You’re supposed to start signalling before you turn, so that would be kinda useless

Look at the path. It goes directly to the base of the mirror from the ‘other’ side, but you can’t see it at all on ‘this’ side. You’re not telling me that’s not edited. Even if there’s some optical illusion shit going on and the mirror is actually leaning back much more than it appears, this would still imply that the path goes directly towards some random wall and then just ends, or at least makes a very sharp turn, at most 0.5 meter in front of it? Why would it do that?

You’re only strengthening my theory that you have absolutely no reading comprehension. Or you’re just trolling. Literally none of the things you just said make any logical sense whatsoever and I refuse to believe that anyone that passed elementary school can be so absolutely illiterate.

Please do tell me how if I wrote the whole definition there of “determination of the value, nature, character, or quality of something or someone” instead of shortening it to just “determine quality” it would make my entire point completely invalid.

And literally how can you look at my comment and, with straight face, say that I didn’t address your claim of “reframing”. It was all literally addressing it. But ok, you’re a moron so you might have not understood my point so let me put it in simpler terms:

Me show you the definition of word Me give an example Me refer to definiton to show example can be described with word You: that’s reframing

Do you see how absurdly idiotic you’re being?

I literally gave you a definition that says a review means to determine quality, I just assumed you would make the connection between that definition and the sentence you quoted, but apparently you’re too dense for that. The only error I made in this conversation is assuming that your reading comprehension is above that of a 3rd grader

I did and it does. For example the Merriam-Webster English Dictionary defines review as:

a critical evaluation

Whereas evaluation is defined as:

determination of the value, nature, character, or quality of something or someone

It’s subtle, but it’s in there. The examples you gave don’t fall under this definition, as they don’t determine anything, they’re just statements of facts. However the statement “this game is shit” is a determination of quality and thus a review. If you just stop for a moment and think about it, you’ll realise that it is impossible to determine the quality of a video game in a purely objective way.

All reviews are subjective by definition. Your examples are observations, not reviews. A review is my opinion of the product based on my experience. Like honestly, if you ever wrote a review about anything on Steam, or IMDB, or GoodReads or whatever, go find it and remove everything that’s subjective and see what you’ll end up with. Not like you’d be able to post it, because they require you give a score, which is inherently subjective.

It sounds fake, but it might genuinely be your genes. Scientifically the natural tendency to sleep at specific time is called your chronotype and it’s semi-genetic (it also changes with age and possibly few other factors). Not only that, it also affects your alertness: morning people usually have the highest alertness just after waking up and it gradually declines throughout the day, while evening people usually wake up with very low mental functions, but then their alertness slowly rises and hits its’ peak around 5-6PM.

So if you ever wondered how it’s possible that you always wake up feeling like shit, while others talk about how they’re so full of energy in the morning. That’s how. They’re literally built different.

“Compiled and edited” doesn’t mean written. He just took Tesla’s articles and put them in a book. The words are still Tesla’s. Like, what the hell are you on? You literally linked me one of those articles, and it’s in the literal description you just quoted, so you must know that.

I also don’t think you know what “ghost writing” means.

But most importantly you’re just arguing semantics at this point. Instead of addressing any of the actual points, you choose to argue whether Tesla’s words put into a book count as autobiography. It doesn’t matter. They’re Tesla’s words, and you know it because you literally linked to the place where he wrote them. The only reason you’d do this is if you could see you’re wrong, but were too stubborn and proud to admit it, so you try to derail the discussion by changing the subject. I will not allow that. If you still want to have this discussion, bring some actual points that are relevant, if not, that’s fine by me, but I will not wrestle you in mud.

What do you mean “not autobiography”? He literally wrote it.

It is.

My “Wha?” was meant to express that I have no idea what you’re talking about, as that sentence was absolutely unintelligible to me.

Your link doesn’t work for me, but it seems like you’re linking to the very quote I gave, just in the original magazine, not in the book. Why? You’re only proving me right in that Tesla never said it was Edison.

Where did you find that

I told you. In Tesla’s literal autobiography called “My Inventions”, full text of which you can find here.

I’ve got multiple sources who say the same

None of them are Tesla though. It’s all just a giant echo chamber all quoting each other, sometimes changing it slightly, but noone ever can be bothered to actually check the primary sources.

you’ve got “nuh uh” for a subject better you not I were alive to know first hand

Wha?

How is sourced PBS publication “a fucking pile of garbage”

It doesn’t seem to contain any sources whatsoever. They also say that “Tesla claimed” those things, yet they never say where or when he supposedly claimed that.

The link you sent doesn’t seem to contain anything, but it looks like it’s supposed to link to the magazine “Electrical Experimenter”, so I went ahead and checked its every 1919 issue. Couldn’t find what you’re claiming. In fact I couldn’t find anything negative about Edison at all. Curious.

The earliest source I could find of that claim is a book called “Prodigal Genius: The Life of Nikola Tesla”, released in 1944, so a year after Tesla’s death, and it also doesn’t say where that quote is actually taken from. Interestingly, the author of this book claims that upon hearing the request for payment Edison said: “Tesla, you don’t understand our American humor”. So quite different to what the PBS article claims. In fact, it seems like the newer the source, the more villainous and bigoted that alleged quote becomes.

You’re welcome to prove me wrong though. If you show an actual, trustworthy, primary source, I will change my mind.

I’d really like to see where you got that quote, because it’s complete bullshit. This story originally comes from Tesla’s autobiography:

The Manager had promised me fifty thousand dollars on the completion of this task but it turned out to be a practical joke.

But you see that? He never said it was Edison, just ‘The Manager’.

Btw in that same book Tesla calls Edison “a wonderful man”.

Edit: nvm, I found what you quoted. It’s this fucking pile of garbage

Source?

Unpopular opinion: Edison wasn’t nearly as bad as people are painting him to be.

Extra unpopular opinion: Musk is, very much, quite similar to Nikola Tesla, as he was an extravagant lunatic, that really liked talking about shit he had no idea about, a bitter loser that prefered playing the victim over accepting responsibility for his failures, and he also had fanboys that mindlessly gobbled up everything he said.

Edit: Hey, cowards, instead of just downvoting me, how about some of you try to help the one brave man that actually tried to prove me wrong, he seems to be bruised from falling flat on his face so many times