Wolf314159

Sand Hills aren't very afraid of humans anyway.

Yes, that is the vulnerability that you are exploiting and making worse for an entire family of cranes.

I've seen this story before. It usually ends in tragedy for the cranes. You've likely already seen the results with the loss of their chick. You blame it on a wild animal without proof, but it's just as likely that the reduction of their fear response to humans (as a direct result of your "kindness") led to their death.

I disagree on ever single point you've said here.

While I envy your ability to get close to wildlife, loosing their fear of humans is really very dangerous for Sand Hill Cranes especially.

Sounds like a skill issue. Good translation is hard and is rarely a literal one to one mapping of syntax and diction. It's an interpretive art.

Sounds like a skill issue. Bad translations are bad because they don't find good ways to translate these kinds of things. As you say, translation isn't just about the words, it's about cultural context. But, bad translations aren't inevitable just because good translations are difficult.

We all wear a mask.

I got my first Gmail address through an invite during the beta release in late 2004.

Just one paragraph? I understand why that feels like an indicator of LLM use these days, but that actually sounds like a fairly common mistake human writers might make. Author decides to move a topic to a different section, copies it and rewords to suite new placement and forgets to remove the section from it's original spot. A pro shouldn't be making that kind of mistake, but it's a particularly difficult one to spot in reviewing the article. It's an error that is especially difficult to spot if you're the author because of your own familiarity with the article. The only effective way I found to combat those kinds of mistakes in my writing was to delay my own review of my writing (sometimes as long as a day or two) after significant writing or edits. Clearly that strategy is unworkable in a fast paced journalism setting, where that kind of space between writing and editing cannot meet deadlines.

This would look a lot different than the similar AI slop tell I see in news articles that repeat the headline across multiple paragraphs in a row with different wording and no new details or clarifications. I don't see any of this in the article. I could not find the repeated paragraphs that you're talking about. Calling back to previous points in an essay with various subsections, even repeating important points and details is often just good writing.

Does it really matter what the machines "think" if they steal water and other resources from poor and vulnerable communities on a scale that makes Nestlé jealous?

I see the irony is lost on you.

I guess a proper margarita wasn't green enough?

That's like picking fights with strangers to manage your anger.