I haven’t seen widespread use of the word “neurodivergent” as a kind of… whatever this is, weirdly euphemistic slur, almost?
It’s a continuation of the euphemism treadmill [1]. It won’t be long before “neurodivergent” is considered politically incorrect and a new term is invented to replace it.
[1] https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Euphemism%20...
And yet again, these Lincoln systems mess up. While giving advice to the author can avoid Great Grimsby mistakes, making the replacements automatically is an utterly Scunthorpe decision, with failures as Slough as they are foreseeable.
If the intent is to be unhurtful, it should need to choose a different word to if the intent is to be hurtful! Even our most sophisticated automated systems are Milton Keynes at determining that kind of thing.
Reword the following passage. Change euphemisms to wording that has similar meaning though no negative conotations. Indicate changed words by putting them in "{{word}}"
###
Standards are supposed to lead
...
Why are such requests made? Often because of arithmetic bugs. And what is a non-null pointer from malloc(0) good for? Absolutely nothing, except shooting yourself in the foot.
###
Standards are meant to provide the groundwork for a better world by enabling code portability. Real standardization necessitates {{managing}} a variety of compiler and library implementations while maintaining sensible rules. The saga of the realloc story demonstrates that C standardization does not operate in this fashion any longer.
As C89 was being crafted, there was a {{unconventional}} thought of a "zero-length object": Supporters proposed that a non-null pointer to such an object should be given for requests for zero-byte allocation.
Why do such requests come about? Frequently due to miscalculations. And what is a non-null pointer from malloc(0) useful for? Nothing, apart from {{setting oneself up for failure}}.
heading cats -> managing
neurodivergent -> unconventional
shooting yourself in the foot -> setting oneself up for failure
How about “awful” “asinine” or “shit-tastic” instead?
> Reword the following passage. Change euphemisms to wording that has similar meaning though no negative conotations. Indicate changed words by putting them in "{{word}}"
>
> The couples were of unconventional make up, including male and female pairings, male and male pairings as well as female and female.
>> The couples had non-traditional compositions, with pairings consisting of men and women, men and men, and women and women.
So's male and female apparently.