oo1

I think it's pretty genderless, just because I've heard enough women use it about women or mixed groups. You can always use his surname instead, just update a bit to modern pronounciation, call everyone: Fuck, Fucks, Fuckers. I think that solves it.

Calling everyone "homo" is another good one.

Some languages like French use "ils" for mixed groups (same as male groups). But others like German use "sie" (same as "she/her"). Plurals in german, I think, usually become feminine (die Manner) - although German has many other gender-bending cases that I can't begin to understand. I'm sure there's lots of other languages that have a million other features/inconsistencies/expressions of patriarchal domination like this.

Sweet

Don't fly in a plane until aftr you've applied and been rejected then, surely.

GNU Terry Pratchett

Fucking terminal, in many of them ctrl+c and ctrl+v don't even work. and don't get me started on how they implement ctrl+z. I'm waiting for a terminal to have the ms-office ribbon menu bar before I'll use it.

Yeah built in user screening process. Screwed by endeavourOS though.

Guillotining the bougeoisie?

Voltaire invented most forms of "woke" in Paris a few hundred years a head of time.

There's a less popular name "Jago" in English that would fit. I think that also comes from Jacob or Iago.

So I reckon "Saint Jago"

Finding a loophole or an inconsistency about grammar doesn't prove that language shouldn't make sense to at least two people. I mean did anyone ever actually say that to communicate that actual meaning? If not then its not relevant at all.

But even if someone did say that with the intent to communicate (something about bison?), language or grammar, especially as it emerges from fallible human communication is allowed to make mistakes.

That's why we have words like "misunderstanding". It's also why meanings and patterns of use LITERALLY change over time. But whether misunderstood or unintelligible or encrypted it's fundamental purpose is still to communicate.

It could be a form of bundling, tacit veritcal integratation, magin squeeze , price discrimination, tie-ins etc.

Various tricks oligopolistic companies use to prevent competition from bidding prices down - trying to extract a bit of extra profit. The harm is that people are paying more than they might - or for extra features they cant opt out of than they would in a free or open market. Likely the harm is very diffuse and no one person is all that bothered to be paying 10% more or whatever, but it all adds up.

Anti-trust regulators are so weak they don't really have to try though. TBF it's very hard to prove this stuff in court even if there was a political will to improve competition to benefit consumers.

Maybe they emphasise "children" to encourage more of the current adult generation to sacrifice themselves. And to manage expectations of when the benefits arise.

But Civ5 already had universal healtcare.

https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Universal_Healthcare_(Civ5)