Yeah. “It was an accident” sounds like pleading, excusing. “I inadvertently…” sounds like an explanation of the facts. imo

I think a journalist might choose the word 'unintentionally'; inadvertently is a bit clunky, it lacks a bit of music, and it gives me a sense of slapstick comedy. This sentence, for instance, "Having inadvertently caused the death of her son," sounds to me like the son died as a result of some Pink Panther bit.

I don't think 'accidentally' here needs to feel judgy per se, but it is hard to imagine an English major choosing it.

tbf it was played straight in Hot Fuzz, Sgt. Angel was right and there was somebody who caused it.

I had an inadvertent!

I'm not reading any negative connotation at all.

For what it's worth, those examples for 'accident' are being used as euphemisms to soften the blow of the intended message, and you can't soften the blow without using soft words.

Car accidents have noun-ified the word a bit, though, so I do see where you're coming from.

Do floods correlate well with the climate there, or are they affected by something else, too? If they are not much affected, then that could be a dataset indeed

If someone posts a record of climate data dating back to the year 812, and you demand a citation specifically for the claim that it's the longest-dated climate dataset, then yeah the burden of proof absolutely works the other way around.

It's a climate dataset, and it's freaking old. Unless you can point to one that's older, it's the oldest one.

EDIT: oof, blocked 👋

What, really? People do this?

And why, is it the comment chain where I was saying Adam Schiff has a more consistent track record than Chuck Schumer and other milquetoast establishment Dems, and therefore not the right target for ire? Or the one where I was arguing with someone who was being a bigot under a thin veneer of "feminism", who pretty consistently stated quite plainly that my feelings don't matter because I'm a guy and men's feelings don't matter so I should just suck it up and not be offended (which is literally toxic masculinity, not feminism)? Or did you scroll all the way down to where a mod called me sexist for responding to a post (that was literally asking why there aren't more media depictions of positive male role models) by saying that depictions of positive male role models get shunned and canceled because they don't conform to the narrative that all men are inherently toxic?

Either way, it seems like a silly thing to do, checking someone's mod history over a simple comment that you happen to disagree with. Especially when your own mod history includes posting unreliable sources to a news comm, being rude to someone for being a guy, getting banned from egg_irl for bioessentialist takes, and apparently... posting NSFW images of... checks notes... "applying lube like condiments on a hotdog"... in a SFW community...

So... you know what they say about glass houses and throwing rocks, right? ...

Yes and no. Just like the claim of God, you can't prove that something doesn't exist. If it exists, then you may be able to show it. If it doesn't exist then there's no way to show that. Proof, in this case, would be somehow showing that something doesn't exist. You can provide evidence, but not proof. You can provide proof against this, by just providing an older record though.