I’ve always thought, of all the options to warn us that clicking will put titties on our screen, that “not safe for work” was a bad choice.
Like, what if your work doesn’t care about titties? What about the tons of other times you wouldn’t want those to pop into your screen without warning, like when you’re on public transit, or sitting next to grandma?
I’d vote for “LEWD” vs “GORE” or something more clear - users can decide for themselves when it is or isn’t safe.
I can imagine they don’t want accountants or IT people looking at porn while they work though. Their own websites are probably not filtered, but whether the work is for a porn site or a car manufacturer, you prefer them focussing on their work. For a content reviewer though, it’s a different story.
That being said, there is not enough money in the world that would convince me to become a content reviewer. The shit they have to sit through is often utterly vile and traumatizing. Here is an article about a facebook moderator as an example: www.bbc.com/news/technology-57088382
Seriously though, drugs are the quickest easiest way to make a quick buck. Used to be able to scam the check cashing places pretty easy but it’s mostly electronic now.
I went to Catholic catechism as a child and one of the few things I remember was Jesus washing other people’s feet. I like the humility of that and it inspires me to want to do acts of service
Me too, this is one of the main things that stuck with me. Honestly, idk how to think of myself except in relation to my service to community, it has really shaped my entire experience of the world.
Similar upbringing in Catholic school. Acts of humility like a poor person giving what little they have holds more weight than a king giving their weight in gold, the golden rule, and showing general compassion has stuck with me decades later. Education was pretty good too. None of that dinosaurs lived 6000 years ago or whatever crap. I attribute the education to giving me the critical thinking skills to not fall for the indoctrination. I could tell the poor giving message was a lead in for tithing. Taking a message of helping someone in real need no matter your status to support this church that was the best looking building in town didn’t pass the logic test.
Was chatting with a young (17-ish) atheist guy recently who misremembered this as “isn’t there a bit in the bible where Christian licks a prostitute’s feet?” which truly left me with so many things I wanted to say that I could bareky say anything without laughing so much, but I managed to get out “did you think Jesus was called Christian??”
I was raised without religion, but read religious texts. I have always wanted to touch my closest peoples feet or wash them. It seems so humble and real.
We washed a person’s feet before doing a special religious service project. Essentially like you said, to humble the self and focus on the act and God. Of course the project was really bad in terms of morality but I do think ritual aspects of religion feel nice. As someone said, people are cultural and engaging in acts and symbolism feels good.
My neighbor cheated with his partner’s sister, and now lives with the sister. The most aggravating part of it is that he has kids with both. Every other week his ex has to come by to drop off her kids at her sister’s house since they share custody. From the kids perspective, their sibling is also their cousin.
From the kids perspective, their sibling is also their cousin.
I have a genetic half brother in my mom’s side. But since he’s older than me, my biological father adopted him, and he has literally always lived with only us, I just view him simply as my brother. I always have.
My mom has an identical twin. Her twin’s children - my cousins - are genetically just as related to me as my half brother, who I view simply as my brother.
I quit smoking years ago and I really felt like the world wanted me to quit. Indoor smoking at restaurants was being banned. No more smoking section on flights. Movies were no longer depicting everyone with a cigarette in their mouth all the time like they did in the 60s. Many hotels stopped offering smoking rooms. Nicotine patches and gum were available to help.
I felt like trends in the world were behind me and it helped.
Alcohol is a totally different story. Alcohol is not being banned. It is still something almost everyone does. It is allowed at restaurants and virtually everywhere else. Everyone I know drinks. They haven’t cracked down on advertising in the same way. Hotel rooms have booze in the room for you. Airlines bring you drinks. There are no OTC quitting aids.
If someone has an alcohol problem and needs to quit, they’re really going to have a much harder time than quitting smoking.
Tbf, most of the reasoning behind the “help” you got for smoking was because it actively endangers those around you. Alcoholism, by an extremely large margin, affects those around you much less.
With the understanding that I don’t have the knowledge to say that you’re anything but absolutely right, I do think that the damage assessment would be tricky when taking mental health and social wellbeing into account.
That’s very much not true. Smoking will always negatively impact those around you, and drinking can be done fine. But when you’re getting to the point where you’ve decided to quit drinking you’ve likely been reflecting on the damage you’ve done to others. Alcoholics in the heat of their addiction range from unpleasant to deadly. Hell that’s why America had a prohibition movement once.
Alcohol abuse absolutely affects everyone around you. We had a friend who used to say “there is no problem in the world that can’t be made worse with alcohol!”
Even setting aside things like car crashes under the influence and violence under the influence - lost days at work affect your coworkers, hung over parent who can’t help out, alcohol abuse harms others, not just the abuser.
I just had my 2 year sobriety birthday this month and I completely agree with you, however, I do think the culture in America is shifting. Millennials aren’t drinking AS much and Gen Z much much less. The social pressure to drink is waning somewhat and I live in a state that has the most drinking per capita in the country.
There’s a lot of N/A beers that have gotten much better to give people quitting an alternative (like nicotine gum or patches). Long way to go but I do think it’s trending in a positive direction for people struggling. I understand this isn’t something some people feel comfortable with - I was very hesitant to try one for the first time after quitting because I wasn’t sure if it would spark the urge to drink real beer more but it’s been great for me.
I don’t see a world where alcohol is restricted as much as public smoking but having alternatives is a big thing for me to feel less awkward in drinking social settings where i still feel like I’m participating in a healthy way for me.
Good to hear about the youth trends. The industry has gotten creative in going after them with all manner of sweet alcoholic coolers and such. I guess that’s been going on for some time.
It does seem that young people these days are doing considerably less drinking, fucking, and fast driving than when I was their age. As a parent, I suppose I am glad for this, even though it seems to come along with some bad stuff like spending less time outside and social media zombification.
Glad to hear that near beer helps you. I have tried it and didn’t find it sparked anything for me, but it also didn’t do anything for me either, and I felt conspicuous with it in my hand. Maybe that’s all better now with more options that are higher quality.
Congratulations on your anniversary! I will raise a La Croix to you today.
Unfortunately, the medications that help with alcohol withdrawal are somewhat dangerous in their own right and need to be fairly tightly controlled. Delirium tremens (the shakes) from withdrawal are usually managed with benzodiazepines like Valium for emergent use and Ativan for prolonged control. The other main maintenance drug for alcohol withdrawal is Librium, and that one is also a benzodiazepine. It would be amazing if there were safe OTC options, but because of the serious damage alcohol does and the dangerous nature of withdrawal from it, it really needs to be closely medically managed. Opiate withdrawal sucks…alcohol withdrawal can very easily kill you outright.
You’re right. Serious alcohol addiction can be an in-patient thing. All the more reason it’s strange how we demonize smoking but not alcohol. They both have quite negative long term health impacts, but I don’t think nicotine withdrawal can be fatal. And the whole drunk driving thing…
I know there is a long history of temperance movements and things aren’t as bad as they once were in history. But I think our current age is really lacking a much needed awakening about alcohol.
Yeah it’s so hard because for most of us, alcohol is food culture, not so much a drug. I drink one cocktail 2 - 3 times a week, only ever one because I don’t enjoy being drunk, and make drinks at parties BUT also always make sure there is something adult, delicious, and not alcoholic plus plenty of soda and pitchers of water because I know not everyone can just pick it up and put it down like that. But most people can & do. Fewer people just smoke a couple times a week.
Humans have been fermenting things to get alcoholic drinks for a really long time.
Something I’ve seen at some restaurants (ranging from casual to Michelin star) is the increasing prevalence of mocktails. If you mix non-alcoholic ingredients with the same kind of style and objective as mixed drinks, you can make some really tasty stuff.
Exactly. Not fruit punch. I try to make something complex, with some bitter, some sour, some sweet. Young pineapple tepache or ginger beer, before they get at all boozy are good if you aren’t serving actual recently recovering alcoholics as they are non-intoxicating and delicious and complex. Grapefruit juice non alcoholic cocktails are also good and complex.
Chinotto soda or Malta can also be good adult choices for a party.
Usually even the drinkers at a party like the non alcoholic fancy drinks. And Diet Coke is always popular too.
Indeed. And consequences of alcohol to other people are way more significant than from smoking. Drunk drivers, drunk fights, drunk workers, aggression, depression and so on.
Myself I don’t smoke, but vape. Tabacco smoke stinks really bad that I can’t even stand the smell. My gf who don’t smoke or vape says that my vapor is basically nothing, can’t even smell most of the time, but cigarettes are just disgusting…
I know what you mean about consequences to other people. It is significant that second hand cigarette smoke can give other people cancer, though. I think that’s one of the big reasons why cigarette smoking gets banned in lots of places while drinking does not.
Couldn't tell you myself. Outside of 10-15 second unexpected intervals, I haven't used anything but old reddit since before it was old reddit, so I couldn't tell you how it is compared to the previous one.
Can 100% tell you the web-based-mobile site is pure unadulterated artificially-slowed ass.
The old and new Reddit UIs are both bad in different ways. The new one is just bloated, the old one is not responsive and makes it hard to view images.
The United States health insurance system. It’s such a for-profit racket that more taxpayer money goes into it per capita than any other system out there and its outcomes are worse and shittier.
I went to hospital ER once after being literally unable to walk (unknown spinal issue). After 4 hours, they took Xrays, gave me a steroid shot and some extra-strength Tylenol, told me I have mild scoliosis, and then discharged me. I was bedridden for nearly 2 months after that. I then received a bill for 4000$.
Would medicare for all be a good next step to push for? Are any progressive politicians putting forth a viable plan for getting us closer to universal healthcare?
american healthcare will continue to suck as long as politicians are friends instead of enemies of private health insurance. as long as both parties are on the payroll of big insurance we’re all getting screwed
My old pot dealer let people roll a free joint outside with some busted weed under a sign “roll yourself one!” if they bought enough. A guy I know took this as an excuse to roll a giant cannon of a joint.
There is now a sign saying “roll yourself a reasonable sized joint.”
I dont work at weddings, but is a given that the more expensive the wedding is, the shorter the marriage might be.
A big huge expensive wedding is a outbox stress, a vanity display and usually the bride is one of those who want the dream perfect wedding they wanted since she was a child.
Then comes the hyper fixation with aesthetics, that might translate into controlling and micro managing everyone on the wedding party and pushing people away for not matching it.
In the end, nothing about the wedding is about the love, being together, etc. It is just a huge waste of money just for some perfectly curated pictures. The marriage itself is no longer relevant and the couple might not last more than 2 years. Just keep it simple people, or even better, just elope.
There is definitely statistical proof of this. But I would state it as a percentage of income. I have been to lavish weddings that were not an economic inconvenience for the couple.
Yeah, possibly the most expensive wedding I’ve been to was one where they (rather, the parents) could afford it. And it was lovely — it was first and foremost a party for friends. No dress code, great food, and the only “micromanaging” by bride and groom was to make sure guests were enjoying themselves/remind us that the bar was open. Vows weren’t even a part of the wedding (small, family-only).
My wife and I had a moderately large wedding, but it was motivated mostly by her parents. My point is that there may be other reasons that it’s a big wedding. We’ve been together 23 years so I think things are going okay.
Its not that - throwing out a wedding party on a cheap, doesn’t really change anything. You and your partner wanting just the two of you and the closest people to be there, and the rest doesn’t really matter - that’s the core and some sort of indications that you are with right person. The more you are wanting/needing to be there for show, the more it says about your relationship in not exactly positive way.
Don’t get me wrong - if you always pictured yourself getting to the venue on an elephant surrounded by royal guards with fireworks in the background and you can afford it - good on you, go for it.
But later in life you might realized that the most important thing was not all the extra stuff, but you and your beloved. Nothing can compensate for that.
Also people taking loans and letting their families sponsor the excessive wedding to me is a bit silly. If you can’t afford it, don’t do it like that. This money can better spent on holidays or as a down payment for your first house. Its just one night ffs 😁
It wasn’t a waste of money to prevent another studio buying them up and using those properties against them. They decimated potential competition, that’s very valuable.
That’s why consolidation like this really needs more anti-trust scrutiny. If Fox was going to be sold, it should never have been Disney that was allowed to buy it. They eliminated a major competitor and took all its resources away from everyone else, only to cut jobs and leave those properties to languish in obscurity. Because no one is allowed to make money in Hollywood except them. That’s not a healthy market.
Perhaps but there has always been the Big 5 major studios. Right now there is Universal Pictures, Paramount Pictures, Warner Bros., Walt Disney Studios, and Sony Pictures. Used to Sony wouldn’t be counted or they would say big 6 but there has normally been 5 major studios. One dies another takes it’s place.
RKO and MGM used to be part of the big 5 back in the day now gone but replaced. I think the same will happen here. Someone will fill the gap. Apple is spending big money for Scorsese and Ridley Scott. Amazon and Netflix are also trying to be players. I don’t think Disney made the dent in competition that they thought they were going to make.
Yeah it felt like it, at least. The first difference about origin and era threw me off; people in general are not interested in it and would probably not list the facts like that.
It felt uncomfortable and disingenuous reading it. I would have preferred if it ended with either “This is written by Chat-GPT” or “I used Chat-GPT then edited it”. Like the TLDR/Peertube bot on Lemmy, at least they sign it with their identity when they’re bot accounts.
as time goes on i think techs that mark human made content will be more practical.
the only reason that read as “off” is because the poster did not put any time into it, prob just a simple question in a default chat somewhere. well made systems tuned to thier use are going to be surprisingly effective.
Well, we had posts, discussions, and even media in USENET back then. The only real differences I see are that fediverse is more modern and media-aware, and that people actively battle spam/bots/trolls, which in my time on usenet was not really an issue, though.
This looks like written by ChatGPT, and it is in many ways straight up off-topic or wrong.
Origin/Era: yeah, duh. That was already stated in the question.
Architecture: It doesn’t actually show any differences, it just doesn’t talk about different parts of the architecture. Usenet is also federated and Fediverse instances also don’t store all messages.
Content structure: This is the closest to an actual answer. But from what it seems, the default use case of the Usenet is identical to Lemmy.
Protocols: Stated in the question. NNTP is also federated.
Moderation: This is straight-up wrong. There are moderated and unmoderated newsgroups, same as there are moderated and unmoderated instances/communities on the fediverse.
Modern Relevance: This whole section is irrelevant to the question.
Sorry I should marked it as AI :) From my experience usenet is more uncesored compared to fediverse. The most issue with fedi is that there is no tru replication system (mayby except sometimes data might be cached on other instance).
You can take any map of anything and color it in using only four colors so that no adjacent “countries” are the same color. Often it can be done with three!
Note you’ll need the regions to be connected (or allow yourself to color things differently if they are the same ‘country’ but disconnected). I forget if this causes problems for any world map.
What about a hypothetical country that is shaped like a donut, and the hole is filled with four small countries? One of the countries must have the color of one of its neighbors, no?
But each small country has three neighbors! Two small ones, and always the big donut country. I attached a picture to my previous comment to make it more clear.
Whoops I should’ve been clearer I meant two neighbours within the donut. So the inside ones could be 2 or 3 colours and then the donut is one of the other 2 or the 1 remaining colour.
That map is actually still quite similar to the earlier example where all 4 donut hole countries are the same. Once again on the right is the adjacency graph for the countries where I’ve also used a dashed line to show the only difference in adjacency. https://sh.itjust.works/pictrs/image/f58ae328-4fc2-4d65-89d4-0850eceb4fce.webp
Looks to be that way one of the examples given on the wiki page. It is still however an interesting theory, if four countries touching at a corner, are the diagonal countries neighbouring each other or not. It honestly feels like a question that will start a war somewhere at sometime, probably already has.
In graph theory there are vertices and edges, two shapes are adjacent if and only if they share an edge, vertices are not relevant to adjacency. As long as all countries subscribe to graph theory we should be safe
The regions need to be contiguous and intersect at a nontrivial boundary curve. This type of map can be identified uniquely with a planar graph by placing a vertex inside each region and drawing an edge from one point to another in each adjacent region through the bounding curve.
In that image, you could color yellow into purple since it’s not touching purple. Then, you could color the red inner piece to yellow, and have no red in the inner pieces.
Isn’t the proof of this theorem like millions of pages long or something (proof done by a computer ) ? I mean how can you even be sure that it is correct ? There might be some error somewhere.
kbin.life
Top