On one hand, I mourn for the data quality being ruined even more; on the other - thats pretty funny!
They should really adopt a policy of verification.

Sounds a little like later Bleeding Through, possibly with a bit of Dimmu Borgir, Cradle, Opeth and a slight hint of Symohony X. That's certainly a heady mix!

I'm not much of a lover of sweet food, but that looks like something I should be jealous about not having.

SD: "But the ticket says..."

Spoke too soon! They've moved on.

Hmm, this is odd. Normally they pass through. Happy for the wee critter to stay here, but I think I may need to create some lodgings.

The "power shuffling" mole will forever be a favorite, though

Clegg was such an ineffective entity when he had a reasonable position to effect change, this really isn't much of a surprise. He's just another politician who played the game for financial interests.
The only alternative I see to break the mould are the Greens at this point.

The thing is, AI is being baked into already widely adopted services, so people get it whether they want it or not. Surely that stews the metrics. As an example, Google and many other SEs provide an AI overview by default.

For me, this is it. I've felt I've had to keep up with it, but I don't think I've had a huge amount out of it. It's quite good for finding out about some things sometimes, but that's about all I've found to be useful for.

to such a fine degree that effectively, I have to try and take on the context of the AI, which, for me, defeats the point. I'm not sure at this point if I'm foolish for not getting the right answers from using *AI or smart for not accepting the answers given as right.

By far, the most pragmatic approach I've seen so far. I have seen equivalent takes, mind, for a while, but nevertheless.
That being said, I still think it's easier and faster to just write the code myself. Any time I've tried the above approach, I still feel I need to check over the output -