When I was an undergrad at a certain well-regarded university, a smart history major I knew who was writing a senior thesis and applying to graduate programs asked me if I could explain the word "historiography" to him because he had somehow managed to get through four years without encountering it.
"X's book fails to address Y"
No, he does in fact address it, in the footnote on p. 159. You just didn't see it.
It's common to "gut" texts, e.g. read only the intro/conclusion and perhaps the first sentences of paragraphs.
It probably explains why when I read the lit review chapter of dissertations I often find downright bizarre mischaracterizations of some book or other that I have actually read in full.
I mean, yeah, this was very predictable
If any of these people actually lived in Maine it would be sort of amusing to see how many would manage to talk themselves into voting/campaigning for Susan Collins
I still to this day have never heard anybody explain this. Detective giving testimony: "We examined the decedent's personal effects, to include his wallet." What?
The real test of a military AI is whether it can consistently write "to include" in contexts where every native English speaker in the world who is not in the American military or law enforcement would correctly write "including"
somehow got blocked for this, lmao this site fucking rules so much
90% of baseball players are MAGA lol
