That was clearly the last time a split-second mattered in the Olympics.
But anyway, that poor writing is the fault of the Guardian, not
I think you misunderstand me. I am not arguing against AI here in any way. And yes, yes, pattern recognition belongs to the spontaneity of the understanding, which means that the understanding imposes its patterns according to its categories (see Kant's first critique).
I said connotation, not definition.
It needs to be used in a negation.
For instance, "it's not a planet anymore"="it's no longer a planet."
And they're nuts. Humanity has a solid evolutionary record on this planet.
You're essentially saying that the world is not an illusion because it's not an illusion. That's not an argument.
Like it or not, the simulation thesis, or the malicious demon thesis, or the veil of Maya, or the various theses of the various Gnostics, etc. basically hold that sensation itself is an illusion, so when you point to evolution (etc.), you demonstrate nothing. You need to demonstrate somehow that sensation is veridical, and that proof has eluded consensus for quite sometime.
Viruses. In English, at least. In Latin, it would be vira. Third declination, not second.
And while I can at least understand that people who don't understand Latin but somehow learned that -us becomes -i in plural (yes, if it's 2nd and masculine instead of neuter), where the fuck does that second "i" come from?
Your answer is confusing, even though the result is correct.
Morphologically speaking, "vira" would be the proper plural precisely because "virus" is a second (not third) declension neuter noun.
Yet, it "virus" like "water" is uncountable so this plural is unattested.
But why do we always end up in this same Latin grammar and philology lesson?
"Aww, if you make me cry anymore, you'll fog up my helmet." -- "Visionaries" cartoon