They are going to spend those 4 years doing everything they can to fix the next election as well. Gerrymandering, voter intimidation, you name it. By all means hide in bed to get over the shock but, if you stay there, you’ll need to stay there more than 4 years.

We found the solutions a long time ago - it’s just that nobody wanted to implement them.

I think it’s quite clear that we did.

We know perfectly well that the art is behind glass and will not be damaged because they did it before. So it’s complete nonsense to say that it will potentially destroy the art.

Yes, I know, but he said he has to have the Windows version.

OK, but is it really a requirement to improve on what you have? That said, I find the O365 versions better than the native Mac versions, and I would run O365 rather than bother with a VM (plus the Windows license for the VM might outweigh the savings you get from switching from Mac to Linux, unless your employer will pay for it).

How does Requirement 3 work? You have macs, so you must be running the Windows versions in a VM? Obviously you could do that on Linux as well.

But, to be honest, Requirements 1 and 2 say to me that Apple have you heavily locked in, and I think you should recognize that.

PieDock

I don’t think China wants that.

If you make a painting now, it wouldn’t be based on those thousands and thousands of paintings since, although you have seen them, you apparently do not remember them. But, if you did, and you made a painting based on one, and did not acknowledge it, you would indeed be a bad artist.

The bad part about using the art of the past is not copying. The problem is plagiarism.

Inspiration is absolutely a thing. When Constable and Cezanne sat at their easels, a large part of their inspiration was Nature. When Picasso invented Cubism, he was reacting to tradition, not following it. There are also artists like Alfred Wallis, who are very unconnected to tradition.

I think your final sentence is actually trying to say that we have advances in tools, not inspiration, since the Lascaux caves are easily on a par with the Sistine Chapel if you allow for the technology? And that AI is simply a new tool? That may be, but does the artist using this new tool control which images it was trained on? Do they even know? Can they even know?

Maybe the AIs should mix their own pigments as well, instead of taking all the other artists’ work and grinding that up.

None of what you said makes me think the situation would be worse than having Putin in charge. It’s a stretch to say Putin came from the civil sphere, and he assassinates his enemies in foreign countries using nerve agents and throws people out of windows at home.

Absolutely. The fundamental thing about the rules of grammar is that they’re more like guidelines. In fact, I think OP’s example is hardly the most confusing or inconsistent thing in English, which is not to say that the question isn’t a really good one. The quirks, similarities and differences are one thing that makes language-learning really interesting.

Yes, “home” and “zuhause” mean the same thing but they aren’t exactly the same, zuhause is a compound word. English also has compound words, for example “aboard” and “abed”. The English word isn’t “ahouse”; it is simply “home”.

The news story is precisely that the judge has decided that it doesn’t matter why the protesters are doing what they are doing - whether they have evidence or not. His wording was something like “that may or may not be occurring”.

According to the judge, only the fact that they damaged property is relevant. That they did it to demand action against a significant threat to humanity, is not.

It isn’t a big deal, but we do need the language to evolve a little bit. The problem with they/them is that it implies that you don’t know the person, or that it doesn’t matter who they are (like you say, you can’t or don’t want to use a more specific pronoun). It can feel quite rude to apply it to somebody that you do know.