And it'll spike if she wins the lawsuit.

> Good to know it’s going to backfire tremendously.

That's the thing. We don't know that.

Ahahahahahahahaha

> Sounds like you can't go on social media without being wrong. A lot of people have that problem, unfortunately.

WOOOOOOOOF

r/woooosh

I recommend Taqueria Mexico! There's one tucked away just outside Waltham Center

Alright, hold on then.

> that it’s between shivva and some guy in the government…implying — you can’t trust either

You're right, I absolutely didn't get that. Genuinely, can you explain your point then please?

> You come off as an self-esteemed autodidact

You've humbled me... maybe. 😅😝 For a lot of really complex reasons related to life's challenges, I am a bit of an autodidact. If I may, I'd like to know what about me and my comments enabled you to deduce that. This surprised me, but I want to know and understand. You have no obligation to, but I would appreciate any help with that because it seems you're a person in a position to help me with it, and you've actually identified that you are haha.

Lol

I spent a minute and a half explaining a point you're repeatedly missing. I don't give a shit if you don't have the time to read it, although it's weird that you have the time to reply anyways.

Regardless, says more about you than me if you repeatedly miss a point, someone takes a little time to explain it to you as a favor, and you judge them for it. 🤷 I'm good with that.

See ya bud, best wishes to you! Happy holidays... lol.

You're missing the point.

> If you Google who invented email his name comes up. It’s between him and some guy that worked for the govt so who knows lol

> interesting that it did in fact used to say that

You're repeatedly presenting it as if it means something that Google displayed text stating Shiva invented e-mail. "It's between him and some guy," "so who knows," "interesting that it did in fact used to say that" -- All these sentences put validating weight on the fact that Google displayed text to you stating that Shiva invented e-mail. No validating weight exists. There is nothing of value to be taken simply from Google displaying that text, because that is not Google's function. Not to mention that Google these days tailors its results to each user, but I digress.

I could get Google to display text stating literally the most batshit insane thing with a few bucks and a website up that already says that for Google just to quote. Anyone could. Google's function is to put a bunch of books on the table for you to pick up and read and judge for yourself, not to guarantee that the books it's giving you are any good. That's your job.

"It's between him and some guy" puts Shiva's claim on the same level as actual fact. That does not reflect reality.

"So who knows" implies there's no way to know for sure because Google said both, implying Google placing two names on equal level means they are on equal level. There is a way to know for sure, even though Google said both and put both names on equal level, because Google's function as a tool isn't to tell anyone what is certain.

"Interesting that it did in fact used to say that" I mean, sure, as interesting as literally anything else popping up as a search result for any given query ever. Again you're signaling that specifically as interesting, which says there's something special or unusual about Google saying Shiva invented e-mail. In turn you're saying that there's something of value to be deduced specifically from Google once having stated that Shiva invented e-mail. There absolutely is not; Again, you're just fundamentally misunderstanding the tool's function. That's the point.

I get the joke; I'm saying it doesn't really make sense.

> The joke there is that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, but facts can't be.

This is strictly true, but I mean... You can't just transfer facts to others, you have to communicate them, through some sort of medium. Facts can't change, but they can be presented dishonestly via crafty use of the medium used to communicate them. So... saying "Facts can't be edited by anyone," I mean, you're missing the point. That facts can't be edited is irrelevant; We're discussing the quality of fact-communicating mediums.

And when it comes to Wikipedia, I reiterate; It's not what it used to be. Especially with highly-trafficked subjects, it itself tends to be pretty accurate. Yes it can be edited by anyone but that alone doesn't make something a poor resource -- If anything, present-day Wikipedia is a great example of that. Since its early days it's developed a robust infrastructure of guidelines, systems, and more, to quickly identify bad actors and correct misleading information. All of that is upheld by a humongous global network of volunteers, all of whom adhere to and some of whom even helped develop that infrastructure. It's much more reliable than it was 10 or 15 years ago; This pervasive and common idea that essentially "Wikipedia is a laughingstock and completely unreliable resource because it can be edited by anyone" is pretty outdated now.

So, you explain your joke to me, and now here I'm explaining my point: Your joke's punch line relies on outdated information to uphold its logic. It does not make sense anymore.

> Wikipedia has always been a good resource....if you follow up on their sources of information. It isn't a source, but it is a very solid starting point.

This also isn't a counterargument to my points because you're treating Wikipedia like it's the only source like that or like there's something inherent about Wikipedia that they could do better that makes it lower quality. That isn't the case either; What you're referring to is literally the case with all secondary and especially tertiary sources of information, and that's just the nature of those kinds of sources. That's nothing to dunk Wikipedia on specifically, that's just how the world works.

It's not all that dissimilar to the age old adage "If you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree it will spend its life believing it is stupid." If you judge secondary and tertiary sources (either specifically and by name like Wikipedia OR in general) for requiring their consumers to treat them like a starting point and to follow up on their sources of information, you're rigging the game against them from the beginning. That's their nature. In other words, it's a feature, not a bug.

> It's an actual fact that email was invented in 1971 (he was only 8) and Shiva claims to have invented it in 1979. Even if there was one result saying Shiva invented email there would be thousands saying Ray Tomlinson did. Kinda hard to miss that, unless intentionally.

None of this is relevant to our specific little dialogue in this little corner of this thread. Thanks though, I didn't have all the details on this timeline, so I appreciate having it clearer now!

Huh! How about that haha. Cheers, thanks!

Right, because obviously it's that simple.

No.

EDIT: Russian bots, for example, are known for disseminating disinformation and generally trying to muddy dialogues and corrupt the facts. They'll often get downvoted. Doesn't mean they're not bots or trolls.

I see what you did there.

I like it.

IDK, sometimes two people are too similar to have any relationship except hate one another.

It's interesting; Different cultures latch onto slightly unusual idiomatic expressions in their non-native languages. I see it a lot with middle easterners; They'll call everyone "my friend." At first it comes across fake and insincere, but the more you're exposed to it from that group the more you realize it's just a cultural thing and it indeed is entirely sincere and heartfelt.

Lol what

the fuck

is that supposed to mean

This is golden

> Literally if you googled who invented email before it would say his name

Google search results is far from the final arbiter, or any kind of arbiter, on truthful information. Google's function isn't to answer questions; It's to spit back webpages that best match the submitted query. If there's shittons of websites that say Shiva invented e-mail, even if it's wrong, and especially if one or multiple paid Google to come out at the top of search results, then, yeah, Google's gonna tell you Shiva invented e-mail. Even though it's completely wrong.

Don't take Google seriously. Ever. Check its sources. Determine there whether or not you take something seriously.

Don't dunk on Wikipedia; It's not what it used to be. They've got their shit together more now than before. It's a solid source.

Does he win though??

😭😭😭😭😭

It's by no means top-level but for essentially a hole-in-the-wall pizza-and-calzone equivalent joint, the various Fiorella's are pretty awesome and an easy step up from actual holes-in-the-wall. I've yet to find a tastier tomato sauce.

Nah it's not what it used to be. I know fam I miss it too. Sad.