Anything that verifies the claims the senators are making.

The claim they cited from Republicans is just that it pushes back regulations, which is, like... Are you seriously asking for proof of that from a 381-page bill voted on 85–5 by a Republican-majority Senate? Is that some kind of specific, deeply controversial claim that needs interrogating in an article for a general audience? And the claims from Warren and Trump (for which their own agreement itself can be used as evidence) are that it pushes back on corporate ownership of houses:

The legislation would approve a series of funding and grant programs for constructing new homes. It would slash red tape and empower local governments to expedite reviews to build more housing. And a key section titled “Homes Are For People, Not Corporations” would restrict any “large institutional investor” from buying single-family homes.

At which point, you, a functioning, literate adult, can go to the bill's table of contents, find that it's Sec. 1001 (pp. 360–379), and read through it. If you're looking for an in-depth legal analysis: congratulations. That's cool. I hope somebody like LegalEagle makes one for you. Here's a summary of the bill's sections from the US House Financial Services Committee if that helps you at all.

That again doesn't make this article "trash"; it means you're looking for something deeper than what most people are.

It's only reporting the horse race aspects of it's passage, which is the least important part.

That's because you can go right now to the legislation they hyperlinked if you want to know the text of the bill. The fact that the article is reporting on the politics surrounding a bill and giving a broad overview of what it does doesn't make it "trash"; it makes it not what you're specifically interested in, which is fine.

Which part of the 381-page document are you upset they weren't quoting from or deep-diving into?

Oh. :)

Good luck then, hunters!

And you said "try to guess this [episode]!", when in reality, this isn't from an episode at all. (If they're to be believed, that is; I've never watched Generations and have no idea.)

Poor pup knows their work is getting people sentenced through deliberately obscured trials and executed for drug trafficking charges.

Edit: Also, whatever AI upscaling was seemingly used here is really fucking up the text.

N- no one, I don't think?

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.

Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.

Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.

Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

For some reason, I thought "Stupid." was answering the headline for a second.

Languages where English respects the source grammar

You're saying "English" as if it's a singular entity, which is obviously absurd.

I don't know how you didn't understand, but I showed how two Chinese loanwords used in English – bok choy and ketchup – respectively do and do not generally have their original grammar respected. I likewise used the plural of "octopus" (incidentally with a 'c' instead of a 'k' like it "should" have) to show that a word of Greek origin has varying degrees of respect for its roots (but that it's generally disrespected by most people).

The point being that it's a mixed bag. You can cherrypick European and non-European words that do and do not have their original pluralization generally respected by modern English speakers, just like you've done here, to make whatever kind of argument you want. And why are you thowing proper nouns in here? Yeah, Americans kept the name "Los Angeles". Okay? Is that why it's called "New York City" and not "Nieuw Amsterdam" right now? Is that why Americans pronounce the name of the country on their southern border as "Meksiko?"

It's very clear you're making this argument based on vibes, because absolutism clearly doesn't work, and any attempt to make this argument about Eurocentrism via actual statistical means requires extensive knowledge that you plainly don't have when you're making basic-ass oversights like this.

I'm really glad it's useful to you, although I don't think so; if this backwater, 30-upvote post squeezed their API, there'd be a serious problem.

but somehow only for European sourced words.

Modern English picks and chooses to be sure (see, for example: octopodes (correctly conforms), octopi (overcorrection), octopuses (arguably most common)), but to say English only considers this for words of European origin is obviously bullshit. If I said "I have two bok choys on my cutting board", most English speakers who regularly use that noun would think it sounds wrong; it sounds wrong because it never got pluralized, and it's of Chinese origin where there aren't really plurals. On the other hand, most people wouldn't take issue with you saying "I've got two ketchups" in reference to different bottles or types of ketchup – despite again being of Chinese origin and not having an original plural.

I don't understand why you're taking an argument about prescriptivism and descriptivism and turning it into a weird, easily debunkable argument about Eurocentrism.

Allegedly, the way to access them is to enable a layer called "Quests".

(The singular of 'algae' is 'alga', you absolute philistine.)

It basically boils down to "do nothing", right?

Sort of due to a flaw in the syntax; it (almost) boils down to an infinite loop (we'll fix the syntax to specify "I wish for you to" and use the wish flags '!' = opposite, '~' = ignore/skip (we'll assume this exhausts a wish still even though it shouldn't since it doesn't matter anyway), and for clarity, we'll make '+' mean no flags/execute normally; all 3 wishes are '+' at the start of the first loop):

• "I wish for you to do the opposite of my next wish." (flag set to do !wish2)
• "I wish for you not to fulfill my third wish." (flag set for +wish3)
• "I wish for you to [have ignored] my first wish." (now ~wish1 was set before you made wish 2; notably, this needs to be retroactive for the loop to start, so the syntax in the OP is wrong).

Now +wish2 was set. But then the flag for ~wish3 was set. But then +wish1 was set (i.e. it was never ignored; this is flawed, however, but author's logic). Now !wish2 was set. Now ~wish3 was set. Etc.

Every even loop (0-indexed) will be (+, !, +) while every odd one will be (~, +, ~).

That said, a flaw in this logic is that it should actually stop after Loop 1, since wish3 is no longer an active wish; the genie doesn't have to go back and change anything. You need the wish to be active, not ignored, to break the genie into an infinite loop.

"I wish for you to do the opposite of my first wish." as wish3 should break 'em.

Here's the Pew article instead of the journalistic swill Futurism publishes.

The escalator was just Gene Parmesan in disguise.

This is a huge victory for the United State of America.

Death of the author moment: this is an abstruse part of the satire and not a typo.

Cool to see someone from the Portuguese Wikipedia! The mobile app hates the '1874 expedition' section for whatever reason, but without checking the wikitext, it works fine on the website, so whatever. Maybe I'll have a look at the full article later and try to do a bit of cleanup e.g. on the citation errors.

Maybe it's like the "World's Youngest Person" award that gets cycled through rapidly and is contingent on who last purchased the mug.

To that end, I suggest we serialize and globally synchronize them so people know the order in which "World's Best Dad" was awarded.

So I have to say reading it now that you really need to do better on citations in the future. The article's current state is an absolute mess.

• Book sources have no page numbers.
• Seemingly half of the citations have obvious, red errors.
• There's usage of 'FamilySearch' for non-trivial factual claims despite the fact it's user-generated content. Another is a link to Letterboxd, unreliable for the exact same reason.
• In a very basic reading of the first couple paragraphs, I've seen at least one claim that outright isn't matched with a citation.
• Many links are dead with no archives.
  • Multiple of these still are marked "untitled", so functionally all you have to go off of is the date.
• There are no English translations of the source titles (which isn't required but is nice when effectively every source is in Portuguese).
• Reference names are weirdly shortened in a way you definitely don't have to since they're only visible in wikitext anyway (e.g. The London and China Telegraph, 1874 is shortened to "teleg"). This normally isn't terrible, but in this case, you're using Wiki Q, so to even have a bare minimum understanding of what's being referenced, you have to go to the Wikidata entry.
  • Taking that as an example, the Wikidata entry you created is titled "The London and China Telegraph, 1874", except The London and China Telegraph is a newspaper, and you're specifically citing the "Monday, July 6, 1874" edition, i.e. you've used a title that applies to many other issues of the paper (you also call it an instance of a "book").

TL;DR: Unfortunately an absolutely inscrutable spaghetti of citations that's going to take a ton of effort to untangle. You have, I think, ~11,000 edits on the Portuguese Wikipedia, so I know I'm not punching down by pointing out that this is an utterly unacceptable state for citations to be in. A Wikipedia article is functionally worthless without proper citations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXD9HnrNrvk