my_hat_stinks

This specific case isn't really to do with the evolution of language, more just ineffective linguistic prescriptivism. Some guy 200 years ago decided they didn't like how "less" had been used for the past millennium so they made up a guideline for what the preferred (like what you just said) then people decided to treat that as an actual rule. Obviously it's still common to use "less" that way even after a couple of centuries of people trying to enforce that rule, it's a good demonstration of how prescriptivism is a waste of time.

Strangely enough, in my experience many prescriptivists who rely on etymological arguments are fine with language changing for this one rule. Makes me think they never really did care about historic usage of a word.

Alice: So, how do you identify?
Bob: Normal.

What's the odds Bob's a bigot? Someone asked how to describe their sexuality, "normal" is not a useful answer.

I disagree with that framing, someone not buying your shit is not the same as you losing money. Inkscape saved millions for graphic designers, which is very different. Adobe was not entitled to that money, you can't lose something that was never yours.

The British monarchy primarily "provides" money by owning land and other assets which would otherwise be government-owned. They also "earn" a shitload of money just for existing and still dump significant expenses onto taxpayers.

First paragraph of the article:

Earlier this month, the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement added Microsoft to its list of priority targets due to the company’s intense entanglement with the Israeli military via Azure cloud and AI services. Specifically, BDS called for supporters to boycott Xbox, including Game Pass, individual games, and future purchases of consoles and peripherals. Now, in a show of solidarity, indie label Ice Water Games has removed one of its projects, open-world tactics RPG Tenderfoot Tactics, from the Xbox store.

The important factor isn't whether someone can be addicted (otherwise you're banning nearly everything), it's the harm that addiction causes. As a general rule of thumb physical dependencies like alcohol are more harmful than habitual addictions, but that obviously isn't the whole story.

Caffeine addiction is the same category as alcohol and tobacco but causes so little harm that I don't think anyone is seriously opposed it. On the other end of that scale is something like meth or other hard drugs, generally understood as destructive and has few serious supporters encouraging use. Breaking these addictions is almost always hard and physically taxing, in some cases can even be lethal.

Marijuana addiction is in the same category as most things that make you feel good or form habits so it's harder to nail down a proper scale, but the lower end is probably something like video games; a debilitating addiction is possible but uncommon and most people would oppose a blanket ban on the basis of "can be addictive". Gambling is on the other end can definitely ruin lives. I'd say that's a little worse than coffee. Breaking these addictions is more like breaking a bad habit, it can feel hard for the addict but generally isn't going to kill them.

There is no middle ground between binary options. You have rights or you don't. You hate or you don't. "Just a little bigotry" it's still bigotry. If I say 1+1=2 but you say it's 3 that does not make the right answer 2.5.

Your worldview is literally the middle ground fallacy.

Supporting human rights isn't in any way "gaslighting". It's very reasonable to ban someone for being a piece of shit.

From your description it sounds like they haven't complied with a legally binding ombudsman decision. The ombudsman is the last stop before legal action, you should get in touch with a real solicitor rather than ask for anonymous advice online.

An N322A form might be what you need to enforce the decision, but if I were you I'd check with Citizens Advice or a lawyer first.

You are very bad at trolling. Try reading the first sentence of the source instead of skipping to a related etymology. Use of a word in a 1610 text is concrete evidence of use of that word existing in 1610, regardless of any other claims that text makes; if it read "Martians ate my baby" that would be concrete evidence of the word "Martians" being used but not of Martians existing.

I posted three sources and you evidently did not read any of them. The latest of the three sources is the exact same variant as modern use and dated 1500s, which is slightly more than the 100 years ago you're claiming.

When I said it was a biblical term I was being entirely literal. King James translation circa 1610, Acts 11:26:

And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.