j.r. leonard

Indeed I am. But this strikes me as a fairly straightforward question: Are the memos contained in the Google Memo leak actually memos that were once circulated at Google?

consider it this way if the New York times had an expose of the NRA and their first item in the expose was total bullshit wouldn't you think maybe the rest of the times reporting is bullshit? I mean you're supposed to put your best foot forward, not trip over it

I think that arguing "that memo doesn't exist" at least argues against the point. Arguing that the memo contains B.S. is a different argument. Is the argument that, since the memo contains B.S., it must not be authentic? Because that, at least, makes sense to me.

What exactly is the argument? Google translate used to mistranslate ‘covfefe’ and google changed that once it became a thing. How is that 1984? It only means anything if covfefe was ever a legitimate translation of that phrase. Show me that and you got something

My argument is that if these memos exist then they indicate some amount of shenanigans going on at Google HQ. It's not merely that they stopped incorrectly translating a nonsense word as a phrase that makes sense, it's that they deliberately Easter Egged it.

Tell me what the shenanigans are in plain English. If Google Translate used to incorrectly translate covfefe and Trump’s Tweet revealed that, what’s the appropriate response? Is someone arguing that’s really a word or that Trump got the translation from Google?

Eh, there are a few appropriate responses. One is to fix the error without saying you've done so. Another is to fix the error with an asterisk and say "we used to translate this thus, that was an error that has been rectified".

We don’t know how many fixes Google makes in a given day. If they are constantly updating their code, why would they note it? For argument’s sake, let’s say this is special. They failed to note a change. And they used a coffee bean analogy for diversity. That’s 1984?