Something I once read is that different cats don’t seem to use exactly the same noise to mean the same thing, ie, one cat might use a certain sort of meow to show that it is hungry, but another cat might use a similar meow to show that they want attention. Further, that wild cats usually stop making many such noises after they grow up, but domestic ones keep using them to communicate with people. If this is true, then the cat noises don’t really represent a cat language as such since each individual cat would have it’s own different set of vocabulary it develops in an attempt to get humans to understand it, being forced to resort to being all dramatic and acting like a kitten to get their message across because humans are sometimes too clueless to understand their body language.
I’ve got two cats who are sisters and they indeed have very different meows, not just sound but how they use them. One has a very distinct greeting meow literally only reserved for when she hasn’t seen me in a few hours that is isn’t in any way replicated by her sister.
i imagine it’s like when we can’t find the words to explain something and we just point at it and go “there, see that? that thing! over there! i’m pointing at it you dolt! aaargh!”
This is true, and it’s absolutely fascinating, because it’s literally the birth of a tiny language every time. The cat makes noise and notices that the human does something it wants, which makes the cat associate the noise with the action. The human hears the noise repeatedly and notices that the cat is happy about what they are doing, so they associate the noise with the action. It’s a shared language between two individuals, which is just so precious!
It’s the best way to think about it because if you’re always doing the calculation in your head you still always think in Fahrenheit first. Just get the feeling for Celcius instead of trying to shoehorn a worse system in (as a user of said worse system myself).
I understand and appreciate your joke, but is it really? And I imagine that the bones and skin would melt first, right? Idk. I’ve never considered that someone could melt from the inside.
Not literally, no, but it can be very difficult to concentrate on anything else when you’re suffering under immense heat and a lack of concentration can lead to a figurative brain meltdown.
That being said, the brain is mostly fluid, fat and electric connections so it would DEFINITELY melt long before your bones.
Would have to be around 50-60°C for the 60% of it that’s fat to hypothetically melt if exposed directly to the heat rather than protected by the skull and cooled down by the blood, but that’s nothing compared to the 1670°C melting point of human bones.
Btw, I hope you’re happy with this reply since my Google search history looks rather grisly now 😂
Texas is Hell though. Anyone who’s been there understands this. From the heat to the guns to the people, it’s far and away the least desirable or interesting place I’ve been to. Austin wasn’t terrible though.
Don’t Texans just stay in air-conditioned buildings and vehicles all the time? I just saw a YouTube video where a guy in Texas was complaining that his air conditioning setup wouldn’t get the temperature below 76°F, which I found odd since I set the thermostat on my AC to 26°C (which is nearly 79°F.)
Yeah that’s absolutely a thing all over warm weather states in America. It drives me crazy that I try to acclimate to the higher heat and just end up inside with 68° air conditioner settings. Absolutely freezing my ass off. But the reality is that is more middle/ upper class living. If you’re doing manual labor or living in poverty, you know what the heat is actually like.
It doesn’t fit into the rhyme, but -10°C is the point where just wearing a coat isn’t enough. You need to either start limiting the time you spend outside or put some serious thought into the protective clothing you wear beyond just throwing a coat on as you go out the door.
I had a water bottle in my car when it was around -11 °C, and when I tried to drink it, the supercooled water instantly froze solid, which was startling, but hardly surprising.
More like 30° I’m melted into the pavement, 20° warm but good, 10° is near perfect, 0° starts getting cols, -10° put on a jacket, -20° and below put on a good jacket.
Don’t feel dumb man, trying to make yours rhyme is fun actually. I like that you added other temps. That’s how I learned it in America as a kid and remembered it, because it rhymes.
100%. The rebranding of some HR departments as “People Officers” or “People Team” drives me bonkers. When push comes to shove, they will always protect the interests of the business before the interests of the employee. Full stop.
I’m gonna be unapologetically that person one day. Get into a tube full of stinky humans and complain that babies exist in the world. People need to get over themselves.
Especially now that Noise Cancelling headphones are everywhere and work as good as they do. Since I’ve got my Sony headphones a crying infant becomes only a really minor inconvenience
Tbf I don’t think babies are the worst. They cry, but that’s it. The kids that can talk walk and kick you are. And also let’s always remember that the major anger is not about the kids but the lazy parents that think everyone else should suffer so that THEY don’t have to deal with it.
As far as I understand, they were offering free hosting and bad actors took advantage. They didn’t want to start charging so they closed down. Like giving out candies on Halloween and one asshole takes the whole bowl. No candies for you kid, sorry.
What do you mean? Genuine question, I’m loosely familiar with the the issues with Discord having it’s growing issues with data and advertising but I assumed Nitro was the worst element.
Mumble is like a reliable Toyota Corolla. You will turn no heads, but it has all the features you would need for the task (encryption, room hierachies, ACL, machine-learning-enhanced noise canceling, positional audio, choice of method input like push-to-talk, mini UI overlay atop games), and does them efficiently.
…And like a Toyota Corolla, there’s probably a decent upgrade out there, but you might be compromising on more than you think. Want a car without the manufacturer tracking you or bloated, touch-screen navigation? Many ‘modern’ VoIP options, especially proprietary ones, are literally doing the latter.
Discord enshittification is well under way, just this week I have started seeing ads in the client just above the voice channel status in the bottom left. Cancelled my Nitro immediately, no point if they are going to shove ads in my face anyway.
Currently looking at alternatives, Revolt looks promising, and can be self hosted.
Bullshit. Pics or it didn’t happen. You might have seen a quest, where if you stream a specific game to your friends you get a free in-game item, but these are not advertisements.
Additionally, you can click on it and tell it to never show you any more quests.
Either that or you’re bitching about discord telling you that it has added more voice channel mini games.
You might have seen a quest, where if you stream a specific game to your friends you get a free in-game item, but these are not advertisements.
…
Advertising is the practice and techniques employed to bring attention to a product or service. Advertising aims to put a product or service in the spotlight in hopes of drawing it attention from consumers
I have no interest in streaming “quested” games, and whatever deal Discord has done with the developer to encourage users to engage with such games (and by extension the game’s microtransaction economy), and regardless of what they call it, is by definition an advertisement. If you can’t see that, then you are an ad campaign exec’s wet dream. Either that, or a troll.
Schildi Chat is probably the best client I have spotted, full voice and video chat functionality in browser. People do way less hemming and hawing about downloading an app if they’ve already been able to try it out in web - just like discord
I seem to recall seeing a video or reading an article where they mention that the media turned antifa into a sort of separate word to warp its meaning. Instead of saying anti fascist, which has a clear meaning, they shortened it and changed the pronunciation ‘an teefa’ (something to do with which syllable you emphasise) so they could distort its meani g and demonise the word to make people think it was bad.
So now people dont realise antifa means anti fascist which is surely a good thing to be, and instead, they fear antifa as some kind of terrorist group, which is almost the opposite of what it is.
The funny thing is, as an outsider to this, living in the UK, our media doesn’t ever use the term, and when i heard it, my instinct was to look up its meaning. It’s interesting to me that i won’t know if i would have fallen for it if the media were using it in the same way over here to lead my understanding of its definition
I think Antifa actually started in the UK even before the Nazi’s. Eh actually not but they did fight against fascists in the UK as early as 1930.
The reason why we need antifa and why it’s hated by the mainstream is because the establishment is notoriously bad at stopping fascism. There is a long history of it. So besides liberal antifa that uses legal means like suing the KKK out of existence, the autonomous antifa is actually needed for the continued working of our democracy.
Afaik, the first Antifa were a coalition of left wing groups in Italy fighting fascists in the 1920s. They didn’t necessarily use the term but they were the first active anti-fascists so that counts in my book 🤷
As a side note, they were left to fight both the fascists and the royalists alone, since the Italian Liberals refused to get involved until it was clear who would win and then joined the fascists.
I think that is the lesson, liberals do not effectively fight against fascism because they are too desiring of orderly and calm and polite politics and too much powered by economic interests (bourgeois). So we actually rely on antifa as a social force. Neither the state nor the liberals will fight against it. At least that is my limited understanding of it, since this is never discussed about in mainstream media.
liberals do not effectively fight against fascism because they are too desiring of orderly and calm and polite politics and too much powered by economic interests
Absolutely 100% correct.
So we actually rely on antifa as a social force.
We need to, yes.
Neither the state nor the liberals will fight against it.
Right you are again!
At least that is my limited understanding of it, since this is never discussed about in mainstream media.
Seems to me you understand it perfectly but yeah, the mainstream media is for-profit and owned by billionaires who are often friends with or at least have common interests with the fascists, so they have very logical, if despicable, reasons to be hands-off about it.
Antifa (Antifaschistische Aktion) under that name started in 1932 as action by the KPD to organise widest possible front against the nazis, in the face of SPD as a party being very reluctant to act against nazis. Many SPD members did joined, but as we know, their own party in reichstag made that futile.
Of course antifascist resistance is about as old as fascism or even older considering protofascists activity even before Mussolini coined the term, but the name itself is from 1932 KPD.
They have a constant and desperate effort to invent words they can’t define that categorize their blind rage since they’re not allowed to say one that starts with N. “Woke” is the newest one.
Yeah that’s bullshit. There isn’t some secret cabal that’s in charge of US journalism anymore than there is in the UK. What really happens is that because the old news-media business models have been utterly destroyed by the Internet, there’s a giant and never-ending competition for audience and everyone knows that sensationalism sells.
You have a similar problem in the UK but it’s not as pronounced because the BBC is government funded and even though it’s far from perfect, it does set a kind of baseline. Your other big news organizations are just as bad as in the US though. Your tabloids are actually a lot worse than ours, which is saying something.
And you know how.his followers hang on his every word. I mean, he literally incited a riot/assault on capitol.
I see your point, but i dont see how the old news being taken over by internet news changes who is in control of the narrative. I also dont think i was referring to any kind of “secret cabal.”
I was only saying that i heard or read somewhere that antifa was demonised in the media, and thats why so many think they are terrorists. If you ask most americans what antifa means, they don’t know. They only know the abbreviation ‘antifa’ and that they are scared of it.
He didn’t give up his fortune directly, because today he is a rich man. He just enriched with a different approach like opting to not lock the source code of his work like another guy we know well…
No, but they were very adamantly against the sharing of ms basic which was their big product (before dos), at a time when software sharing was fairly common.
For a guy like that, it was never about money. He knew that would come in comfortable enough amounts. For him, it was about being the smartest person in the room. And 90% of the time, he is. And he lets you know.
Perhaps I’m confused. I’ve never seen or heard Torvalds act in the manner you describe. In interviews, and talks, at least, I’ve seen him be quite self-deprecating, quite deferential, and quite humble. He just doesn’t put up with bullshit in the space he knows extremely well, and he’s very direct with little regard to being empathetic, or at least that’s how he’s acted in the past on the Linux mailing lists. Being matter-of-fact can often be misconstrued as acting superior, but I’ve found it’s usually a time-saving personality quirk.
Edit>> Clearly this guy is unable to understand what being matter of fact is and resorts to ad hominem when someone doesn’t share his opinion. Sad, really, but pretty normal for the internet, I suppose. Oh well.
Right, this happens with me all the time (though I suppose I don’t require the use of swear words, but I do use them quite a bit, just not when speaking professionally). People take my matter-of-fact personality as being arrogant. I’m really not, or I actually try not to be, but I can understand how things can come across when not mincing words. I suspect Torvalds doesn’t like making useless small talk, either, which is a trait of this kind of personality. I can wholly relate to that and how people might perceive him. But I do not feel, as the person I replied to had written, Torvalds “lets you know” that he’s “the smartest person in the room” in any instance I’ve ever seen him speak.
I get involved later on and say: ‘Christ this is horribly ugly code, how could you ever accept this?’
That's a direct example of him acting like the smartest man in the room, and letting you know, straight from the link that was provided. He's most likely right, but there are ways of stating that diplomatically. That's not matter-of-fact, that's just being arrogant. If you can't see that, and you also find that people consider you arrogant, maybe you should consider talking to a professional about that.
My case in point. That wasn't an ad hominem, that was genuine advice. You admitted yourself that people find you arrogant. If this is affecting your life, you should consider talking to someone about it. Especially since you just accused me of something, and then immediately did the exact thing you accused me of doing. This isn't a competition, this is genuine advice. Please consider it.
Not everything is an attack. You can interpret things however you want, but you're the only one that has to deal with the consequences. I wish you good luck...
He would’ve definitely made more even as a senior employee in early Microsoft, IBM or any of the big Corps. Linux exists solely because he made it a collaborative endeavour from the start.
Linux exists solely because he made it a collaborative endeavour from the start.
That is the important part. If Linux had tried to compete with Microsoft as a closed-source operating system, no one would have used it – who would use a tiny, buggy (back then), incomplete, closed-source operating system made by a few guys in their spare time against a very popular, feature-complete, close-source operating system with billions of dollars funding its engineering effort?
What makes Linux popular is that it is collectively owned, that is as much a feature of the operating system as any technology or algorithm written into the source code itself. That feature is what set it apart from Windows or Mac OS.
I don't think he ever expected fortunes, going off his famous usenet post. He just wanted a Unix-like OS that wasn't Minix and didn't cost exactly one space shuttle. One that he could fuck around and do anything he wanted with without regard for someone else's license and restrictions.
Everyone else wanting one too was a happy accident.
The idea that you should put complete freedom above all else has been a disaster for the human race. No, you cannot do whatever you want. No, it does not mean you are a prisoner.
Lol “anarchistic country” If a people were ever to have anarchy it would require there be no country. You’re like asking them to find an incel that isn’t a misogynist
Technically you can have an incel who isn’t a misogynist. Incel just means involuntarily celibate, most incels are misogynists, but some aren’t, and just don’t talk to people at all because of other mental health issues that don’t get treated making that person completely solitary and unable to communicate with others.
The term incel was coined by a woman who has been involuntarily celibate and saught to create a supportive community for people like her. The problem arrose later.
No problem. I just thought it was an important distinction because an anarchist country cannot exist by definition, while there is nothing in the definition of incel that requires them to be misogynistic. Though considering how meaning of words change over time, you could make the case that by the modern way we use the word incel, we don’t mean to include all who are involuntarily celibate, but only the toxic people who blame their situation on external factors. Even then, there surely are at least a handful of gay incels who blame other men for not being interested in them, and therefore wouldn’t be necessarily misogynistic.
Lol I could if I was desperate to be right but I think I used the wrong word to describe what I intended and you can clearly see that. It’s so difficult to pin down meaning on culturally developing words just due to how fluid languages can be. I intended for it to be a clear-cut example of things that can’t exist but you’ve clearly shown it isn’t so clear cut.
Yeah, it’s not easy to come up with something that is absolute like that, and also make it immediately understandable to a wide audience without needing to explain it.
For example I can say “an anarchist country is like saying an unarmed interstellar spaceship”, a lot of people wouldn’t know that it’s actually impossible to have an unarmed interstellar spaceship, so this defeats the purpose of the comparison because it requires an additional explanation.
I can’t think of any example right now that is absolute and that is also ubiquitous knowledge to be immediately understood without relying of specialised interest knowledge or explanation…
it’s actually impossible to have an unarmed interstellar spaceship
Since this subthread had already stepped into the realm of sidetracked internet debate, I’d like to challenge that claim.
I understand that the reasoning behind this statement is that interstellar travel requires some properties that disqualify the ship from being considered “unarmed”:
Interstellar travel requires ridiculous speed, which makes the ship itself a kinetic weapon.
The ship will need formidable defensive mechanism to survive cosmic radiation and impact with particles at the speed it is traveling.
I see two problems with this argument:
The spaceship could use some sort of FTL travel, which may or may not bypass these requirements entirely.
Regular cars have enough kinetic energy to kill people, and they are reinforced to a certain degree so that they won’t break from the strains of the speeds they travel in. Would you also say that it is impossible to have an unarmed car? One could certainly make such a claim, but that kind of drains the meaning out of the term “unarmed”…
About cars, road injuries are responsible for about 1.2 million deaths per year, they are extremely dangerous death machines, so I think it is reasonable to say that a car can’t be unarmed, though I agree that it would stretch it. By that definition, a large wrench can be a weapon, so I am hesitant to just call anything that can be used as a tool for violence as a weapon, because almost anything can be… I have a pretty heavy keyboard which could be used as a weapon if I really wanted to.
If you consider a weapon as an instrument that increases the attack potency or range of the wielder, a car is certainly can be used as a weapon… We even require people to have a license because of how dangerous they are, just like weapons.
If you consider only something that was designed for the purpose of increasing the attack potency or range of the wielder, then a car isn’t one. It all boils down to how you define a weapon.
And about the FTL thing, assuming it is possible, I can still think of a couple of ways any relativistic/FTL ship can be used as a weapon even without using it’s kinetic energy for impacts.
Blue shift of electromagnetic radiation. If you are getting closer to the target at either relativistic or FTL speeds and you release electromagnetic radiation (not necessarily visible light, even a powerful radio, which I’d imagine all interstellar ships would need in order to communicate over enormous distances), or even just a regular thruster… the blue shift would turn it into extremely lethal, short wavelength, somewhere in the deep X ray.
If the FTL system works by stretching and compressing spacetime around it to travel distances with some kind of field… It would be theoretically possible to asymmetrically stretch space in a way that would wreck a target’s structural integrity, and depending how aggressive you can take it, go full blown spaghettification like black holes do.
My point about the FTL thing is that this question is in the realm of science fiction. Sci-fi authors can come up with whatever physics they want, and in real life we are so far from being able to do it that we can’t tell how it’d look like. So I wouldn’t rule out that it’d be based on some physical principles that allow a non-weaponizable spaceships.
Regarding the comparison to cars - I agree that it all depends on definition, but while there is some merit to the philosophy that “there are no wrong definitions” - bad definitions are certainly a thing. And a definition of “weapon” that includes regular cars is a bad one, because it misses out the important distinction between regular cars and armored vehicles with mounted guns.
And as for cars, like I said earlier, I am pretty much on the fence about it. I think we can look back into prehistoric times when people would throw rocks, and I think that it’s fair to say that these rocks were also weapons, but not that every rock is a weapon, but any rock can be a weapon if someone grabs it.
The same can be said for a spaceship; even if it isn’t it’s primary purpose, much like the rock, it has a high potential for destruction that can’t be ignored. A single interstellar spaceship probably has enough energy to boil all the water on earth without even pushing it.
it has a high potential for destruction that can’t be ignored.
I agree about that part, but only from a modern human’s perspective. We don’t have interstellar spaceships (even intrastellar travel is still a huge feat for humanity as a collective) so if such a spaceship from an alien civilization arrives here tomorrow, even if it’s a civilian one that was never intended to be a weapon - its operators could still cause us tremendous damage if they decide to use its power against us.
But let’s go back to cars. If you take a regular car to a small village of some lost tribe completely detached from civilization (for the sake of the argument, let’s assume that the ground is flat enough and solid enough to drive), you could probably use it to destroy the village. Take the same car to a modern city - and while you can still cause damage with it, it wouldn’t be as devastating since they know how to deal with cars and have the infrastructures and rules to safely deal with them. Bring a tank, however, and it’d be a different story.
I imagine a type 3 civilization would know how to deal with interstellar vehicles. Bring such a spaceship to one of its outposts - and it won’t be considered a weapon. Unless, of course, it happens to be one that’s actually designed to be a weapon.
Take the same car to a modern city - and while you can still cause damage with it, it wouldn’t be as devastating since they know how to deal with cars and have the infrastructures and rules to safely deal with them. Bring a tank, however, and it’d be a different story.
Just because a tank is a more powerful weapon than a car doesn’t invalidates a car as a weapon. You can take a brick and go on a smashing spree in a populated city, and they will stop you fairly quickly, take a machine gun and you will be able to hurt a lot more people with it. That doesn’t mean the brick isn’t a weapon when someone uses it to kill people, it’s just a different level of weapon.
And yes, a K3 civilization will not consider a 10^15 watt ship trying to attack it as an existential threat like a sub K1 civilisation will, but a modern military won’t find a guy with bow and arrow as a threat (unless he is Rambo), still, a bow is a weapon regardless. It won’t win a war, but it can still kill.
A bow is usually considered a weapon while a car isn’t, but the car has much more destructive power than the bow. It’s not the destructive power that makes something a weapon.
And a soft piece of sponge is also a weapon when you force it in someone’s throat. If you define “weapon” like this, almost anything is a weapon. You lose the distinction between a bow that was designed for killing and a brick which was designed for building.
But more importantly - if everything can be a weapon when used as such, then saying that an interstellar capable spaceship is a weapon says nothing about spaceships themselves or interstellar travel itself.
The Human OS is not ready to be without borders unfortunately. One day, after the last smog-filled breath of air is forcefully exhumed, and all the world’s treasures fail the last baron of wealth, we will be ready. As long as our hearts are wholly material, the world will stay the same.
We literally didn’t have borders as they exist today until a century ago lmao, they literally solidified around the formation of what we consider modern nation-states.
The human os isn’t ready for a borderless world my entire ass, the issue is the systems currently in place.
Go ahead and remove their states and countries. Most people would explode. Eventually thats the way. But take an honest look around. It wont happen today
Literally the free movement of people? Borders used to be “the zone of control of a government” and couldnt really exist as checkpoints for people moving back and forth over the border.
That feels like a distinction without a difference? The vast vast majority of physical land borders are effectively open everywhere worldwide still today.
The zone of control of a government just kicks you out if they don’t want you?
They couldn’t effectively police borders, so they didn’t. Technology and population density influences the way the state works and whether they could do borders as they existed in the 20th century and exist in the 21st century.
The argument isn’t against technology, it is saying borders as they are understood here are a relatively recent technology relying on other technologies
They’d kick you out and burn down your house or kill you for being an invader?
That is a complete anachronism, unless you actually were an invader. Have you actually researched this or are you just taking your assumptions and trying to apply them to history?
Presumably even though there were no border controls, they would kill you if you returned.
Honestly, I’m not sure what the fixation with a guy in a booth is about. Whether you get denied entry and they throw you out, or if they exile or ostracize you, what’s the difference?
Honestly, it seems the same. If a bar doesn’t want Jews in it and the bartender asks everyone if they’re Jewish or a bouncer at the door feels like a distinction without a difference.
There’s no additional liberty, the people who own the bar set the rules.
A light form was tribalism. If you didn’t go with the flow, you were expelled. With enough expelled ones, new tribes were formed. It kinda created human diversity for a while. There was only so much room on the river, so at some point more elaborate systems emerged. And the people with the biggest huts made those rules. Rules were made so that they could keep those huts. Extremely simplified.
We now don’t have places to banish people to. That’s why the cry for housing is emerging. Someone took the wild away. They should provide an alternative. I believe that’s the whole idea behind wanting the rich to pay. For some reason they were allowed to own everything. Often for centuries.
It makes little sense to people today. How was anyone allowed to walk somewhere, stake a claim, and own it forever? Even defending it with lethal force? Why aren’t we anymore?
We didn’t then either. The real issue is scale. What worked when the entire population of the human race was 100,000 doesn’t work when it’s 8,500,000,000.
You’re right that there are no wilds no, no one is getting 40 acres and a mule, and you can just inhabit a new area.
But let’s not forget that a lot of the stake a claim and defend with lethal force was literally colonialism. So many of those wilds were owned by other people, but the stronger guy with the bigger rock can kill him, take his land, take his wife.
Exactly the point I apparently failed to make. It never worked. Yet we are holding on to it. Just with the added caveat that the weapons are now money, and the wilds are gone.
Free to be poor (Includes: Threat of starvation, social shunning, homelessness, your entire life collapsing and you can be sure the state is still gonna put you into even more debt. Then put you into prison because you couldn’t pay up where you are coerced into slave labor)
Apparently they have enough developers to add in crappy emotes and crossovers but not enough to support one of the most popular operating systems… makes sense
Adding emotes is a different skill set than getting it to run on Linux, but there’s plenty of UE5 games on steam deck already so surely it can’t be that hard…
Yeah, I think 10% is where it’s definitely attractive, though macOS got away with far less, probably because of how much their customers tend to spend on hardware and software.
I don’t agree that Epic doesn’t have enough resources, but realistically Linux makes up such a tiny proportion of systems I don’t blame any other developer for not supporting it. Would be a waste of resources.
Yup, with ~2% market share. That’s like a fart in the wind, you’ll probably smell it, but it’s not worth actively doing anything about.
I love Linux and use it 100% outside of work (macOS at work), but I also 100% appreciate how little large companies care about it since it doesn’t even make a dent either way to their profits. We’re a rounding error to them, and until we get more marketshare, it’ll continue to be that way.
I wish they would support Linux, but I honestly only see risks and not many benefits to Epic to do so. Steam dominates Linux, so EGS probably wouldn’t make a dent there, and the costs to fix potential bugs that enable cheaters on Linux is probably higher than the revenue they expect to make (at least compared to other ways they could spend their resources).
You’re right, MrGG asked if it was Insurrection and I based my reply off the other gif right below it, wouldn’t have noticed if you hadn’t pointed it out. Live long and prosper
lemmy.ml
Top