated exactly as if they are the parents in every situation.

But I did say it was fair that the teacher got in trouble, just thought it odd initially that it doesn’t mention the kids repercussions, til I thought about the hurdles involved in writing that bit of the article and assumed they just didn’t bother.