Great point! You are so right to call me out on that! Here's the no-nonsense, concise breakdown, it's coming soon I promise, right after this, here it comes, no fluff -- just facts!

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

I don't believe that's always true, and I suspect it was left out of the guidelines deliberately, and I wish people receiving suggestions would stop interpreting it that way. Of course people suggesting grammar corrections and treating it like they just demolished and eviscerated your argument are part of the problem. But what about people out here just trying to help? Grammar is important, as it's the syntax of the programming language we all use with each other. People act as if bad grammar is something you're born with, and can't change. Like learning grammar is impossible, and those who don't bother should be a protected class. I'm just trying to help man. Or I was anyway, before I stopped. But if I'm trying to engage with someone's main point, it should be obvious. Whereas a quick grammar correction is just that. But it's a tangent, and not interesting (especially if you already know), and supposedly grammar is "not a technical topic" (despite daily use) so it ends up deemed a "low value comment" and gets downvoted to oblivion.

> I wish people receiving suggestions would stop interpreting it that way

The specific problem here was that the poster was being downvoted for grammar. Of course, that's how he could have read it.

Yeah unfortunately I suspect the authoritarian surveillance is the whole point. Protecting children is obviously not a priority for the Epstein class.

I have a suspicion that saddling a chat context with all this instruction would paradoxically produce worse results due to being overconstrained. But I haven't tested this. It's just that some of these are legitimate writing techniques that are simply overused. Is every single one of them always and automatically bullshit?

Also whoever claims "no human writes like this" hasn't been to LinkedIn... though the humanity of those writers might be debatable. But all the vapidity, all the pointless chatter to fill up time and space, it learned that from us.

I wouldn't have delegated this to an AI. Human for human, human for AI.

Boy, that was fragmented. What should I have done for years leading up to today to prepare for reading this? Gaming? Doomscrolling social media? Chugging Mountain Dew? Reading poetry?

It's very unique to LinkedIn. OP's prose is difficult to process even if you've abused your brain for years with LinkedIn content, though. In a more merciful timeline, only people like James Ellroy or Cormac McCarthy would ever attempt to write like that.

Or people like the neuroqueer author.

Try LinkedIn

Idiocracy is reality: people can't even form paragraph-length thoughts any more. I just noped out.

You don't understand my writing. Hence I must be stupid.

Interesting conclusion. ;)

It's a synthesis of multiple problem domains that thought they were special. When the truth is: they weren't.

It was fragmented? Good.

Welcome to reality. ;)

Fr bruh rizzing hard to this og jester gooning.

It is

AI content is clearly marked as such.

The rest is written by me personally on my shoddy MacBook.

> MacBook

That explains the writing style.

You can't say someone has achieved artificial general intelligence for some specific subset of tasks or parameters; it's a contradiction.

AI won't replace the best of us, but it has already transformed my job into something much less enjoyable, so I have still been pondering this question. I once had a career in one of the "real" engineering disciplines, maybe I would go back to that. I'm also good at music, and we all know what a freaking goldmine that is!

It would democratize sports, while making sports worthless and unremarkable. It would collapse the market for sports.

> I'm never going to China.

China will come to us.

Or should that be:

China will come to the US.

Yes. China gives a shit that user rdiddly, at 36 minutes before 00:55 UTC on March 4, 2026, said that China is spyihg to the point that they are going to be abducted for it.

"You pay and it's yours." Which is exactly why, having paid for an ad-free service, people are miffed when ads appear anyway. I'm not going to take on the responsibility of educating you as to the examples that exist, because that's your own responsibility. Not only because we have to educate ourselves, but because you made the unsupported claim in the first place that the phenomenon doesn't exist. Proving a negative is very difficult, as we with all this glorious mental firepower know. In a world this large, it's a poor bet on a statistical basis alone.

What is your point here? Yes, if I were to pay for a movie or show, I would find it unacceptable if it were to contain paid product placement. Do you think prominent logos in media are an accident?

And youtube could easily ban third party sponsors in their ToS, have all advertising on their platform go through them, and completely remove it for paying customers. Just like Netflix can refuse to host any shows with product placement. It's entirely their own product decision to allow ads in their "ad free" offering.