Hating Windows is not political, it’s more of a philosophical issue. One can simply choose to live happier with a system that is configured by him, for him, and doesn’t throw ads everywhere.
I’m very tech savvy for an old un, and I’m perfectly happy using Windows; it’s easy to configure to do exactly as you want, and maybe it’s an EU thing but I’m not seeing any ads
What pisses us off is whenever there’s a question about Windows, multiple Linux kids will flood the thread with “tHiS doESn’t hAPpEn iN LiNuX”
If someone asked why their headlights weren’t working on their 2014 VW Golf, and someone answered, “Well I have a 2009 Ford Focus and this doesn’t happen”, you’d think they were a fuckin idiot, wouldn’t you?
I thought that the sub OP was complaining about pro-Linux memes and just posts complaining/making fun of Windows. Also, no, it’s not just an EU thing. Windows 10 displays ads in start menu, 11 is a little bit better when it comes to taskbar, but they’re advertising in settings and other places. Also, a lot of telemetry and bloatware. Requiring to login, to create an account is a deal braker for me too. It’s not a bad OS, but not good either. It has a good software support, so you don’t need to use stuff like Wine or Proton, to run some apps/games(and some apps don’t work even with Wine, because of the DRMs), so I still have a VM inside my Artix with Windows(debloated, tho).
The ads thing is because you probably have a different idea of what an ad is then they do. Usually when they are talking about ads, it’s self-promotional stuff. Teams being built in, Onedrive asking to be setup, and especially Edge constantly begging you to give it a chance.
There’s also that link to the Microsoft store for Candy Crush in the start menu of fresh installs of Windows 10. I imagine that’s what kicked off the whole ‘loaded with ads’ thing. That’s one anyone can agree on.
Yeah. You’re getting menus to buy Office 365 and Gamepass in Settings. Stuff like that. That’s not the main reason I’m not using Windows, but it’s a small brick in the wall. Of course, everyone can use whatever makes them happy. I like having things to be setted up for my personal usecases, so I’m using Linux.
No, it sounds like people who are constantly being told that Linux is “too hard to use” compared to Windows speaking up when they see a blatant example of that not being true.
I think you just inadvertently called them morons, lol. In any case, I used Linux exclusively for about five years. It is more difficult for most users than windows. The majority of the time, with windows, you just plug shit in and it will work for you. On Linux, it requires you to research what MAY work for your hardware. Often times, if it does work, you are missing features for your hardware. For software, you generally have to look up programs that will do what you’d like, as most mainstream programs aren’t released for function with Linux. Additionally, most users are not familiar with our comfortable enough with using command line interfaces. You must be able to use command line as a Linux user. I haven’t used Linux in approximately a decade, so some things might have changed, but people won’t know that because the issues I pointed out were true for a long time. Most people aren’t savvy enough to use Linux and they don’t have the time/patience to learn it. Why this makes Linux users upset, I’ll never know, it’s all rather silly and unimportant.
If the VW Golf had a complete monopoly on the car market to the point where you had to spend years jumping through hoops just to be able to drive your Focus on the roads, despite the Golf being an extremely shitty car when taken on its own merits, you’d probably be pretty resentful to the people who enable that monopoly, too.
It’s not an EU thing. As an American, the small popups that show EVERY NOW AND THEN are not that big of a deal. I use windows for work, mac for personal, and Linux for other things like my server and hobby projects. Linux has regularly given me the most trouble.
Its not neccesarily obsessive, its just those happened to be communiies commoted tonleaving the other site, ao it visually appears to be the mainstream thought.
Linux is one of the larger communties who made the jump (in general tech people are more prone to caring about privacy and control, as tech communities in general are some of the largest here on lemmy)
Heck one of the largest communities is piracy discussion.
It’s obsessive hatred of car dependency. It’s not that surprisingly many of us hate cars, it’s that surprisingly many of us hate that you necessarily need a car to do anything outside of the house.
Nooo, I ended up having to filter the fuckcars community because they were angry at ANYBODY that uses a car for any reason - like top voted comments and posts. I saw somebody get jumped by multiple responders for bringing up how there are small towns and people that live hours away from large cities that would still need cars for transportation
Like, I’m as much for improving public transit and reducing the amount of cars on the road in every instance where it’s viable. I specifically moved within 10 miles of my job so I could start riding my bike to work instead of driving my hybrid car. It’s not that I’m pro car, I’m just anti-extremist
I’ve gotten into it with a couple of guys for needing a truck. I’m a construction electrician. That means that in addition to lugging my tools around, I have to transport rather large and heavy pieces of equipment/gear on occasion. I’d happily rock a van, but it’s hell trying to find a 4x4 van (snow) at a reasonable price due to the van life crowd. I’ve had guys say use public transport or car share, like dude, I work 6 days a week, that isn’t viable. It’s a completely one sided conversation with them.
My favorite response was somebody saying small towns in America should still have infrastructure and trains to connect them (which I agree with in theory) because every small town in the UK has them without even realizing there are small towns in the US that could fit the entirety of the UK between them and the nearest other town or city.
Lol nevermind that many of those towns/villages in the UK are centuries old, while many of the smaller towns (especially out west) sprang up specifically because of the national highway system, and also many have died with the introduction of the interstate highway system. I’m all for improving our national rail lines, but it would need to be implemented carefully to ensure that no more smaller towns die out due to lack of service. And to your last point, this is where specifically a high speed rail system would excel, if only just to efficiently cover the vast distances between US towns.
For one, if something is described as “carbrained,” the subject is discounting, ignoring or outright rejecting alternatives to driving. A carbrained take would not necessarily be one that prefers cars. A carbrained take would include things like:
“the only way to make more room for people to move from A to B is by adding more lanes to highways!” (a concept that’s proven to only make traffic worse)
“This cycling lane is not being used. Let’s remove it!” (Which may be a fallacy based on the fact that cyclists move more freely in seemingly confined space, or the fact that the specific cycling lane in question may be an isolated lane with no origins and destinations on it)
“What? A bus lane? What a waste of space! Let me drive there!” (where the speaker fails to see that one bus easily holds four dozen people, which would mean four dozen cars not on the road, if & only if that bus is not affected by road traffic.
“We’re wasting money on this high speed railway line between these two cities about 500 km apart!” (failing to see that distances between about 300 to about 800 km are the sweet spot where high speed rail is exactly in that sweet spot of distance where it’s faster than both driving and flying.)
For two, the car lobby is already great at needlessly extending commutes. When the Katy Freeway near Houston was expanded to its current width of 26 lanes, the widest in the world, travel times changed from end to end from just around three quarters of an hour, to more than a whole hour. An increase of about a third. I could go on and on about this, but let’s just say that it takes a lot more to make trains work worse, and generally, if you try to ameliorate transit service by expanding it, that makes transit better for everyone, including car drivers, unlike if you expand highways.
The thing of the anti car dependency movement is that they demand more developments to not to have to drive. They demand more space be dedicated to more sustainable developments, with less parking, uses closer together, more room for people out on foot or bikes to get where they want to go, all that jazz.
Ultimately, the anti car dependency movement wants freedom. The freedom not to have to drive if you don’t want to, don’t need to, or for any reason cannot. And that is what carbrained people are not getting.
See the issue here is that a lot of these Reddit activists, they start out with a good cause that a lot of people could be sympathetic towards but they end up taking it too far because they’re all terminally online extremists.
Here’s a few examples:
Veganism: A lot of people are on board with treating animals better and eating more plants, but Redditors take it too far by advocating for the complete ban of meat and the prosecution of places like homeless shelters for providing turkeys on thanksgiving because that’s genocide to them.
Cars: A lot people would agree that we should decrease dependency on cars because they’re loud, they pollute, and they’re dangerous, but Redditors take it too far by wanting to ban all cars with no exceptions even if the exception is for parents with disabled kids.
Atheism: A lot of people would consider the possibility of there being no God and that religions deserve criticism, but Redditors take it too far by wanting to force all religious people to convert to atheism… or else.
Work reform: A lot of people support the idea of having stronger work protections and better wages, but Redditors take it too far by either by being full blown tankies or by rejecting the idea of work all together, regardless of how delusional and impractical that is.
Feminism: Most people believe that women should have equal rights and treatment in society, but Redditors take it too far by being full blown misandrists who want to oppress all men and “liberate” women from them.
Not to mention how with every one of these types of communities you always have the classic “you’re either with us or against us” mentality. Every disagreement makes a you a nazi/altright/bigot, their cause is totally comparable to the struggle against nazi Germany and the holocaust, and they are totally the good guys who have the total support of the general public (especially the young people) and that they’re just a minor enemy (read: cartoon villain) away from achieving utopia.
The communities on here are just an extension of those, and they bring with them the same type of toxic idiots to this platform.
linux users are of course the first to move to something like this, and the /r/fuckcars community is as well now a bit. also let’s be honest, fuck cars. and fuck windows.
Having never blocked any of these things… I get a mix of both. Along with the new latest internet drama, a few memes that may or may not apply to me, and some occasional lovely asses and boobs.
Sleep is NOTHING like death. You're still experiencing lots of stuff, you still very much have a sense of self, you're still thinking things, your brain is still processing lots of information.
General anesthesia - now THAT is a real close period to what being dead is.
I’m sure you could measure brain activity during death to know for sure (but idk under what conditions you’d be able to do that though). It doesn’t really make any sense to me that dying, unless due to some painful external cause, would be painful though. Especially under anesthesia or similar.
For me when I had anesthesia I quickly closed my eyes with the surgeon talking, when I opened my eyes the surgeon was still talking so I was wondering when the surgery would start.
Of course when I opened my eyes it was 5 hours later and after the surgery but it took me a while to realized that.
It’s pretty cool that you could just continue your thought after basically pausing your brain for five hours. Kind of like hibernation for a pc I guess.
I’ve had general anesthesia, it was just like falling into a deep, dreamless sleep.
What if anesthesia actually just blocks your memories and physical reactions, but you actually experience everything that happens to you in absolute terror?
if a memory never forms it may as well not have happened
That is an interesting philosophical question.
If suffering is not remembered, was there even suffering? And if there was, does it matter? I can think of a few counterexamples of that, for example: a killer who tortures his victim before killing them.
Presumably in your scenario the victim remembers the torture though.
In the case of general anaesthetic the memory is effectively considered to be deleted in real time. On its way through the brain it ceases to exist so it never reaches the conscious mind.
Uhh, yes and yes? What’s stopping a rapist from anesthesizing their victims before the act and using the fact that they did as an excuse to get off charges under your logic?
Physical abuse tends to leave some physical consequences. You’d have to come up with an example where there would be neither physical not psychological consequences… but even getting anesthesized against one’s will is already a consequence.
No it doesn’t, not always. Actually it’s routine for medical students to be brought in to give anesthesitized women pelvic exams without their knowledge and consent, and no one was the wiser until universities that did this announced it… nytimes.com/…/pelvic-medical-exam-unconscious.htm…
That is textbook rape right there, and it doesn’t often have physical consequences. Most women didn’t even know but doctors fucking did it anyway.
How you people have any faith in any aspect of society is beyond me.
EDIT: And now I’m being downvoted over it. Imagine being downvoted for pointing out rape occurs during surgical procedures, a well-established fact. Think about the implications of that
One of those you might call going against the wishes of the patient… then again, that’s quite common in the ER, patients are yet to be established as “sound of mind” and capable of deciding for themselves, so an ER doctor can overrule them, including sedating to perform any procedures they consider necessary.
Others seem like letting students perform a non-vital part of a procedure, which is both expected from University/teaching hospitals, and in my personal experience was spelled out in the consent form (although they never told me personally, so if I hadn’t read it, I wouldn’t know).
That is textbook rape right there
None of those are. Communication could be improved, and I personally get pissed when medical personnel switches from “medical adult talk” to “patient baby talk” right in front of me… but I’ve also seen patients get upset because they didn’t understand what was being talked about, and had to be calmed down with “baby talk”… so it’s a difficult issue overall.
There was a case of a guy, where they botched the anesthesia, and he was just paralyzed but conscious the whole time during some invasive surgery. They realized their mistake, and tried to fix it by giving him some amnesic so he wouldn’t retain the memories.
After getting discharged, he wouldn’t remember anything… but kept having nightmares, and a few weeks later took his own life.
So it seems like memories don’t need to be fully formed to mess one up.
That sounds like the mechanism might be different though, but yeah some percentage of people wake up during surgery while the paralytic is still in effect, they closely monitor the heart rate for sudden spikes because of this I believe. It sounds horrifying to me, but then I remember that there was a time when anesthetics didn’t exist.
What if anesthesia actually just blocks your memories and physical reactions, but you actually experience everything that happens to you in absolute terror?
Latest studies with FMRIs and other tools have found that general anesthesia decouples the sections of the brain from each other. All the various parts of the brain stop communicating. It’s an entities different state than sleep based on the brain activity.
Normally when we have various stimuli or are asleep, neural activity “flows” around from one section to the other. When under general anesthesia those flows are isolated and don’t connect to other sections of the brain.
This has actually given us a huge clue as to where consciousness comes from and what makes it a thing.
It also helps explain why going under is just lights out and no drama or anything. It’s like an off switch for the “person”.
I had to be put under a few years ago to extract wisdom teeth and I wouldn’t say I was 100% gone. I remember seeing the light through my eyelids, hearing muffled unintelligible voices, and feeling mild tension as they worked in my mouth, jostling my head around. No pain, but notable light sensations. It also felt like it was over in a minute for an hour and a half procedure. Was definitely a wild experience, but certainly no terror remembered, thankfully.
See for me I’m not sure why that’s hard to accept. I think I first heard it from Alan Watts, that there were billions of years of space before I was conscious, so why am I afraid of billions of years of nothing after I’m gone?
Not having something in the first place and losing something you have are two different things. It’s like saying to someone who just lost their partner “don’t feel bad, for the first n years of your life you didn’t have a partner and you were fine”
Additionally, it’s not billions of years of nothing. It’s an eternity of nothing. Billions of years may as well be the blink of an eye relative to eternity.
I’m genuinely surprised that the idea that something bad might happen to you when you’re dead or that it could be painful etc is anywhere near as prevalent as it is. To me, that makes absolutely no sense. Of course dying might be painful… But death? Once you brain no longer works? Feels obvious to me that you won’t feel, well, anything. The thing that frightens me about death wouldn’t be the experience of being dead, but rather not being able to do any more things and not existing anymore.
This reasoning goes all the way back to Epicurus. With regard to your latter points, Epicurus thought they were also solved by being dead. For someone to miss out on something, they have to exist in the first place. No person, no missing out. And for not existing to be bad, a person must be around to be upset about it.
I do mind now. I’m quite bummed out about missing all the fun of the 20th century. And never getting to breathe truly clean air. Or having the athlete body of a gatherer. Messing around in trees with feet that can actually grip something.
It’s not rational. Evolution has hardwired us and every other organism that has the necessary neural architecture to fear death and seek to avoid it. A species that didn’t have an instinctive and heritable aversion to death would not last very long.
Describe your “aversion” to death any way you want to, if in the end it results in something that very much looks like fear, I think you’re making a distinction without a difference.
Nah, Python 2.7 got way more support than it ever deserved because people just refused to switch to 3. Hell, people were starting new python projects on 2 after 3 came out.
For about the first five years of its life, it was eclipsed by Perl. That’s about it. I don’t think anything will ever unseat Python as too many people’s first and last language.
BASIC was meant as a teaching language. Python is a real language that’s simple enough to be a teaching language. It also runs the same dialect on every machine, which BASIC never did.
Being the second best language at everything, it gets used for everything because people don’t want to learn the first best in any given niche. Python isn’t the best choice for numeric applications, but with NumPy, it’s adequate, so why bother learning R? Even if you knew R already, you’re going to run into a lot of Python code for that domain from other people. You’ll be swimming against the current, and why bother?
Python is one of my primary languages (the other one being Rust). But it honestly isn’t the easiest language to teach - I’m saying this from experience. There are so many concepts at play - name binding, iterators, generators, exception chains, context managers, decorators, … . I could go on and on. Teaching becomes hard because any basic question could become a journey into the rabbit hole of python semantics.
Python is, however, a good first language for self learners. (Note: teaching vs learning). Python behaves intuitively. It’s designed in such a way that if you guess something about the language, you’ll probably be right.
Web testing is also done in python. Selenium has support in all major Python test frameworks. I’ve done SE-only tests in Robot, hybrid SE/Python using BDD with Behave, etc.
Unless I’m testing a language-specific API, I’m probably going to use Python…
I’m guessing that’s because you’re a python developer though. If you’re a frontend developer who knows JS then why wouldn’t you use that for your tests? (Apart from the fact that JS is horrible, but you’ve already accepted that suffering by becoming a web dev)
Who the fuck programs these things? Why even have this measurement if the units are not a fixed length? Just put a light on it that says “done” or “not done”
These dryers also have a timed function that will allow to to over dry your clothes as much as you’d like. The auto modes use sensors that can detect clothes that still haven’t dried completely as they tumble about. Pretty hard to make precise unless you’re attaching sensors to every article in the dryer.
It’s an estimation, which I prefer over the vagueness of a done/not done light. I recognize that it’s not specific or reliable for any precision, but having a general idea of when it will be done is useful.
I know this is a recurring meme, and it does have a basis in truth. However, in my opinion, it vastly overemphasizes a single aspect of early humans at the expense of other and more important distinct human qualities (and I’m using this term to also refer to our closely related species and ancestors).
First, the real distinction is sociality. Humans are the most cooperative species of hominid. As someone once said, you will never see two chimpanzees carrying a log together. This translates into being able to coordinate efficient hunting practices in a variety of ecosystems.
Second, and very related, is social learning. Other species can also exhibit social learning, but never to the degree humans do. Most species figure out things in evolutionary time - what counts as food, what counts as danger, the best way to do X, etc. Humans do it daily and pass it on to each other. We learn to kill prey by setting fires in grasslands. We develop tools and teach each other how to make and use them. These are all interlocking effects. The bigger our brains get, the more helpless our babies are, so the more we need societies, which creates increasingly complex social dynamics, which rewards more complex brains, and so on.
In short, it’s intelligence and social learning replacing learning in evolutionary time that made humans successful, possibly to the point of self destruction.
That’s a fascinating question. I am not sure about animal research on dreaming, but Thomas Metzinger is an experimental philosopher (for want of a better term) who studies the basis of the concept of the self as a coherent entity, and his work includes extensive research on phenomena like lucid dreaming, phantom limbs, and out of body experiences. I’m not talking about anything paranormal - there’s conditions under which people’s experience of perception and self become separated from our ordinary experience of “my self is sitting behind my eyeballs.” He collaborates closely with experimental psychologists and neuroscientists, so between his work and references you might be able to see if there’s a correlation.
I agree. I don’t know that I’d rank it quite as high as some other factors if we’re trying to find some function for “causal elements for human ecological success” or something like that, but there’s no doubt it was selected for and the degree to which we are good at it is a good indicator of its importance. Good call.
More broadly, we developed more slow twitch muscles that granted us greater fine motor skills, and subsequently the ability to create and use tools. Other apes retained their fast twitch muscles, so their ability to use tools is limited, but pound-for-pound they’re FAR stronger than humans.
Interesting, I admit that I didn’t realize until I just did a little research that persistence hunting as a significant feature in early humans isn’t actually well supported by much if any evidence.
Are there other theories on why humans seem to be almost uniquely good at distance running? Is it a spandrel?
There’s archeological evidence that modern humans were far more mobile than we have generally assumed (see eg David Graeber), but we’re talking 10-20k years ago there, which is very recent in evolutionary time where we’d be talking about physical adaptations.
SJ Gould, who was the origin of the spandrel idea, warned frequently against telling “just so” stories to try to reverse engineer the processes of selection that led to this or that feature. However, I do think that the hominid physique enabled multiple things. It has been observed that you won’t ever see a spider or octopus or dolphin moving fire from one place to another. That’s something that bipeds are able to do, and fire is one of the things we think was a key development. It’s the same with generalized tool use. So we can see there may have been multiple selection pressures leading towards bipedalism.
If distance running were truly a spandrel, we’d have to say that it was a consequence of these selective pressures giving rise to the body plan, but wasn’t itself selected for. I’d be more conservative on that one, and hazard a guess that distance running (or efficiency in long distance movement) was also a selective pressure. I just don’t think the evidence is there to say that it was the dominant one at that time.
In short, it’s intelligence and social learning replacing learning in evolutionary time that made humans successful, possibly to the point of self destruction.
So basically Agent Smith was right. We are a disease, a cancer of this planet.
I would say that, like chatgpt, agent smith managed to be not entirely wrong but also not right.
Yes, human beings are absolutely massacring life on the planet - the only planet that we know has life on it. I have a whole hours long spiel on the potentials for extraterrestrial life which I’ll spare you, but it’s truthful to say that, as far as we know, we’re all there is. Does that matter? That’s something that people (who are the only beings we know of who ask questions like that) will have to answer. As of now the answer is between undecided and no.
Anyway, unlike what Agent Smith says, literally everything is trying to do the same thing. If anything, the problem is that we’re exactly like all of those other organisms that are spamming the environment with copies of themselves. All of that fun alcohol we use to manage our perception of our existential crises come from the same dynamic - yeasts reproducing on sugars until they poison themselves with their own waste products, for which we as humans found a useful application.
The key is that when the species co-evolve as part of the same ecosystem, they mutually adapt. When one species invades another ecosystem, the other species there haven’t have had a chance to adapt in evolutionary time and so it sends shockwaves and possibly extinctions throughout the system. Some people believe (with a fairly strong argument) that the disappearance of megafauna - big land animals - followed human radiation over the land masses, and didn’t happen in Africa because all of the big animals co-evolved.
So we started out as an invasive species that just went pretty much everyplace. Were finishing up as a species that has the same kind of tight reproductive loop as those yeast friends, but in doing so we are going to take down a lot of our fellow beings.
I just checked. It seems they’re using activitypub as well. So yes, they‘re sort of in the ballpark with it, like kbin. So I suppose you’re right. But the others have to follow.
Yeah sorry, if I can view the menu from my phone instead of touching a menu that 6000 other people have touched, without having to deal with either the server taking it away or it being in the way on my table, I don’t see why I would want or need an actual physical menu
I don’t think you should “have to”. I think physical menus should always be available. But if both are available, I certainly think the digital is superior in every way
I’m with you on this, I live in a country where a digital menu is not a given and I hate it more than people who prefer physical menus seem to hate digital menus. I do agree that both should be available as an option
QR codes as menus are a security risk. A bad actor could make up some stickers and put them on the table in place of the menu QR code. The code could then take the user to a malicious site, that they think they should be able to trust.
I see your point, but that seems highly improbable. That a bad actor would be willing and able to successfully create a QR Code that looks enough like the restaurant’s QR and that neither the patrons nor the establishment itself would notice. Not only improbable, but the roi for the scammer seems very poor.
No one working at the restaurant is analyzing the pixels in a QR code to see if they are in the right spot. A QR looks like a QR code. Show someone 10 QR codes and ask them to pick the one from their restaurant, no way anyone is getting that right based on anything more than dumb luck.
The fake one could even forward on to the normal menu after it does the nasty bits, assuming it’s just installing something that will run in the background. This seems like a great way to get some malware out into the wild, especially if it can’t self-replicate.
Disagree, this is one of those changes that not only is very hyginic but also has a juge impact on reducing the amount of work for staff.
I won’t disagree however that they could still have menus available for the instances people don’t have a smartphone or are having problems with their smartphone. However, overall the impacts are mostly positive aside from incoviniencing the customer slightly to look at the menu on their phone.
The entire point of going out to eat is customer service. If I didn’t want things like this handled for me I would eat at home. “Slightly inconveniencing the customer” is not acceptable.
What’s worse is I’m now expected to tip 20% to a person that basically runs my food and fucks off. Id be fine with it if I picked up my food at a window. Why am I tipping someone so much money when all they do is deliver food? No talking, no taking an order, no checking in, not even bringing a bill. I was at a brewery recently with one of those order online and bring it to your table setups. I asked for some ketchup when they brought the food and they told me I had to order it through the website. Not going back.
Uk government tried this a few yrs ago trying to spin the welfare part as work shy bambots then it came out that the lions share was pension pots that took up most of it with the teachers pensions being the one the media focused on
The US has a similar breakdown by % as this Australian one, except that what’s called “welfare” in Australia is called “entitlements” in the US and makes up about 50% of the budget. Welfare in terms of the dole aka money given to “work shy bambots” makes up only about half of one percent.
Friendly reminder that lemmy is still being actively developed. There will be many performance improvements in the future, as well as UI and whatnot. Stick around, create content and engage with your communities.
Agreed! The only way to make sure that we can hit “critical mass” (the point in which content is relatively the same as on Reddit), is to continue what we did over there, and more. Most of us were lurkers on Reddit (me included). We now have to generate the content that most bots, mods, and superuser did for us. This allows us to get the links and content that we enjoyed reading and interacting with on Reddit.
These days we have much cheaper ways to handle uploading and downloading insane amounts of video content (if you’re interested, I recommend checking out some System Design resources on TikTok or YouTube), but it’s pretty much all CDN and slightly more efficient backend services). We also have better ways to monetize platforms. Like data. Buttt ByteDance is also trying to do things like set up physical goods stores/etc, and it’s 2024 where userbase and brand name is more important than actual revenue anyways.
Twitter clearly mishandled it. All they needed to do was give the option to post longer videos. Classic example of a large company buying a small innovative service and destroying it for no reason. I assume they thought it was too similar and in competition with Twit's existing ability to post videos.
It wasn’t about video length, it was about the Twitter leadership at that time being categorically incapable of monetizing any of their products.
Combine that with the orders-of-magnitude higher cost of running Vine compared to the bird, and it was always either going to be sold off or shut down.
It’s easy to forget that this was back in the time when these companies thought they were changing the planet for the better and drinking their own Kool aid by the gallon.
The video length was pretty limiting, though. Instagram at the time started doing 15 second videos. The six seconds lent itself to goofy comedy and not much more.
It seems like they should have sold it. Or just jammed in a bunch of ads... maybe an option to remove ads with a paid membership. Simply killing it doesn't make any money other than to avoid losing more, and they'd already invested a fair bit which you can't recoup by just closing something. Of course, Google does that all the time I guess.
Such techniques are often used to sell a conclusion with data that doesn't agree. Scaling, cropping, etc. Visuals are very powerful, and people will look at a graph and assume it's correct.
I was trying to figure out what was bothering me about it. Basically 1’0” - 5’0” is 1 tick mark part foot and then it’s 1 tick mark per inch. So basically you have a 12:1 ratio for the first 60 inches so it’s not a linear, logarithmic, exponential or any normal type of scale.
I had medical mutilation. I lost a lot of sensitivity down there. But it allows it to work and wife has been supportive in a country where it’s a rare thing.
I also feel like it’s impossible to learn about the lost sensitivity: in the half dozen posts I have seen over the years about non-babies being circumcised, they say the sensitivity lost isn’t as much as we circumcised suspect it was. I’m not doubting you. I just wish I knew what the proper amount of resentment about my parents having chosen this is.
But it’s not life altering and I do prefer it in a way, I’m not having issues finishing or anything like that. I had it done at a private hospital so it was done esthetically well. Very little scar tissue etc. But I wouldn’t make my son have one, that’s crazy. It happened and I had little choice in the matter. But it was conscious, body autonomy is important.
But I feel like I’m a rare breed of someone experiencing it and having years with “both” types. There’s a lot of curiosity from both camps because realistically, there’s little chance of anyone ever finding out which one is “better”. Honestly, both have pros and cons. I hope my comment puts people a bit at ease for having it forced upon them when they couldn’t say no and those who still can choose, don’t feel pressured into it or mislead by misinformation.
Neither of my parents are or were religious, yet I have a scar there (not hyperbole, actually hurts if touched too much). I don’t know if foreskin is useful for anything in GRS, but if it is I’m gonna be pissed I don’t have any.
Yep. If an adult wants to do it, then it’s nobody else’s business. But parents shouldn’t be allowed to make a decision like that. An infant can’t be religious.
I didn’t realize those were swimming goggles at first, and was concerned about what he could possibly be doing that required safety goggles but no shirt.
lemmy.world
Top