Jesus Christ this thread is full of people who don’t realize they’re the judging hipster in the post.
Ubuntu isn’t the entry level distro that you move on from once you’ve gotten your feet wet, and your not very subtle pats on your own backs for using something different aren’t earned.
Does it do everything the user needs from it? If so, don’t tell them that they need to “graduate” to a “better” flavor.
I still prefer nerdy hipster elitists gatekeepers from greedy corps after all is said and done. The first is unfortunate flaw of human character, the second is a calculated machine. If this is the price to pay then so be it. Individuality often isn’t as nice on the surface as the common but the common often has hidden sinister motives under the comfy, smoothened out rug of user friendliness.
Lonely nerds don’t have PR and marketing teams but also won’t stab you in the back for profit. Sometimes they can be huge assholes though.
For real I started on Ubuntu and nearly a decade later I still would be on Ubuntu if it wasn’t for their migration to snaps with the proprietary back end.
I ran Gentoo for about 3 years (and will likely return soon) and I reckon there are plenty of really advanced Ubuntu users who know more about how my system works than I do.
Any mainstream general purpose distro can do mostly anything and can be used by power users. Some should ONLY be used by power users, but that doesn’t make them inherently better than a distro that both a newbie and a power user can understand and use.
You know why I use Gentoo? Literally the bragging rights. I doubt I’m optimizing things THAT much with my fancy compiler flags.
this is so true. just because one can use more advanced systems doesn’t mean he’s smarter than all the more “basic” system users. especially in the linux world.
all of the distros can pretty much do the same thing, some distros are just more focused on the ease of use.
for real. my uncle has been programmer his whole life and he was always the most linux guy I’ve known. I have never seen him use any other os. and yet he uses ubuntu. his own words are thar he doesn’t care about all the bells and whistles that come trough distros like arch or gentoo. ubuntu works well enough for him and it’s what he is used to, so he uses that.
using ubuntu defiently does not mean you’re a noob or non-techy linux user. personally I wouldn’t touch it again but the linux culture about arch being superior and others being for noobs is ridiculous
This 1000%. Since basically High School I’ve been on Ubuntu for the machines I need to work, because at the end of the day it usually does. Some of the people I meet see that I use a Chromebook with the containers enabled and have similar reactions. “How can you use that it’s not even real Linux?”, as if it isn’t literally a Linux kernel. The Steam Deck is popular because you don’t need to know Linux to use it, and Ubuntu is popular because you don’t need to know a lot of Linux to use it.
Ironically I’ve tried installing Ubuntu a couple of times in the past, but for whatever reason it didn’t work. I’m currently using Debian instead just because the install worked. No idea why, maybe my laptop is just weird.
I used Arch for years because I wanted to learn more about how linux works and it was a good way to push myself. I think it worked because I am better at problem solving now - I even read the error messages lol
It’s probably worth mentioning that an “arranged marriage” can mean anything from when two families agree to marry off their children without their children’s consent, to when families play match-maker and set their children up on dates but their children get the final say.
In India, for example, you get both, with the former being more common in conservative, rural areas and the latter more common in urban and middle-class areas. So it’s not a one-size-fits-all situation.
As to why it persists? Practicality, I suppose. If you want to get married, it helps if you filter out all the people who aren’t serious about settling down. Plus it’s not like love marriages have a superb success rate, given how common divorce is nowadays.
In fairness divorce rates are high because of young people getting divorced because they realized they shouldn’t have gotten married while they were still growing out of their early adulthood.
The only reason arranged marriage societies seem to have a higher success rate is because divorce is rare since who someone gets married to is often determined by family standing and the party who wants a divorce is often browbeaten into compliance to not jeopardize the benefit of that marriage tie.
Were divorce not so stigmatized that you yourself literally cited it as a failure metric of love marriages, arranged marriage societies would likely see even higher divorce rates than love match societies, as love match societies will exhibit low to moderate social pressure to seek marriage, while arranged match societies can feature families shopping suitors as soon as the kid hits legal age of consent, and maybe even before then if they’re especially sprung on controlling their kids’ life.
US divorce rates would be cut down by requiring a prenup to get a marriage license. Arranged marriage societies would see marriages and families implode across the land if abused spouses ever felt reasonably safe that they could divorce without being ruined for it either by their family, the courts, or the vigilante lynch mob their STBX calls up in retaliation for them trying to escape.
Until now I was under the impression that this was the goal of these notices:
If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
Because if an LLM ingests a comment with a copyright notice like that, there’s a chance it will start appending copyright notices to it’s own responses, which could technically, legally, maybe make the AI model CC BY-NC-SA 4.0? A way to “poison” the dataset, so that OpenAI is obliged to distribute it’s model under that license. Obviously there’s no chance of that working, but it draws attention to AI companies breaking copyright law.
Your first mistake was thinking the company training their models care. They’re actively lobbying for the right to say “fuck copyright when it benefits us!”.
Your second mistake is assuming training LLM blindly put everything in. There’s human filters, then there’s automated filters, then there’s the LLM itself that blur things out. I can’t tell about the last one, but the first two will easily strip such easy noise, the same way search engines very quickly became immune to random keyword spam two decades ago.
Note that I didn’t even care to see if it was useful in any way to add these little extra blurb, legally speaking. I doubt it would help, though. Service ToS and other regulatory body have probably more weight than that.
Yeah it harkens back to seeing people make those posts on Facebook about how they don’t consent to having their data collected and urging others to do the same before some imaginary upcoming deadline.
The governor literally had a trap set in the Rio Grande river to drown undocumented migrants that attempted to cross there. It was the death penalty, for a misdemeanor offense. He then lost a lawsuit about it, and refused to comply with a court order.
So I would say that it’s likely worse than depicted in books, and the people saying otherwise live in a very soft, comfortably cocoon.
I set the majority of my mother’s finest dresses on fire. I was very young. We had a powercut one night so we were using candles. It came back soon after, but i was still a curious boy with a candle in my hand. I wanted to go somewhere dark again so i went inside my closet and closed the door. My mom ran out of space in her room for her dresses so she put them on my closet. Only the stuff she didn’t use often so it had the worst and the best. They were wrapped plastic and i was fascinated by how the plastic shrunk when the flame got close. But eventually I got too close and actually set it on fire. How did i react? Got out, shut the closet doors and went to watch tv. It’s a miracle i didn’t torch my whole house
That’s such a great reaction to starting a fire in a closet full of priceless and flammable stuff! “Oops! I think I’ll just close the door on that problem and hope no one notices.”
I’m tempted to call it such a child’s reaction to a problem they don’t know how to solve. But I know I’m guilty of doing the same thing as an adult, just not with a potentially fatal raging closet fire fueled by a plastic coated wedding dress.
The more I think about it, the more in awe I become of what you managed to achieve.
Lol yeah as an adult I feel like I’ve done similar things. Not with a house fire or immediately life threatening scenario. But definitely like “well I don’t really want to deal with that problem…I’m just going to walk away and hope it goes away” lol!!
How did i react? Got out, shut the closet doors and went to watch tv. It’s a miracle i didn’t torch my whole house
Lmao - reminds me of when I was in my early twenties and couldn’t handle my beer. We had a few people around, and the toilet was occupied, so I threw up in a bucket and hid it in a closet and went back to the party. Cue to next morning, “Lads… why is there a bucket of-”
Beyond corporate greed, there is none. SMS’ are even sent as part of routine packets on the cellular network so they don’t even take extra data. Carriers might pay extra for inter carrier routing, but again the cost associated with that is mostly corporate greed.
You compare to the internet but you have to remember, back when SMS’ were the only player in terms of cellular messaging, cellular data cost an arm and a leg.
As far as I could understand, North American carriers charged through the nose for mobile data for the longest time, but usually bundled SMS with some plans in some form, be it a set number of messages, or unlimited nights/weekends (oof, I don’t feel younger typing that one out). I was a student working for one of our Canadian carriers the first time I saw more than like a gig of data for less than 70$/month, and that was in the long term contracts, cancellation fees days lol
In most of the rest of the world, data became cheaper faster, but SMS was/is still expensive. This, combined with iPhone’s popularity in NA making people use iMessage, led to a lot of people just sticking to the defaults and use SMS on one side of the Atlantic, while the rest used WhatsApp or similar.
Pretty much, it was still expensive af though. I got my first cellphone in 1999 with Fido. Probably paid something like 50$ month and that came with like 100 texts messages and not very many minutes of local only calling.
My first non-prepaid plan with something that was not the cheapest flip phone possible, must have been around 2006-2007, with a slide phone, and the very minimum plan I could get which was, IIRC, 50 minutes of local calls, unlimited nights and weekends, and exactly zero text messages included, no caller ID nor voicemail 😂 First time I had a data plan was in late 2011, when I got my first smartphone (Galaxy SII), and that was definitely less than 1GB/month…
Oh I don’t think I’m particularly old, statistically speaking I’ve got about the same amount or a bit more left to go… We just all have those moments that make you realize time flies, don’t we?
There was potential legislation and a lot of congressional probes in the mid-late 2000’s in the US that essentially forced cellular carriers to publicly admit that it cost next to nothing on their end to send SMS messages(like 10^-7^¢ per message) yet they charged insane premiums for them of 20¢ per message. This ended up being the catalyst for US carriers dropping most SMS charges to stay competitive while the rest of the world just changed over to alternate messaging services to avoid the fees instead like you said.
Enshittification intensifies. I feel like I am traveling back in time. Recently I started ripping music again because of streaming service enshittification, and just two weeks ago I started burning CDs again because an update was pushed to my phone that broke compatibility with my car’s Bluetooth. Last time it took two months for them to hotfix it.
No YouTube is now censoring things that they find profane. I was watching one of my favorite channels and host was discussing the HBO Doc on Nickelodeon and she wasn’t being vulger but everytime she said the words sexaul assault they would cut it. Pissed me off. I am fucking adult and don’t want YouTube deciding what words I am allowed to hear.
Shit getting worse like fucking 1984 when exactly are we going rise up and demand better?
Exactly the moment when a person(s) of strong character evident primarily through the way they conduct themselves. No amount of documentation of previous good character can hold up against someone who doesn’t care about it on the first place.
They need be only 2 things: Humble, and undeniably good character. When someone meets them, the only people who won’t think they’re worth following will be people who don’t have good intents, and even they will internally admit and know who they’ve met.
I think the imaginary power couple of Keanu Reeves and Julie D’Aubigny
1984 supposes it’s coming from big government and social structures. Seems like a lot of people just aren’t watching what big corporations are doing cause it’s getting at least just as creepy…
Let’s refer to it as 2010, birth of Sir Citizens United, because if the large corporations want something to happen, or to not happen, they’re likely to get their way after after a year or two.
when exactly are we going rise up and demand better
That would be when consumers decide to come together and operate collectively in their own best interests against immense multinational corporations.
Soooooooooo, possibly quite a while.
To be fair, in that specific case it is almost certainly not YouTube directly censoring the phrase. They aren’t known to do any kind of editing like that on uploaded videos.
What is happening is the person that uploaded that video censored themselves…because YouTube’s policy around monetization. They’ll demonetize videos with certain no-no words. Part of that is YouTube and part of that is advertisers demanding their ads not be placed on content that they find objectionable.
Indirectly, YouTube and advertisers are censoring our content. A lot of it is also TikTok, which will ban you for no-no words. This seeps over into YouTube where something that might be fine on YouTube but is banned on TikTok gets censored anyway in case it gets clipped for TikTok.
Genuinely the power TikTok and it’s advertisers have over how we communicate is pretty scary. Imagine how often you hear “unalive” instead of “suicide” these days. “Pdf” (or others) instead of “pedophile.” The list goes on.
Never hearsd any of those words that pretty crazy. And didn’t think about if she was self censoring. But you know I think advertiser need fuck off. Its fucking 2024 and should be able to say fuck mainstream.
different albums release different versions of songs. found this with Teenage Dirtbag. legit album version was fine. spotify isn’t censoring on the fly. lots of albums, like from xibit or busta rhymes released clean and explicit versions of the album. depends on artist and label.
unless something has changed fundamentally, im not sure how this is possible to change your playlist like that. like i posted last night, i noticed it on the song Teenage Dirtbag, it was edited, i never really spent time to fix it as i always heard it driving and forgot to fix it. it’s possible artists are just posting edited/unedited versions and spotify is defaulting to edited.
if you look here, Xzibit has 2 versions of his album Weapons of Mass Destruction, one clean, one edited and clearly labeled - open.spotify.com/artist/…/album
It seems that the way that YTM maintains playlist is by keeping a track list and populating it on the fly with the first hit it gets. If the metadata doesn’t include a special mention of “explicit” or “clean”, you end up with a crapshoot on which version you’ll get.
For me it even went beyond that. I had uploaded my personal collection to Play Music. When they migrated to YouTube Music they replaced my tracks with tracks from their catalog, including edited versions.
A few years ago I was in a car with coworkers and the music was weird……turns out Amazon was playing all covers. Driver said it was a regular Amazon stream. I was never more happy to have my Plex server and have been increasing my CD purchases from eBay.
PSA: don’t forget to wash your “new to you” CDs, they rip much better. Just need a little hand soap and water and boom, clean ass discs ready to go.
Okay I’m gonna post something like an actual answer, which I feel like will get downvoted bc y’all are men but whatever.
Women’s bodies are sexualized, plain and simple. Breasts perform the biological function of nourishing a baby, but that has seemingly become secondary to their entity as an object of sexual desire, namely by men. So you have 3 factors - breasts are seen as sexual in nature, sex is considered taboo in many western cultures, and men are generally the ones who hold positions of power. Put that all together and you have laws and cultural attitudes that require that breasts be concealed in public.
Men’s nipples are completely fine though. Men can walk around shirtless (in many places, perhaps not “most” but 100% more than can be said for a woman) and no one bats an eye, but the female nipple is considered obscene because it is seen as sexual.
All this “they don’t” “not in Europe” “yeah aren’t you disappointed” “hurr durr udders” fuckouttahere with that dismissive bullshit lmao
Isn’t the breastfeeding function part of the reason breasts are sexualized? In other words - biologically males seek a female that can provide for her offspring so there’d be an evolutionary advantage for women who can at least appear to be able to do so.
Breasts don't need to be large throughout adult life for the purpose of nursing. Look at the non-human apes and other primates. The hypothesis that large adult human breasts outside of nursing evolved due to sexual selection is completely reasonable.
Sexual selection is not inherently good or bad. It just is. If that theory is correct, then breasts which are (on many women) large before and between nursing stages came about due to sexual attraction. There was selection for women with larger breasts and selection for men attracted to them. It's not the responsibility or fault of either sex, and the genes increasing both the attraction in males and the breast size in females are passed through both sexes. Fathers and mothers who have daughters with larger breasts and sons attracted to them will have more grandkids.
None of this comes with the baggage of how we should set up our society. We can suppress sexual activity in public, demand consent, be free to cover or not cover regardless of how it was we got to where we are today.
I think OP agrees with you too, but the question is more around the “why”. Once, we were also like animals, and didn’t have clothing. To the animal brain, things like large breasts or wide hips means better reproduction. Did we start to cover up because it was cold and we got sick? It makes more sense to me that we started for practical reasons, and the hyper-sexualization came later, probably with religion.
Today, women are sexualized to an insane degree, and expanded to any number of inane body parts and not just breasts.
I think OPs question could also be phrased as “why did sex become so taboo?” And we might get a broader picture.
Right? It’s disgusting. I don’t even see how some people can rationalise it. Would rather hurt my feet going barefoot/with socks on than drag in a thousand contaminants from the outside.
I had a rule at my house, If you want to wear your shoes inside, lick the sole from heel to toe and I will grant you can wear them. no one ever took me up on it
You are licking your floors regularly? Then yes sir, absolutely will take off my shoes. I would not dance on someone’s table in shoes; if you eat off your floor I understand.
But really, of course if someone asked I wouldn’t dream of pushing back, it’s your house not mine. Do people really fight you on that?
We did growing up. Most people I know are indifferent minus a few friends. I don’t wear them at home now, but I don’t see the big deal in keeping them on once in a while.
I couldn’t imagine fucking up all my carpets and furniture over time from being too lazy to take shoes off.
Plus I just don’t understand how it’s comfortable to wear shoes all day long. I usually can’t wait to get home just so I can take my shoes off. I don’t feel like I can truly relax without them off.
Do you wear your shoes when you’re in bed and snuggling on the couch under a blanket too???
I don’t, no. Only one room in my house has carpet, and they’re from the original owner and already gross anyway, and that room is a storage room. The rest of the house is hardwood (which needs to be redone) or linoleum.
I couldn’t imagine fucking up all my carpets and furniture over time from being too lazy to take shoes off.
It’s not always laziness, I prefer just having my shoes on unless I’ve got my feet on the couch, then it’s just socks. People have their own preferences, there’s nothing wrong with that.
Plus I just don’t understand how it’s comfortable to wear shoes all day long. I usually can’t wait to get home just so I can take my shoes off. I don’t feel like I can truly relax without them off.
🤷♀️ Don’t know, I just feel more comfortable in shoes an/or socks. I’ve never understood people who have to take their shoes and socks off as soon as they get home, you’re just getting dust and dirt and whatever else all over your feet.
Do you wear your shoes when you’re in bed and snuggling on the couch under a blanket too???
No, shoes don’t go on the furniture, unless I’d get too high in the past and fall asleep with them on. They’re warm and protect my feet.
I’ll also add, I have a dog, so, to me, it’s a moot point. He’s not wearing shoes, and he’s going to drag even worse stuff in the house on his paws, and I’m not cleaning his paws literally every time he’s gotta go out and pee, so… 🤷♀️
Idk, I see all of the points people are making about why you shouldn’t wear them inside, but I don’t understand why people are acting like they’ve never even considered the concept of just… Wearing shoes inside? Like, to me, it’s more astonishing (as a former chef) that people will cook barefoot, like, haven y’all never seen what hot oils can do to bare skin? That’s insane to me, but I’m not losing my mind over the concept.
Same here. Wood floors, 2 dogs, 2 cats, 2 kids. I will still argue that wood floors are cleaner than carpet but cat litter, dogs don’t wear shoes and it doesn’t snow here or anything like that.
I just don’t have the sort of controlled situation that people who ban shoes in house seem to have. Yes we wipe the dogs’ paws before they come in in the summer when it’s muddy and yes I have gardening boots that don’t come inside, but I put on shoes when I get dressed. We do run the Roomba twice a day, have a biweekly cleaning service, central A/C with filters and an air purifier, it’s not filthy by any means but the floor is the floor, we walk on it.
Like, if you are having a party and people are dressed up, they are barefoot? When they go on the back deck do they run to the front and grab their shoes then take them off again to come inside to grab a drink? Is it just that people up north are used to getting undressed when they come inside anyway so shoes are just like coats and scarves and hats to you? Like OP I have questions.
OP specifically mentioned grandkids, so I’m assuming they are on the older side. When you get old, it can be nice to have the extra support of shoes, even inside your house. I never wear shoes inside but my parents (in their late 60’s) always do since their house has hardwood floors.
The premises of the questions are wrong, hence they do not speak to the knowledge of anyone but yourself unfortunately. There are no last element in an infinite chain, because that is contradictory to the fact that they are infinite. Even questions such as the barber’s paradox, that are not logical fallacies, do not imply the nonexistence of god.
Mathematically speaking, everyone knows the last digit in Pi due to there not being one. We call this concept that something is vacuously true. Similarly a nonsense statement such as “all ants on the moon eat people for breakfast” is also true by default.
so the proof of the irrationality of pi is a bit more than i want to get into here, but there’s a very simple proof that there are infinite prime numbers which i will share here.
suppose that there is a finite number of prime numbers. write out a list of all of these prime numbers, and multiply them together. add one to this product, and you now have a number that is not divisible by any of our list of prime numbers, and thus should be another prime. this contradicts our initial assumption of finite primes, and therefore there are infinite primes.
I’m picturing women in every work kitchen with their tits out and some tap-like contraption attached to each breast, just sitting there idling next to the coffee machine.
kbin.life
Top