I really wonder what's going on in the editors minds here.
The entire premise of the article is "All experts say no, but I think yes" - why would anyone about any topic publish this? If it would be an actual debate, maybe some contrarian but actual experts arguing in favor of sentience, you could get into an argument here. But this article is blatant science denial. Climate change deniers and antivaxxers use the exact same approach "facts say X, but my feelings say Y".
I mean, obviously. They had no other choice after the woke mob and their "slavery is bad, mkay" destroyed the entire workforce market!!!
(/s, just in case)
And you really think "the elites" are the ones buying and selling here?
Yes, they have a lot of wealth in stocks, but usually they simply own a large chunk of their (or their parents) company and the rest is managed by a fund manager. And if you have millions or billions, you don't need to think quarter to quarter.
One part is a reverse game of chicken, buy the dippest dip to realize most profit from less dippy dip buyers.
The other part is the assumption that this means the tariffs will never actually come or at least in a much relaxed form.
I mean, "safest" is a superlative, not a positive. It's perfectly possible that all other pipelines ruptured three times or more.
Not to sound confrontational, but you're way too focused on your - likely rather advanced - usage.
90% of people search for very simple stuff. They want to know the weather or want to know about that new movie they don't quite remember the name of. And for that use case, Google is perfectly serviceable. And since people are used to it, for example by it being the default on most platforms, they use it.
A lot of market leaders are objectively a bad choice, but they're a known brand. Coca cola, McDonald's, Oracle, etc.
That is ...
Surprisingly deep.
Pronouns are not adjectives, they're pronouns.
Maybe I'm talking weird, but how often do you refer to yourself by any non-reflexive pronoun?
It's not gatekeeping, it's a medical definition.
What's so hard to understand about that?
You're not OCD because you sorted Skittles by color once either.
But trauma, as I understand it, is more like a broken bone
That's a medical trauma, yes. But the situation described here is a light bruise at best.
Yes, these terms encompass a range of severities, but at some point you have to say "No, Terry, a broken nail is not a trauma, and you can't go to the emergency room because of it".
People love the feeling of being super empathetic if they support this language. And others love the feeling of self victimization.
And the actual victims don't get the attention they need, because Terry cries about having made a bad joke yesterday.
Because it's not using hot steam, but vapor, it's more like sweating.
The heat exchangers are sprayed with misted water, which evaporates and takes away heat. But the resulting vapor is still only slightly above ambient temperature and can't be reasonably condensated.