Because the people making purchasing decisions for SAP and Salesforce are not people who spend any substantial share of their time using it directly or care about the UX.
> The right wing wants to help people in the long term and the left wing wants to help people in the short term.
The right-wing wants to narrow the concentration of power and increase inequality and rigidity of social heirarchy, the left-wing wants to increase the distribution of power and decrease inequality and rigidity of social heirarchy.
Each side views their orientation as being what helps people (or, at least, the people who should be helped) in the long term, and usually the short term as well.
NASA has always had significant role in forward looking research in the area of civilian aviation (which it assumed from the agency it replaced, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics.)
It is a definition; the transition between the logotype and normal text has an implicit [:}, NASAFORCE: technologists inside the systems that power American spaceflight, aeronautics, and scientific discovery.
Though its an odd choice that they run it in with the paragraph of normal text rather than making that a heading. Of course, with a four day hiring window its a website that exists as pro forma evidence that there was a public website about the hiring effort, the people actually intended to be hired were almost certainly notified in advance out of band, so there probably wasn't a whole lot of effort put into this.
Unfortunately, many American English speakers will conjugate verbs in the singular for a collective noun like "NASA", so that doesn't sound quite as perfect as it should.
We lean so hard into incorporation that we see it grammatically as an entity, rather than as multiple people behind the entity's mask.
You can't put a period on that (in gramatically-correct English) because it isn't a sentence. You can't have a sentence without a verb. There's no verb here. If you look through a real dictionary you'll also notice that the definitions are not period-terminated sentences, and this is why
Mildly amusing that "◶NASAFORCE technologists" sounds like a natural enough string in context that it becomes a garden path sentence leading away from that interpretation.
> and in the end it looks so similar to the other one:
Maybe if you are looking at it in a monospaced environment like the HN edit window; rendered in a proportional font, hyphens, en-dashes, and em-dashes are quite distinct from eachother.
> It's no surprise humans barely use them. Then why did it get picked up so much by AIs?
It got picked up by AIs because their training corpus includes plenty of professionally published work, not just informal, off-the-cuff communication, and professionally published work uses typographic dashes (em-dashes, en-dashes, and even 2-em- and 3-em-dashes) extensively. (3-em less so in newer works, it having, e.g., dropped out of the recommendations of the Chicago Manual of Style as of 2024.)
Government tobacco smoking bans in indoor spaces accessible to the public (or outdoor spaces near the entrances to such spaces) are not uncommon in the US, nor are private contractual (via leases for rental properties and sometimes CC&Rs that bind property owners) bans for non-public spaces.
Gonzales v. Raich (2005) is a pretty straightforward application of the precedent of Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) [0] rather than a novel, out-of-the-blue new interpretation of the Constitution.
reply