Tends to happen when a major fossil fuel exporter stops meeting its own domestic demands for gasoline and desperately needs imports.

I love how “brokethe terms of our contract” still works. Rouxls Kaard out here.

I can say off the bat that Etymonline has a narrower focus of words than Wiktionary (there are fewer English words, and there aren’t etymologies for non-English words except incidentally). And that’s more than fine. Something I like about Etymonline is that, because of its narrower scope, it can potentially be more readable to link somebody to an etymology that isn’t crowded out by e.g. synonyms, related words, rhymes, etc.

Something Wiktionary recently got that I see as lacking in Etymonline is an etymology tree (see: Wiktionary’s ‘apraxia’ and Etymonline’s ‘apraxia’). The Etymonline entry for ‘milk’ (see below) seems to have one, but Wiktionary’s seems more consistent and traversible.

Something small that I actively dislike about Etymonline is that there’s no ‘References’ section at the bottom. They do inline citations (for example, in ‘milk’, they reference ‘Watkins’), but then you often have to actively take an aside to the principal sources page. I also don’t like that the content is under a proprietary license given it’s primarily regurgitating a handful of other authors’ work.

TL;DR: Etymonline is fine, but given it’s the work of non-academics as well, I think it largely can be/has been overtaken by Wiktionary. I’ll bring up ‘milk’ again as a counterexample, though, where I think Etymonline does it better. They (correctly) note that the “plant milk” meaning goes back to the 1200s, whereas this isn’t discussed whatsoever on Wiktionary – where a reasonable user might wonder when people started using “milk” for plant milk. I think overall, you’re likely to have a fine experience using either.

For what it’s worth, “dickgirl” is lacking quotations/references on Wiktionary, so we’re failing to live up to attestation standards.

Without that, I don’t know if I’d be comfortable using “dickgirl” in an essay or a game of Boggle or putting it in a spelling bee for fear it isn’t a verifiable word.

I wonder if it could be used as a translator?

It’s usually my first stop if I have a word in another language that I want to translate. It pairs well with creating a custom Firefox search engine for Wiktionary and then using a shortcut like !wt.

So for example, if I want to know what “rassurant” means, I can type !wt rassurant, and it’ll take me to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rassurant.

Wiktionary is a sister project of Wikipedia and is to something like the Oxford English Dictionary or Merriam-Webster what Wikipedia is to Britannica.

Re: Urban Dictionary: sort of, but the slang is more curated. The inclusion criteria on Wiktionary are pretty lax, and it’s way more descriptivist than prescriptivist. For example, we have the word “hitstun”, which is fighting game jargon you won’t find in a major dictionary.

A major aspect Wiktionary has that other major dictionaries don’t is that it’s an everything-to-English dictionary (or everything-to-whatever-language, e.g. fr.wiktionary.org is an everything-to-French dictionary). So as a very, very extreme example, this is the English Wiktionary entry for ‘no’, which we have entries for in 91 languages. We even keep track of languages like Akkadian, Klingon, Proto-Indo-European, American Sign Language (ASL), and so on. (In total, we have definitions from over 5100 languages.)

It’s also way more flexible than a standard dictionary. For example, the French entry for Sagittarius (“Sagittaire”) has an image of Sagittarius and a ‘See also’ table of every other Zodiac sign in French. We also, of course, often have links back to Wikipedia. Likewise, (like the Oxford English Dictionary) we keep track of etymology, so for example, you can learn that the word “slogan” comes from Scottish Gaelic for “battle cry”. We keep track of rhymes, anagrams, derived terms, etc. too. And definitions will (ideally) also have real quotations so you can see how they’re used in a sentence.

Probably the main lacking aspect right now is the thesaurus, which exists but is undercooked.

TL;DR: Yes, it can replace a normal dictionary and then some. I don’t think it can replace a normal thesaurus yet for most people.

Just want to confirm that Wiktionary is amazing.

Edit: AMA if you’re interested in exploring or contributing to it.

You know, I never really considered automatic anti-vandalism mechanisms we have in place on OpenStreetMap, but they surely exist.

All that to say I think we’re good on OSM too. lol

Scooby Doo! Night of 100 Frights.

of course the marketing speak release note is going to sound like AI marketing speak

Weird. Because I’m not talking about the release note; I’m talking about It’s FOSS’ commentary on the release note. I read LibreOffice’s 26.8 blog post, and as someone who’s written a release blog before, it looks like a human wrote it. You’d think it wouldn’t if “of course it’s going to sound like AI marketing speak”.

Did you read what I wrote that you think I’m talking about the marketing note for LibreOffice 26.8?

As someone with ADHD, I really just hope this post sets an example for use of Grovers as an accessibility feature for shitposts going forward.

Did you not read the It’s FOSS article we’re supposed to be discussing that’s talking about LibreOffice?

Are you objecting to this reading like LLM slop?

I’m confused what you’re confused about. This is a direct quote – formatting and all – from the article. OP stripped out e.g. the emojis when pasting it here.

How ironic, then, that this It’s FOSS article reeks of slop.

🆕 LibreOffice 26.8: What’s New?

There’s no AI in LibreOffice 26.8. Nothing about the suite talks to a remote server, and none of it needs an internet connection to work.

This isn’t an oversight; it’s a promise. TDF says that if your work can’t leave the building for legal or privacy reasons, the only way to prove that later (during an audit, for example) is if the software never gave it anywhere to go.

Anyhow, coming back to the editors. 👇

Absolutely fuck this shit.

Edit: Here’s the blog post from TDF themselves if you don’t just want an AI chewing up and vomiting out what the humans behind LibreOffice wrote.

Dude, come on. Three years is not “many years ago”.

 *F*  *U*  *C*  *K* 

The Grover is 32 x 30 – scaled and then cropped in GIMP.

The power of PubMed compels you!

F U C K

Sorry, I’m sure this is thoughtful and well-written, but the word-to-Grover ratio is way off. I can’t read it.

Not possible until you find all seven of the Sesame Emeralds.

That’s a relief. The original only had one Grover, which I thought wasn’t acceptable for audiences in 2026.