Do you mean "should've"? That's a common contraction of "should" and "have." In many American accents, the difference between "should've" and "should have" is negligible, and will sound like "should of" even though it isn't.
It also depends on the audience and medium, with "should've" being more appropriate for conversational/informal usage. It would be perfectly normal to say something like "he shouldn't've done that," but if I were writing a message, I'd at least expand the last contraction to "have."
I think there's a general perception that many of the common dialects of American English, especially in the South and West, are associated with being less educated. I am not sure where that comes from.
I'm a native English speaker, and my perception is that when someone speaks in a way where they don't use contractions, it seems verbose and stilted; I associate it with being scolded or disciplined, or when someone is speaking sternly to make a point (or out of anger).
E.g.:
"You don't know where you're going, you should've taken a left" - informative/neutral
"You do not know where you are going, you should have taken a left" - critical/scolding
Omitting contractions can result in speech that sounds strange and unnatural in general:
"Shouldn't we go?" -> "Should not we go?"
"Aren't you coming?" -> "Are not you coming?"
"We didn't, but we should've." -> "We did not, but we should have."
> Do you mean "should've"? That's a common contraction of "should" and "have." In many American accents, the difference between "should've" and "should have" is negligible, and will sound like "should of" even though it isn't.
I think they specifically meant "should of" which is a colloquial form of "should've" in a number of places in the UK.
I went to school with a large number of people who would write "I should of done X instead of Y". In fact I'm pretty sure I made that "mistake" a number of times growing up.
I meant "should of", especially in writing. I am not sure if "should've" is supposed to sound the same as "should of", but seeing the latter in writing annoys me a lot for some reason.
They sound the same in most American English accents, at least.
(This response contains another funny modern colloquialism: 'a lot' gets used by both native and non-native English speakers where 'many' or 'greatly' is prescribed. Not that we need to be prescriptivists, of course.)
There's no way I'm adding this extension. The website doesn't include information on how "AI" is used or how user data is handled. I'd expect a lot more transparency for an app that presumably requires full access to a user's socials.
Thank you, I will add more clarity on the website now. We use OpenAI's mini model, so your data goes to them (and OpenAI doesn't store data from API req's) and the only things we store are your settings.
Also, we don't require access to any of your socials, we process the tweets directly in your viewport as you would have seen them.
For example we work on reddit and youtube as well and it works without logging in.
"we process the tweets directly in your viewport as you would have seen them."
The primary issue with this approach is, even with the speed of gpt-4o mini, often times you're going to be displaying the "harmful" content for enough time for the brain to process it.
This is especially true when you're dealing with images and short 1 sentence content like twitter.
I think you'll want a safety mode, where nothing is displayed/or you have a css-blur on it, until it has been vetted.
Forgot to mention we actually process ahead of the viewport as well so other than the first load it's highly unlikely you will see an unfiltered tweet (from personal experience of using it). But thanks for the idea at the end I think I'll add that!
