While it can successfully be argued that the current U.S. form of constitutional republic is a democracy, you can have a constitutional republic that is not a democracy, for example if the constitution restricts the franchise to a very low percentage of the total population. ( “only white males with a net worth of more than 100 million dollars can vote”)
So technically the USA was not a democracy at the time of its founding? Because only white male landowners over the age of 21 could vote in the first election.
From a 21st Century perspective no.
The conclusion I’ve reached after much thinking about this is that democracy is not a binary state, but a continuum. Some states are more democratic than others.
Athens was more democratic than the Persian Empire, but women and slaves could not vote, so it was less democratic than the current Greek nation.
Anyway going back to constitutional republics, you could have a constitutional republic were the right to vote is so limited that it cannot be considered democratic, my point is that “constitutional republic” does not necessarily means “democracy”, unless a country where the constitution dutifully restricts the franchise to one person and their descendants, for example, is considered a democracy.
The uninvited correction to that one really gets on my nerves. I mean, if you’re in the company of philosophers or logicians, perhaps you have a finely honed vocabulary and ear for precision, but in a general audience? Most everyone uses it to mean “suggests the question,” probably because the phrasing intuitively feels like an elision of "begs [for] the question rather than some arcane use of beg. (Or, if not “arcane,” then much less known.) I used to change my phrasing when I was around types I thought may be sensitive to the misuse of “beg the question,” but now I just want those jackasses to identify themselves, so I “misuse” it with glee.
And if you trace its origins, “begs the question” seems to be a pretty bad translation of the original from Greek/Latin, which would a little more closely rendered as “assuming the point.”
I am not actually sure this qualifies for this thread but it still an amusing anecdote…
Vanilla Ice explaining the bassline to “Ice Ice Baby” is not actually the same one in Queen’s “Under Pressure” because he added an extra ding.
He later claimed he was jokinh.
“Decimate” doesn’t mean “devastate” or “destroy.” It means “reduce by 10%.” I don’t see that same level of nitpicking in “The Quarantine Zone” or the use of the word in general since it usually doesn’t refer to exactly 40 days. (Side note: I first encountered that word in either a “Fantastic Four” or “X-Men” comic as a kid. I had to look it up, and the dictionary I had said "reduce by 10%, which didn’t comport with what has happening.)
They are not “Canadian geese.” They are “Canada geese.” “Canadian geese” has been in use for over 150 years as an alternate name for those annoying birds. You don’t see that level of nitpicking when someone refers to those annoying shore birds as “seagulls” instead of just. . . “gulls”, or uses (gasp!) “possum” instead of “opossum.”
See also German Shepherd Dog.
Any thread about AI, especially generative images or chatbots, has to have someone reminding everyone that it’s not real artificial intelligence. Sure, but the term has been used for many decades to cover everything from ELIZA asking you “How does not real artificial intelligence make you feel?” to Deep Blue playing chess to controlling the armies in a video game. It’s a perfectly properly used catch-all term for computerized processes emulating actual thinking even if there’s not actual thinking happening.
I disagree with that, It was innocuous to call ELIZA and the like “AI”, because they were so obviously different from real AI.
Current “AI” LLMs mimic intelligence far better, and thus calling them “AI” reinforces the impression that they are more intelligent and trustworthy than normal intelligence, there’s a lot of people already out there justifying all kind of idiotic proposals because “AI says so!”, I think it’s worthwhile to try and clarify that no, LLMs are not “Intelligent”.
Which is different from saying that the term is being improperly used. Which it isn’t at this point; anyone wanting to stop it being being used in the common manner missed the boat on that by around fifty years.
Terms are not set in stone, may be LLMs fall under what was sometimes, unofficially, called “AI”. may be the best moment to start that to push against that was 50 years ago, the next best moment is right now.
ACK-shually, the next best moment would have been ~49 years ago 
The original Greek phrase was τὸ ἐξ ἀρχῆς αἰτεῖν, ‘asking for the initial thing’. That isn’t very clear either, except in the context of Aristotle explaining it. The “initial thing” (ἀρχή) means the proposition someone is trying to defend. It’s cheating by the rules of logic. “P, therefore P.” It’s like jumping from Go to Boardwalk on your first roll of the dice. You have to earn your proof, not just claim it. I really think “claiming the conclusion” is a clearer expression of it. What I call the conclusion (the Q.E.D. bit), Aristotle calls the “initial thing.” I noticed, after reading an introductory textbook in logic and then Ari’s original writing, that he stacked syllogisms upside down from the way the textbook taught. No wonder it gets confusing.
It’s a crap English translation of a bad Latin translation of a Greek upside-down logic scheme. The earliest use the OED cites is
1581 W. CLARKE in Confer. IV. (1584) Ffiij, I say this is still to begge the question.
I say, Ffiij on that, goodman Clarke, thou poxy varlet.
The accursed phrase is a linguistic abortion and is best abandoned and forgotten altogether.
One would think that the word “artificial” in that phrase would already convey that meaning.
hehehe
Let’s amend that to “the next available moment”
I just have to remark that “real artificial” is one for the books.
It is admittedly confusing to call them “bay gulls.”
That stuff that’s coating the dock isn’t cream cheese.
Ales with higher hop contents are often called beers, but this is not a formal rule
Pedants: iTs nOt BeEr iF tHeRe aRe nO hOpS
A nine-branched Hanukkah menorah or more specifically a hanukkiah is a type of menorah, but not the only kind. The standard seven-branched temple menorah is seen in many synagogs and is a common symbol of Judaism. Most people (including most Jews) don’t know the difference.