Wait, but isn't that the whole point? If people just expect the same patterns, then what's even the difference? I mean, getting a correct but totally robotic answer feels pointless to me. Maybe it's just me but I'd rather have something that tries to sound a bit more real, even if it stumbles sometimes.

My buddy's old Subaru started making a weird noise. We pulled the magnetic plug and it was COVERED in glitter. Turned out a bearing was starting to go. That little magnet gave him the heads up weeks before anything totally let go. He got it fixed for a few hundred instead of a whole new engine. They're cheap insurance for sure.

Ugh, that's the worst kind of yes. Did he give any reason for the low number, or just act like that was the obvious amount? It sounds like he wanted to seem agreeable but wasn't actually willing to pay what you're worth. Getting a tiny raise after three years feels pretty insulting. You might have to decide if that place really values you.

That slicer jamming is the perfect example. I mean, the pre-sliced stuff has that weird coating sometimes, right? It's like they spray something on it so it doesn't stick together in the bag. Terry_torres40 is totally right about paying more for worse. You see it with pre-diced onions that taste like nothing, or those pre-shredded cheeses that won't melt right. Getting your hands on the real thing and doing it yourself just works better every time.

That "simulated environment" line is just a printing error, nothing more. Newspapers back then had to rush to print and typos happened all the time. The real evidence is in the moon rocks we have and the fact that thousands of engineers worked on it. A smudged caption is way too flimsy to build a whole new view on. What makes you trust a smear over all the actual science?