zlacker

I guess you missed the part about Amal Clooney‘s husband at the Golden Globes. It’s 2023, why are we still referring people like that?

>>ivan_g+(OP)
The insinuation is that her most notable accolade is the man she married and there are cases where that's an accurate insinuation.

I have no idea who she is or what her accolades are, but I do know who JGL is and therefore referring to her like that is in fact useful to me, where using any other name is not.

>>ivan_g+(OP)
It was funny because with the Clooneys both of them have actually accomplished things in significant situations and it was clearly wrong.

In this case this person seems to have primarily tried and failed to spin a robotics company out of Singularity “university” in 2012.

This only sounds adjacent to AI if you work in Hollywood.

>>Taek+M2
Could you please elaborate how is this fact useful to you? Can it be that you just make certain stereotypical assumptions from it?

>>svnt+C7
It was wrong not because they both did achieve something. It is generally wrong and the joke just used their achievements to break the barrier for understanding that.

>>ivan_g+0j1
Suggesting that we should be on a first name basis with the romantic partner of every famous person we know of simply because they are the romantic partner of a famous person is pretty naive. “Spouse of Y” works just fine generally to save space and effort for (locally) real people.