logicbomb

#Wordle1459 3/6* Grade: B+

⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜ F
🟩🟨🟨⬜⬜ A-
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 A+

https://gradle.app/#SOjnIvO6vRDgVCFc

3rd 3 in a row. I rarely get 3s because I intentionally choose poor starting words. This time, they were decent starting words, though.

#Wordle1458 3/6 Grade: A

⬜🟩⬜🟩⬜ C
⬜⬜🟩🟨⬜ B+
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 A+

https://gradle.app/#SOjaqdMHT6q2tA80

2nd 3 in a row. Because of the two repeated letters, I thought my two word phrase was bad, but I guess I was too lucky.

#Wordle1457 3/6 Grade: A-

⬜⬜🟨⬜⬜ F
⬜⬜🟩🟩⬜ A+
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 A+

https://gradle.app/#SOj6wbxupSEhSge7

I consider this to be very lucky. I was just thinking of Lovesong by The Cure, and decided to pick the first two five letter words that happened in a row. But I misremembered, and this is actually the second time it has two five letter words. The first set, "whole again" wouldn't have narrowed it down to only one real possibility.

#Wordle1456 4/6* Grade: B-

⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜ F
🟨🟩⬜⬜⬜ B-
⬜🟩⬜🟩🟩 A
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 A+

https://gradle.app/#20sWuPf3yD2ygQ3XFZf8v

The criteria is that it's a horror villain of your choice. So, I don't know why you'd choose a boss zombie or one of those really bad variants when you could choose one of the zombies from Shawn of the Dead.

But I'm also not completely sure that a random zombie really counts as a "villain".

Strangely, I've never had someone say that my username doesn't check out who also explained clearly why they thought that way. I think this is the second time.

And being called names by strangers online doesn't really register as anything but noise. I guess if it was in this thread, it would be slightly on topic, but elsewhere, it would probably just lead to reports and blocks.

I wonder if it can be ad hominem if it's a personal attack that technically bolsters your opponent's argument. For example, if you're debating a scientist about some scientific subject, and you call them an egghead or a nerd. I think it still counts.

a lack of intelligence doesn't necessarily imply that something said by a given person is wrong

This doesn't seem convincing to me because it's the exact same sort of criticism you'd make about any other ad hominem statement.

The smooth side does indeed face the owner. But it's about maintenance, not appearance. If the fence faced the other way, you'd have to be standing in your neighbor's yard to fix your own fence if it has a broken board.

Of course, that doesn't mean that some people don't install their fences backward.

#Wordle1455 6/6 Grade: C-

⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜ F
⬜⬜⬜⬜🟩 F
⬜🟨⬜⬜🟩 F
⬜⬜🟨⬜🟨 B+
🟨🟩⬜🟩🟩 A+
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 A+

https://gradle.app/#alPq1UT0jYXaqcUVgkoLxVIcHmmqw

I sincerely thought all of my screwing around with stupid starting phrases had finally caught up with me. Narrowly escaped.

I mean, that's right on the mark. The reason they called themselves National Socialists isn't because they were socialists, but because they knew that their true beliefs were so abhorrent that they needed to lie about being socialists.

Elon Musk has been recently shown to have done the same thing.

I'd think it would be obvious that a country wouldn't want to depend on a foreign country's proprietary product when an open source alternative exists. Even if it's not spying, what if the US forced Microsoft to put some kill switch on their products? Even if it doesn't affect your most secure systems because of air gap, it could still cripple enough to cause huge problems.

There's simply no reason to take the risk.

If I was running a government, I would strongly desire proof that all of my government software is doing only what I want it to. That means not only do I have access to the source code, but I also need it to be simple enough that my government teams can actually audit all of it.

Obviously, that's not going to be feasible in every situation. There might be proprietary software that is protected from competition via IP laws, and some software is so necessarily complex that it would be really hard to audit completely, but overall, I find it shocking that any foreign government would run a Microsoft product when a feature comparable open source alternative exists.