If your political opinion begins with “why don’t we just…” then its a bad political opinion.
If we could just, we would have already just. If you think you’re the only one with the capacity to see a simple answer - newsflash, you’re not a political genius. Its you who doesn’t understand the complexity of the problem.
My partner lacked political engagement until his 30s for reasons so he occasionally has these hot takes. But he expresses them to me and I do feel bad because he’s not coming at it from an arrogant perspective. It’s ignorance, some naivete and also exasperation at a whole lot of shit things.
I have to gently explain to him why XYZ isn’t that simple or black and white, or why his idea doesn’t work - and the answer to that, 9 times out of 10, is ‘because money/rich people/greed/lobbyists/nimbyism’.
I’m just slowly chipping away at his innocence and it feels bad.
Its great that you’re helping to inform him! I have found the people who know the most about politics and global issues tend to talk less and listen more.
My responses to him are always prefaced with a big sigh. Because whatever I’m about to tell him is negative. And he often concludes with ‘so how can you care about this/why do you give a shit if it’s pointless’ and I’m finding it harder and harder to answer that question.
Adam Savage had a bit where he pointed out there is practically zero times when to you should start a sentence with “why don’t you just”. My first instinct is to patiently listen & respond but I’m slowly turning into “why don’t you just stop, think & rephrase that”
I’ve always interpreted “why don’t we just X?” as a shorter way of expressing “I think I would like X. Is this a good idea? If not, why? If yes, what are the barriers to making it happen?”
Is English your second language? I didn’t say it can’t be associated to a person or group, I said it doesn’t need to.
I also didn’t say that you can’t have more than one problem, I just addressed the one you seemed to be concerned with and defined it as one that I’m not interested in debating.
As far as I understand (might be missing nuance, 'cause it was 80s/90s AAVE in the first place) it’s someone who puts the homies aside over chasing a romance, especially if the romantic interest is considered unworthy/‘for the streets’ or if the homies consider what you’re chasing to be unrequited
Basically a person who marks out for someone who probably doesn’t gaf about them
The point of that meme as I took it is to illustrate the uncertainty women face when it comes to the intentions of (strange) men. The bear, an actual killer, at least is predictable. Not a criticism of your hot take btw, just sharing my thoughts on this meme.
I think this should apply in general, not just in this thread. Down votes are reserved for comments that do not positively contribute to the conversation.
Its legacy as this place potentially and magically fulfilling the hopes of having the answers to one’s questions far exceeds reasonability, especially given the ordinariness of its circumstances/contents, and combine that with the fact that what they were known for is performing human experimentation on live prisoners, all without the ability to understand these experiments enough to start forming a unified concept of medicine around it, since this is Ancient Greece/Egypt we’re talking about.
No one authentically hates the word moist. There’s no evidence then anyone disliked the word before Friends made an episode about it. Everyone since that has either been parroting that episode or someone who, in turn, parroted the episode.
Either these people saw it and decided it was an interesting facet to add to their personality, or it was the first time they’ve ever consciously thought about how a word feels and sounds and that shattered their ignorance and spoiled a perfectly good word.
I don’t remember a friends episode about this either. I do remember it being on how I met your mother though so possibly the person you’re replying to was thinking of that.
Personally I dislike squelch, mulch, ask, just a ton of words, but I dislike them because they way they fell in my mouth. Either they’re hard to pronounce or they don’t feel nice in my mouth.
I tend to agree, but I would set the age lower. A person can graduate high school at 18, get a 4-year degree, and still be 3 years away from “adulthood” by your definition. There are plenty of professionals in the first 3 years of their career who are contributing members of society. Shouldn’t they be able to drive to work, sign a rental contract, etc? I’ve been in my career for over 20 years, and I have always worked with young people who may be lacking experience but are still productive employees. I think you’d be cutting out a significant portion of the workforce by excluding those in early adulthood.
I think you’d be cutting out a significant portion of the workforce by excluding those in early adulthood.
I’m guessing their position is very much “oh they still need to work and pay taxes…and they shouldn’t expect any more support than they currently have in order to do so…but they need to figure out how to manage it all without driving, and they should be disenfranchised as well”.
My position is “let kids be kids” or maybe more like “let students be students”. We expect a college degree for most jobs these days, so if it’s a requirement let’s, as a society, act like it and prioritize their potential for growth while they have it.
Interesting, but don’t you think it would cause issues as well?
We all develop differently and many are mature before 25 while I’ve ceetainly met people who are not even in their thirties. Do you have any research to support 25 being a more fitting age than 18?
Also: if you cannot enter contracts you cannot work. Do you really think everybody should not be able to hold a job until they reach 25?
I worked long before I could legally enter contracts. Only one of my jobs has had an employment contract.
I agree with your point that many reach maturity before 25 or even 18, however I don’t think enabling those fortunate few is worth stripping the protections of minority from the rest.
I’m sure you did, but that is not a good thing. At least where I’m from, a contract is a must have. It states everything related to your job, including tasks, vacation time and salary. Without it you have fewer (or none) legs to stand on should your employer be an ass.
You wouldn’t buy a house without signing the paperwork proving it’s yours and you should not work without a signed contract.
I’m no neuroscientist so I can’t in good faith comment on our development, so I’m only arguing against the contract signing part.
Thinking people in their late teenage years and young adults aren’t mature enough to do some of those things is just a big tell of how bad we educate them rather than their brain not being “developed”.
Consent is the most obvious example, teenagers are gonna have a sexual life no matter what you want them to do. Removing consent just remove yourself from the responsibility of educating them and entice them to stay hidden.
Driving is also just necessary to anyone working, again being safe just need to be taught, plenty of adults are just as immature and stupid.
The same can be said for drinking or smoking, prevention is so much more effective than restrictions.
However, for voting or joining the army that’s when i agree. Because the system is built to prey on them, making sure they stay uneducated and vulnerable. So only then does having restrictions make sens to keep them safe.
I don’t follow your argument about sex ed and consent.
Sex ed should start as soon as kids can talk, to keep it from being stigmatized and to prevent predation. There is no need to wait until a child reaches sexual maturity for that; in fact, at that point it is too late.
As to driving, most people shouldn’t be driving, period. We are, in general, not good at it. Leave it to the professionals.
Sex ed is what makes children mature enough to have sex once they reach the age of doing it.
But what’s the point of raising the age of consent?
My point is there isn’t any if sex ed is done well, it only makes sex more taboo.
Conversely, if you want to raise it, maybe it’s because sex ed wasn’t done properly, making teens not able to be mature enough for an activity they are gonna do anyway.
For driving, I would agree in general we aren’t good at driving, but changing our means of transport isn’t easy, despite being the best solution. That wasn’t really the topic though…
Don’t know what’s so funny about that. Teaching your toddler that not everyone can touch their genitals is sex ed, and should absolutely be done as soon as they can understand it…
Of course I don’t think that, it’s one of the most natural fucking things in the world. I just think for young children, especially ones who just learned how to talk, there’s things they definitely DON’T need to know yet.
Oh no! But you see young people joining the military because of indoctrination or poverty surely are to blame for US interventionism (read terrorism)!!!
Fuckin facts, yo, I’m tired of searching up the sauce to try to get a gauge of wherever the fuck the sauce actually is, as opposed to its marketing wank wanting to convince me I’m chowing down on neutron star, despite it really being around room temp unflavored jello.
Lemmy is left leaning but downvotes anything that suggests poll numbers are slipping for Biden, or if people are unsatisfied with his performance. It’s news! Are y’all just downvoting it because you don’t like it?
Lemmy.world and Lemmy.ca tend to be right-leaning even if they have some Leftist comms. The fediverse still appeals to leftists, but liberals have their own enclaves.
“Pulling for Biden” is most certainly not ‘leaning left’, lmfao. Precisely two and a half instances actually lean left; the rest are typically as bad as if not worse than Reddit libbery on geopolitical takes.
If your free software communications can only be done thru US-based, proprietary options, then you are not free software. To think open source is ideal for your project, but not the tools surrounding it misses the point of trying uplift support & usage of these free sorts of projects (& this isn’t even starting with the privacy & lock-in concerns). Instead of coding around flaws in Microsoft GitHub or building Discord/Slack/Telegram bots, actually build & upstream integrations into the free options as you would like to see folks do unto your own project. Not saying you can’t have these services as an alternative, but as the only option (or the primary option to IIABH) should be shamed & definitely not considered the norm.
Also Matrix is pretty shit, where all the clients/servers run too heavy, & eventual-consistency means self-hosting storage often ballots into ‘too expensive’ which has led to de facto centralization the project cannot fix by design. Meaning Matrix is a better, but still bad chat option.
You could switch some of the problems with perf in switching away from the Python implementation server as well as Element clients but these support the most up-to-date features & the majority of users are now relying on these features that often don’t degrade graacefully.
The bigger issue is eventual consistency. Eventual consistency will not scale for small self-hosting. Every message & every attachment for every user in every chatroom they have joined must be duplicated to your server. This is why joining rooms sometmies takes 10 minutes. Even if you make this async from the client side instead of the current long wait, your server & storage are still taking the hit. A lot of small collectives had to drop their servers for performance & cost (read about yet another one today on the Techlore thread at c/privacy where now only Discord is used for realtime coms). This model is required to copycat the ability to search the entire history like the big, proprietary chat apps such as Slack/Telegram/Discord, but they are centralized so it is easier to manage—but its overuse for all announcement & trying to replace forums turns it into a black hole for information. Your small community probably does not need persistent chat like this—persistent info is lighter & easier to crawl as feeds & forums. With medium-sized servers shutting down, only the biggest & smallest hosts are still kicking with most metadata is largely centralized around Matrix.org who also hosts some of the other larger instances.
If you agree that chat can be chatter as well as ephemeral there is lightweight centralized chat in IRCv3 with TLS has most of the features you need with a longer legacy & massive choice for clients & XMPP for lightweight decentralized chat with a long legacy, client options too, & can be self-hosted in a bedroom on a toaster in comparison which increases the chances of self-hosters & decentralization. These were built in a time when we didn’t have such wasteful taste in tech since they needed to be efficient & only sip power/data in comparison both for clients & servers & storage. The bigger question IMO is what are fundamentally wrong with these two mature options that we need a new option built on unextensible JSON & Israeli Intelligence money?
Well, in their FAQ the Matrix team states that they love both IRC and XMPP and that for those whom these options perform better they wish the best of luck continuing to use them. Matrix does have some qualities they do not and they do not mean to compete with them, rather to put up bridges so as to federate between these decentralized protocols.
Personally, I want to move away from communicating through Discord with many of my friends. I do not believe neither IRC nor XMPP would entice them, but Matrix could as soon as they finish implementing their new video call capabilities. The same goes for community projects that use Discord as a replacement for forums.
Entice how? Spinning up XMPP on any hardware is simple to federate with you—& I wouldn’t wish they all self-host Matrix instances. XMPP’s jingle protocol works for voice/video & I use it self-hosted with my partner. What are the others missing considering the weight of the applications is literally felt. If you want a web client with stickers & reactions (& calling), what is Movim missing? Replacing forums is a part of the problem, not something to replicate… Movim & Libervia cover community posts that are web searchable.
I have no experience with the last two options you mentioned, but I was of the understanding that XMPP does not have video group call functionality. Also, it has been a long time since I used XMPP at all, but syncing history between sessions was not possible to me then. These are features that would be deal breakers to miss.
History / sync is known as message archive management (MAM) & every normal modern client & server supports it. OMEMO uses same double-ratchet encryption & multiple clients as Matrix (with the same old client key dropping issues sadly). By default it does not support groups you are correct, however, FOSS Jitsi (& Zoom for that matter) is powered by XMPP under the hood & can be stood up by yourself.
Personally three of my circles have opted for separate Mumble servers for voice coms (I run one of them from my living room) as video is only ever rarely needed & the system resources is minimal. Having web cams on is seen as a chore & distraction sometimes. The only time video is helpful in my experience is screen share which is different—but screensharing is the worst tool for trying to do code pairing / debugging a terminal using upterm provides a crisper view experience, lower data/system requirements, & observers can optionally drive the remote session.
Did not know about MAM, but that sounds great. I also hosted a Mumble server for my friends for over 5 years, but it was basically never used because there existed a one-stop solution (Discord) that allowed for more stuff^TM^. TIL Jitsi was powered by XMPP, thanks. I personally have no problem with fragmenting functionality between different specialized applications, but it will always be a tough sell for those I know because they believe they can have it all in their cool app.
At the end of the day, communication services usefulness are upwards limited by the people you can reach through them. The need for everything to be easy and centralized for the user (ironic with respect to server federation, I know) is what has made me so hopeful for the Matrix protocol, since it is designed for allowing this while still being decentralized at its core.
One of my longer-term goals is to integrate Mumble on XMPP (others have thought about this too) since its chat is pretty shit & needing accounts to join isn’t great but or two good foundational protocols.
XMPP is better for modularity which is why everything is at extension with means the foundations are simple & easy to implement where you can build something optimized & bespoke on it like Fornite’s coms or Nintendo’s presense. It’s a little harder to understand tho since out of the box you get almost nothing—but the big servers intended for chat like Prosody & ejabberd have sane defaults.
The centralization you are referring to seems more a client issue since the protocol & servers already ‘do the things’ but it sounds like you want a single ‘app’. For community building where you consider group calls less common, both Movim & Libervia offer more than Element (note the other Matrix clients are lacking feature parity) since they both can do integrated posts like forums—where Libervia supports calendars/events too. There’s no reason a client couldn’t exist with Jitsi or Mumble integration.
Ultimately use the right tool for you—it’s just nice to dispel myths that Matrix has some special sauce or that predecessors can’t fill the same roles (while also using less resources in all directions).
IRCv3 for accessibility if I need it to be centralized & TLS is the only useful encryption (such as a public chat room); otherwise XMPP + OMEMO for decentralized (but also is great for public chat rooms). No need to reinvent battle-tested, mature standards.
Yeah I’ve used jmp.chat before, but I couldn’t get any of the clients to work well with my pinephone’s microphone. Shame, since it’s the closest you’re going to get to VoIP on the thing.
I used it recently. Its actually really nice! Its fast. It also suffers from clients being weird. Although it is very stable. And extremely resource light. Apparently a single server can support 100,000 users or something. And it has distributed servers too (which is possible because it’s stateless. Wish Matrix had it though)
Matrix is in my (and a lot of other people’s opinion) way better for the future. The encryption is better, and there’s a lot more stuff supported by it. Importantly moderation.
Dino on Linux and Conversations for Android are both amazing clients imo, but the rest I’ve tried are SEVERELY lacking. Especially on iOS.
I personally think the future from a technological perspective is SimpleX Chat. Fixes so many issues that plague other private IMs, however I’m waiting to switch until I see that their venture capital strategy is actually sustainable and won’t enshittify it.
Matrix is definitely closer to Discord / a platform built for communities.
SimpleX is not P2P, as I understand it messages are forwarded through a random(?, at least varying) number of servers, so no server knows the sender and recipient. The main issue it attempts to solve is a complete lack of a persistent identifier. Your “account” does not have a single address you can be messaged on (you can create ephemeral ones). You can create a new identity for each person you message, meaning you don’t have to trust the people you’re messaging to keep your messaging account’s ‘identity’ secure.
I also really like how easy it is to route through proxies (esp on Android)
Beeing honest about mistakes you make is way better than trying to deflect or lie about them. This is true in professional and in social settings.
Own up to your mistakes, try to correct them and be open about you fucking up. Most people will respect that more than you trying to be Mr or Ms Perfect.
Lmao it’s one of my favorite words. Yeah I don’t see many of y’all either lol, I’m guessing it’s a smaller instance which is cool.
You also may be able to change it in your settings to always display the full name btw, if you wanted. In Eternity you can for sure and I’m sure others too.
If someone’s too dangerous to own a gun they should be institutionalized until they’re no longer a danger. Just taking guns away from them won’t prevent them from being a problem.
Anything that would currently mean a person loses their right to gun ownership. A felony, red flag, whatever. I’m not sure I agree with all of them but the logic of the situation dictates that if a person is so dangerous that they will kill people then that needs to be corrected. Just taking a gun away won’t prevent them from doing harm if they want to.
It’s hard to argue that guns don’t make the proverbial bad guy more efficient at killing. If guns weren’t the most effective tool for killing someone, cops would carry cheaper alternatives like billy clubs, and wars would still be fought with swords and bows.
Of course, they do carry billy clubs and blunt instruments are quite capable of killing people too. Sure mass shootings would be harder (assuming we could do one single thing about the six hundred million guns out there already, which, good luck) but single brutal murders w/o guns are also a problem and typically target women, lgbt, and disabled people.
If we’re talking about Lemmy rather than wider society then;
Inb4; I’m broadly in support of trans people and trans rights/equality but I think there are three small snagging issues
That people who identify as a women but who went through puberty as a male shouldn’t be competing in women’s sports. I think it’s a basic issue of fairness and that it ultimately disincentives people born female from entering a career in sports competitions.
That there is a serious debate to be had about trans people in women’s changing rooms. I know it is a very nuanced and sensitive topic and I don’t pretend that I have the answer, but I don’t think it is as simple as “I identify as X so I’ll use X changing room”. I’d like to make it clear that I don’t think this is a “sneaky perv” issue but rather a debate about spaces that should possibly be reserved for people born as female.
That no permanent changes should be made to the bodies of children. If you’re not old enough to get a tattoo, piercing, drink, smoke etc. Then you’re not old enough to make an extremely important decision that will effect you for the rest of your life.
I think all sports aren’t equal in this. The rules for MMA would surely be different than the rules for curling or chess. The people who control sports organizations usually have a life dedicated to their sport, and are in a much better place to make a call about it than congress or randos on the internet. This matter should be handled by them. The fact that anyone without skin in the game cares about this at all is a losing battle.
If sex doesn’t matter in curling or chess, then why are there different competitions for men and women in curling and why do women get their own titles in chess?
I do understand the sentiment of what you’re saying, but it’s not the reality we live in.
The “people who control sports organizations” only made separate leagues for women because some mens’ feelings get hurt when they lose to women.
There’s no other point to segregating sports by gender, just straight white cis dudes getting bent out of shape by any challenge to their supposed superiority.
Ultra-endurance sports such as marathons (women show a statistical advantage over men above the 150-mile mark), Figure Skating (Madge Syers beat two men for the silver medal in 1902, women were then banned from competing until the sport was gender-segregated in 1906), Baseball (Jackie Mitchell struck out Babe Ruth and Lou Gherig in 1931 and was kicked out of the league a month later), Shooting sports (Zhang Shang took the gold in shotgun skeet in 1992, women were’t allowed to compete again until the sport was gender-segregated in 2000, and women average higher scores in the rifle category to this day), etc etc.
Shootings an interesting one. Most people familiar with guns notice women take to shooting accurately more easily and quickly than guys (with rifles, not handguns). I’ve seen this lots personally. My theory involves lower heart rate and lower muscle mass being conducive.
(Jackie Mitchell struck out Babe Ruth and Lou Gherig in 1931 and was kicked out of the league a month later)
This lacks SO much context, it was an EXHIBITION match and she never played in the MLB, she played in the minors. Anyone reading that would assume she struck out two greats in a real game and was banned by the MLB.
There’s a lot of truth to she shooting thing, that should absolutely be co-ed.
However, my point still stands: women and men should be separated if the sport has a physical component to its competition. (i.e. any sort of contact.)
I think you mean sports without a physical activity aspect; and even then, sports like chess don’t separate males and females (they offer female-only competitions).
There’s no other point to segregating sports by gender, just straight white cis dudes getting bent out of shape by any challenge to their supposed superiority.
What are you on about? There are two HUGE reasons: safety and fairness:
Especially in contact sports, allowing women to play with men is not safe, and would only lead to an environment conducive to women getting injured.
There would be zero professional female athletes (excluding sports that only require mental strategy ofc) if there were no separate leagues for women. They wouldn’t perform at even close to the same level as the men, AND would be at increased risk of injury.
I don’t know what fantasy world you live in, but here are biological factors that make it necessary to separate men and women in order to have fair competition. Female athletes would be infinitely worse off if forced to try to compete in a single league shared with men, because they aren’t be able to.
Figure skating is a perfect example of a performance sport, there isnt any physicality. Also, I think its absolutely ridiculous to claim that Jackie Mitchell striking out an aging Ruth and Gherig in an exhibition match is a woman ‘starting to win’.
I can’t speak to curling, but in chess the womens’ leagues are there to get women involved. There are no biological advantages at play. This is a 2000 year old game they were excluded from playing until 100 years ago. So someone could put forth a good argument that it’s more about gender than physical sex.
There are very few women chess players at the top level of the game. The reasons for this are debatable, it could simply be that women are less interested in chess or that women are put off by a male dominated “sport”, but I’ve also heard that men are much more likely to have a specific type of autism that makes them especially suited to doing well at chess.
I’m absolutely open minded to the idea that women can become top level chess players and that women’s titles could be made redundant, but I think it’s reasonable to see the evidence of this before we say that it’s an equal playing field for both sexes. I’d suggest that we should see a decent proportion of women in the top one hundred players of the world, or even the top two hundred and fifty.
Given the current ranking of chess players, it’s really hard to say that women have the same chess ability as the men and I absolutely don’t want that to come across as sexism, it’s just factual.
There’s actually a big different in mens and women’s IQ distribution. Men are all over the map, from extremely dumb to extremely smart, but women tend to statistically cluster in the middle with comparatively few outliers. Way less mentally deficient, very few Bobby Fischers.
Because we can debate all-day about what is a man or a women or non-binary and gender roles etc. But I would say debating what is a male or female is much easier and simply comes down to genetics.
Edit: imagine getting down voted for saying XX chromosomes are female and XY is male haha, I guess we’re just ignoring the science of genetics now
Yeah, you get downvoted because we don’t waste breath on transphobes. Genetics has already been accepted by actual scientists, rather than by Quora Top Minds as a
Read a book, read an article, read something you absolute regress
In case you're too lazy to click a link:> In an additional layer of complexity, the gender with which a person identifies does not always align with the sex they are assigned at birth, and they may not be wholly male or female. The more we learn about sex and gender, the more these attributes appear to exist on a spectrum.*
Tears of the Kingdom is a terrible game, it’s a mod of BOTW but with more ways to skip the exploration so you don’t get to memorize the map like in Elden Ring or Fallout.
I’m not sure I exactly agree. I feel like it would be a better game than botw if I hadn’t already played botw. Still suffered from most of the same problems.
Also the combat is so bad it encouraged you to avoid it whenever possible.
I wouldn’t say terrible but mid possibly. It just took something that already worked well and added a little extra to it.
If “thing2: the sequel” attaches a something kinda neato to the revolutionary, gaming landscape changing “thing1:the thingining” that doesn’t mean thing2 is really better than something that significantly moved the bar.
This is why Fallout 3 is better than Fallout New Vegas and I will fight you all over it.
Usa obsession with keeping the 2nd amendment is doing more harm than good. Your obsession with possession of fire arms in general generates problems that I don’t see in other countries, starting for the school shootings…
But no "muh rights, I must gun down anyone invading my home, we do things the muricah way here yeewah, Bald eagle screech! 🦅
Oh you must be thinking of the time they shot a student 70 years ago. No, I’m referring to events rightly called “massacres”. Not a trigger happy riot officer killing someone. I’m talking lining 20 people at a time up next to a ditch and shooting them all in the backs of the heads.
Im talking about massacres. Killing events where 20 is a rounding error.
Now I get it. Your teachers may have failed to teach you about human history. But we live in the age of informaron. You can look this stuff up.
I did. It’s how I learned about this stuff. But you, in the meantime, apparently think that
trigger happy riot officer killing someone
Is totally different and not at all a symptom of overall system. Cool. Don’t forget to keep your hands on the wheel in a traffic stop, lest an acorn falls.
So by reaching back to May I was able to find a massacre, in a country with a civilian weapons ban, five times larger than the on you found by reaching back to 1985, in a country with an armed populace.
Do you suppose they dropped bombs on these civilians?
So far thar’s two data points. Shall we continue one for one comparing the massacres of unarmed populations to those of armed populations?
Order of operations is important. Yes, if we got rid of all the guns then gun violence would stop being a problem. There’s a whole discussion that could be had about sensible gun regulations that is beyond the scope of this comment. Reform on the matter is necessary.
However, that ‘order of operations’ thing I mentioned: I’ll give up my guns when the fascists give up theirs, and not a day earlier.