Ugh, you fucking nerd sniped me, OP. Now I have to spend the next 20 minutes learning about this bullshit, and I hate you!

Buddy, did you stop and think for a second that it being under the “US News” tab (under an “Opinion” subheader) in addition to the “Opinion” tab might be because it’s an opinion about US news? Crazy concept, I know.

I know this isn’t Wikipedia, but we sure have a term for whatever this bullshit “I just want something to be true” argumentation is over there.

Rule 6, OP. This is a clearly marked opinion article.

At least “product” is honest framing: it’s passionless, mass-produced garbage sold by an international megacorp. I genuinely prefer a CEO saying that over pretending to care or personally enjoy it.

Oh shit, that’s why I didn’t find it. Here’s the C-SPAN clip. He says “Department of Defense” and then immediately corrects himself to “Department of War”. Jesus christ, Mikey, I really tried.

(This was somewhat difficult to find even with the quote; please link a source if you use one in the future instead of just quoting.)

EDIT: See below; this is invalid.

I’ll add that I – giving Mike Johnson the least benefit of the doubt I could – tried pretty hard to find any instance of him referring to the DoD as the “Department of War” following Trump’s executive order; I could not.

Sharing it is only a sliver of the credit, most of which goes to the editor Spookyaki who majorly overhauled this article.

Wikipedia’s featured article today agrees: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luisa_Capetillo

Can you repeat the question?

You’re not the boss of me!

No! Your comment was supposed to be sarcastic and funny, so it needs a “/s” and a laugh track. My comment has no tone indicators, so you can tell I’m being super serious.

It’s still the Department of Defense statutorily until Congress decides otherwise. “Department of War” was done by executive order and is therefore as good as bitch boy child rapist’s fun nickname for the department that goes on press releases.

Upfront: Here’s the Administrators’ Noticeboard discussion.

Okay, this one apparently slipped under my radar, albeit it seems like they’re pretty small and only started in 2022. Here’s their 2025 report.

It seems like their limited focus is on using LLMs for interwiki translation; to what extent its paid editors are capable of that, I have no idea. We maintain a list of paid editing companies here (usually undisclosed against policy).

OKA asserts:

For example, articles in topics such as Science, technology, engineering, and Finance are lacking compared to topics such as History, Geography, and Humanities.

I have no idea how they reached this conclusion or how they think they’re qualified to translate anything given the random “totally not a Central European language” capitalization of words like that.

Per 404:

A job posting for a “Wikipedia Translator” from OKA offers $397 a month for working up to 40 hours per week. The job listing says translators are expected to publish “5-20 articles per week (depending on size).”

20 for any reasonable-size article could not adequately be vetted by one person in an 84-hour work week, for context, and that’s $9.90/hour at 40 hours. (edit: wait, sorry, I read that as $397 per week; $397 per month would be < $2.50/hour. What the fuck.)

Overall, before reading the discussion, the people at OKA seem like disruptive morons.

Edit: Into the discussion we go:

Cmon man, the training guide instructs translators to create multiple email accounts to get around LLM usage caps… — ExtantRotations

…yes, and? — 7804j [OKA founder]

Jesus christ. 🤦

Edit 2: 7804j just cannot stop themself from transparently using an LLM to participate in the discussion.

Edit 3: “we ensure they are above the minimum wage in the countries where the editors reside” oh my fucking god

Yeah, it comes from “putrescent” which has a stressed second syllable. “Quintessence” is a close sibling structurally if that one’s less off-putting.

That’s counting a claimed New Zealand pronunciation of “ˈdæ̝ɪn.d͡ʒə”, which does split the first syllable in two. Can’t attest to that particular one, but Wiktionary will try to capture different ways of pronouncing words across major variants.

Edit: Wait, that shouldn’t create a new syllable. Now I’ll need to investigate instead of just being confidently wrong.

Here’s Wiktionary’s category for 3-syllable English words in case anyone wants to get creative.

Edit: I’d argue “adultery” is doable but difficult, because it almost inherently sounds like you’re saying three words: “a fucking dultery”.

Edit 2: “the pu-fucking-trescence” might be my new favorite way to describe a terrible odor. It’s so extra.

Hi my name is Ebony Dark’ness Dementia Raven Way and I have long ebony black hair (that’s how I got my name) with purple streaks and red tips that reaches my mid-back and icy blue eyes like limpid tears and a lot of people tell me I look like Amy Lee (AN: if u don’t know who she is get da hell out of here!).

The killer almost had me, but I learned in self-defense class that “poisonous [organism]” only inherently means ingested in colloquial usage and that venoms are more properly a subset of toxins (naturally-occurring poisons) which are a subset of poisons. Consequently, it’s like the killer showed me a square and called it a quadrilateral: I’m too pedantic to be affected.

This article is hot bullshit and never substantiates its claim.

“Psychologists say” is already borderline weasel wording, but you’d think “maybe they have a study up their sleeve.”

• First section gives a singular anecdote and makes a claim.
• Second section links to information about people finding relationships with their dogs more fulfilling than humans. The study exists, but the blog links to Martha Stewart as an intermediary which is the most braindead way I could imagine to do so, and the study mentions nothing about sleeping or not sleeping with the dog, let alone anything about how sleeping is linked to stability.

Ultimately, this blog post shares one anecdote of a woman who says “I realized that [relationship with my dog] was the only relationship in my life where nothing needed to change”, uses that as the basis for their sweeping claim, and tries to obfuscate that source with sparse evidence amid a mountain of rhetoric to hopefully trick you into thinking “psychologists” say it.

It’s a half-hearted synthesis of the claim – piss-poor original research attributed vaguely to “psychologists”. A logorrheic, C- high school essay.

Edit: I got so caught up in the original claim that I forgot the article just outright fucking lies and then cites a Psychology Today article directly contradicting itself.

Author:

And dogs, by their nature, provide something almost no human relationship can sustain: a form of unconditional positive regard that doesn’t fluctuate based on performance, mood, or recent conflict. This is reflected in research on dog-human relationships.

Linked article:

It’s important to pay close attention to the fact that many humans exaggerate how much their dogs like or love them—they’re not unconditional lovers, and some humility would go a long way in bettering the ways in which we treat dogs.

What a farce. Downgraded to a D- for a sleight of hand citation.

And Trump’s impulsive string of invasions a second generation. Both for no adequate fucking reason to boot.

Here’s the relevant open-access journal article. These corresponding press releases from the university are always so noxiously peacockish.