The subjects that you can’t even bring up without getting downvoted, banned, fired, expelled, cancelled etc.
I hesitate to say
Close enough. Ban him.
For legal reasons I cannot have any opinion on the following: Gestures broadly at everything in the Middle East
You are more than welcome to choose from one of the pre-prepared opinions that we have on offer here… no need to bring anything new to the table and confuse such an obviously binary subject.
“ChatGpt is really good if you use it properly”
Gets torrents of down votes every time. But I literally use it a lot at work and it’s brilliant.
Depends what you use it for. If you are trying to provide something informational, I do not trust chat gpt.
If you use it to respond to work emails because they force communication for the sake of communication, then its fine.
So, if you use it properly. Just like you wouldn’t use a fork for soup despite it being a utensil and food. Using a tool for what it’s good at and avoiding using it for things it’s bad at is part of using it properly.
I used it to help me create a level 10 DND character for a one shot and it was great for that
If you only use it for cheating in work that won’t be read by a human anyways, it’s great!
This comment has been removed by the moderators
Paedophilia as a sickness, especially non-offending paedos.
I’d call it a cultural artifact. We used to get married very young. In some cultures the kids are introduced to sex by the grandparents. And of course in our own culture the ideal of sexy beauty is a supermodel who looks like a 13 year old boy. It’s a whirlwind wrapped in a psychosis for sure.
I chalk this up to not having a word to describe folks suffering from the condition as opposed to predators acting on their condition (or even predators just abusing children regardless of attraction). For a ton of people they use the word pedophile to mean someone who sexually abuses children. Because as soon as nuanced discussion about “pedophiles who don’t abuse kids” come up, people accuse you of “defending pedophiles” but they use it to mean “defending people who abuse children.”
Anything pro-suicide
Medically assisted suicide is pretty widely accepted in Canada, in my experience. Pro non medically assisted suicide or young suicide is different, maybe.
Non medically assisted
Oh that is a good one. Thanks.
People of color seem to perform amazing in athletics compared to other races in America (see: American football, basketball). Makes me think that Americans hyper-evolved their slaves by selective breeding. Unfortunate and extremely unethical, but maybe possible? Idk.
It’s possible it’s for other reasons, though. Black Americans are generally poorer than other Americans, and success in sports is a ticket out of poverty that is accessible to people in that position. It could also be a cultural thing; I doubt Finns are genetically predisposed to be exceptional drivers, but they are still wildly over-represented at the top level of motorsports for such a small population
That breeding programme called natural selection is what got us all here.
I’d believe it if a good portion of black americans I’ve seen are tall and muscular, but I’d say their proportions are similar to their white american counterparts, i.e. a spectrum.
I think they just want it more, and its one of the few paths to success they have.
That actually can be explained by the slaves that used to live in the farmhouses. They were treated as an elevated status and allowed to eat more. Think like the “aunts” for the children; caretakers.
But they were exceptions, not the majority who were slaves/workers. You’d still expect a heavy selection bias for good body attributes if you sampled them at random, assuming OP’s hypothesis is true.
I heard that a similar breeding program happened in some African cultures back in the day. Like you could only breed if you were an alpha hunter or somesuch.
So that’s how you get a race of 7’ tall dudes
I fucking hate React. It’s slow, verbose, and unpleasant to work with. It’s all the worst parts of Java brought over to JavaScript. That being said, it’s still better than Angular.
I wouldn’t mind switching to alternative libraries like Svelte or Solid but can’t imagine going back to plain Javascript for complex applications. It’s a pain in the ass, even with jQuery.
I use Svelte, and I love it. Although I’m not a huge fan of the new Runes syntax. It’ll probably grow on me though.
Angular my beloved…
What’s wrong with it if I may ask?
There’s so much boilerplate to even do the most simple tasks. And that boilerplate is something that could usually be automatically added by a compiler.
That kind of stuff often introduces footguns.
I think what started me down the anti-React path was realizing that there were other frameworks out there that don’t even use a virtual dom. Plus you get tired of being told that the most obvious and intuitive way to do various things in React actually goes against some best practice that they’ve established.
On lemmy?
-
Two-space indent (as superior to tab indent)
-
Hey, by the way, your comment was kinda racist
-
I’m a new user and why isn’t this more like reddit
-
I’m pretty okay with capitalism, actually
-
Here’s video without text summary (NB: this one is, IMO, entirely deserving of downvotes)
+ Here’s video without text summary
I really don’t get why people get so upset about that. We don’t get summaries on Youtube either but still watch the videos.
-
We go to youtube to watch videos. We go to lemmy comments to read text.
-
Youtube videos DO have descriptions, though?
- Sure, if it’s just a bare link in the comments I understand, but as a post with the original video title and usually an autogenerated thumbnail, I don’t see a problem.
- The YT descriptions are not shown in the list of videos and rarely contain a summary of the video.
-
There’s just something off-putting about a text based forum getting video content.
Maybe I’m just old school, but I’m two spaces for life. I will die on this fucking hill. If you use tabs after just a couple indents all the code is off screen. I ain’t trying to scroll in two dimensions all the time.
+1 for the video issue, or any other “just do [insert a bunch of work here], it’s less work than commenting anyways” kinda stuff
Who the fuck uses pluses as bullet points in their markdown!?
I do. Why, what do you use?
That’s the taboo! Boo! How dare you!
-
All drugs should be legal and regulated.
Is it worth it, drug warriors? All the unnecessary deaths at the hands of police/gangs/cartels and unregulated drugs of a unknown potency? Was it worth sacrificing all our civil liberties on the vain funeral pyre that is the United States of America?
When humanity is victorious in the drug war and all drugs are legalized, will drug users criminalize sobriety?
Will people high as fuck demand everyone to piss in a plastic cup to make sure they are high?
Will drug users ruin sober people’s lives with felonies and time in prison with hardened criminals?
Will drug users dissolve civil liberties and prop up a bipartisan police state that gives cops a license to kill?
NO!
Who would want to do that to someone? To a fellow human for doing what they want with their own bodies? Prohibitionists… that’s who. And we are not them
Nothing lasts forever drug warriors. Tick tock. We will be free one day, and you will wail and moan and your cries will fall on deaf ears.
Get fucked prohibitionists. Feel fortunate we want justice, not retribution.
Now playing The War on Drugs - Red Eyes
I know it’s very on the nose and has other themes in it. But the root cause is all the same. Reagan. This is the song I thought of reading the post:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lIqNjC1RKU
I don’t necessarily agree with everything said in the song, but I think we can all agree (to quote the song) “I’m glad Reagan dead”.
Is this not a relatively mainstream belief?
Very much not the case, no
They’ve caused a lot of damage though restricting access would likely help with that. (Things like this usually get quite a few downvotes in my experience tbh so maybe it goes both ways)
My pretty spontaneous solution compromise would be to legalize more things but keep them well regulated to avoid addiction and transition to similar regulations for already legal drugs. This seems like a solution that more people would be happy with. Obviously there would need to be help for people already addicted at least for drugs with similar withdrawal symptoms as alcohol.
But jobs
- “Why doesn’t this site have more in common with reddit, which it’s more or less a clone of?”
- Can’t bring up Trans people existing (without a weirdo downvoting you, of course)
- Can’t be critical of… a certain religion without getting jumped by keyboard warriors and called a Genocide Supporter
- Don’t even get me started on whatever the heck is with the Hexbear folks…
- Lemmy is, at times, a bit of an echo chamber
Lemmy is full of people that I would never want to hang out with IRL. Even if I agree with most of what they’re saying, they manage to say it in the most neckbeardy way possible.
Yeah it seems the topic is irrelevant. They’ll eventually just start yammering about communism, Linux and ublock. It’s hard to have a conversation on here that doesn’t get sidelined by those things. I can’t imagine these people carrying on a normal conversation in the real world, and I don’t think they understand that the world exists outside of those narrow interests.
Like OP will say they hate MS Teams. Person will say stop using Microsoft. OP will say, I’d love to but my government employer is an MS shop. Person will say then quit your job. K…
It’s either very sheltered people who’ve not worked or interacted in ‘the mainstream’ or, really young naive people who think that your FOSS convictions will stand up against the need to earn a living.
I prefer it to Reddit still, but it gets a bit tedious.
The bit on Hexbear is that they are Marxists and Anarchists, which can draw ire from liberals.
I’ve not yet heard any claims on or outside Lemmy that it is a Reddit clone. The model of hosting forums/communities was never unique to Reddit as far as I know.
I’m curious what you’re willing to generally apply to “Hexbear folks” (I don’t think I’ve talked to many).
And Lemmy is totally an echo chamber most of the time (based on my experience, obviously mileage may vary) but it wasn’t intended to be that way unlike almost every commercial social media platform. I would assume this distinction is why people would be less likely to be willing to admit it.
Re: Hexbear
The people who run into issues with Hexbear largely aren’t Hexbear’s target demographic, namely Marxists and Anarchists.
OOL on hexbear people
Hexbear is a Lemmy instance with very vocal and opinionated leftists.
deleted by creator
I don’t get your point. Hexbear is not centrist, it’s very left leaning.
deleted by creator
Ohhh, I get you now. Yes, that’s likely a thing most of them would believe.
(Not saying I agree or disagree with it, just trying to explain what Hexbear typically implies to most people in a factual, unbiased way because you said you’re out of the loop.)
Hexbear existed as an instance prior to the Reddit API changes of 2023. They’d been around for a few years. Most instances federate by default with everyone, but Hexbear took a slower opening of it because they already had an established culture. (Think of this similarly to people discussing the pros/cons of federating with Threads. It would be a big change to the way things are now so it’s controversial.) It’s possible they weren’t ever federated with beehaw.org (your instance) so you may have never seen them or interacted with them.
deleted by creator
Lemmy needs more spice…
Agree. I can find any !spice federated with my instance. That’s disappointed.
how meat is treated.
Digital piracy not being an immoral crime (or crime at all) and not making one a horrible person.
I don’t think this one should be as controversial as it is.
Well, it is controversial, unfortunately. I never understood the logic behind calling piracy a theft, because nothing actually gets stolen, only copied.
For what it’s worth, I’ve personally never found it controversial to talk about in person. And this includes in countries where it’s a prosecuted crime.
Copying is not theft, artificial scarcity in the digital world is a tragedy, and I intentionally avoid paying middle-men distributors (like streaming services and record companies) for art.
The left lane, and how no, it’s not for going as fast as you want to drive.
It is also the fast lane so move TF over if you are moving slower than the other lanes
Speed limit is the speed limit. End of.
If someone wants to go above the speed limit in the fast lane, then they’re contravening road rules.
No matter what social norm people believe there to be, it doesn’t have precedence over the speed limits.
In a case where the the car in front is going slower than the speed limit, it would be good etiquette though to move over.
In the UK it goes lanes 1, 2, 3. You stay in lane 1. Lane 2 and 3 are for passing only.
You will often see members of the lane 2 owners club just cruising along in lane 2 but this effectively closes lane 1 (undertaking is illegal and very unsafe).
Sitting in lane 3 closes the entire motorway.
I agree there is a speed limit. But the law says you cannot just sit in lane 2 or 3 if you are not overtaking someone. They even updated the law recently. If you hog lane 2 or 3 the police can report you and the penalty is 3 points and £100 fine
People who sit in lane 3 at 69mph are breaking the law and likely to cause an accident by forcing people to pass on the wrong side out of frustration (yes illegal but they will do it) and this is why they are over taking lanes, not just cruising lanes.
Never be the reason someone else does something stupid on the road. Always do the safest thing.
Interesting to see how different that is from Australia. In your example only lane 3 is a passing lane, and “undertaking” isn’t a thing, it’s completely legal to overtake in any lane.
-
Often people use those lanes to speed. If a car ahead is overtaking at or within a reasonable range of the speed limit, but not at the speed the speeder wants to travel. The speeder must be patient, they don’t get to dictate what manoeuvres are happening ahead.
-
The argument you present at the end isn’t logical,
… Always do the safest thing.
I can largely agree with this sentiment, but you say before,
People who sit in lane 3 at 69mph are breaking the law and likely to cause an accident by forcing people to pass on the wrong side out of frustration (yes illegal but they will do it)…
If undercutting is the most unsafe thing for the person behind to do in the situation, then as your sentiment captures, the frustrated party undercutting are still in the wrong.
They are in the wrong because, they have failed to ‘always do the safest thing’ in the given situation.
-
Never be the reason someone else does something stupid on the road.
Nice sentiment again, but it implicitly assigns a rigid cause and effect regime to a situation where the ‘frustrated party’ behind has their own agency and likely as much training. There is no necessity that they undercut, it is a choice the party behind makes. The cause does not necessitate that effect, at best it could contribute.
In essence the sentiment shifts the blame from the person causing a potential accident (the undercutter), to the person ahead who, at worst, is causing poor traffic conditions.
Like I said undertaking is bad. No excuse for doing it, except where it is legal. If someone goes under speed limit in lane 3 you can undertake I believe, though I would still be super cautious.
Obviously speeding is illegal, and I’m not suggesting anyone should support do so. But we should let the police deal with it.
Just to clarify, you don’t think it is ok to sit in lane 2 or 3 at the speed limit if there is room to move over ? Not doing so is also illegal in the UK.
While the majority of people stay within the law (+/- 10%) there are enough people behaving badly on the roads that you should always take that into consideration.
This is a great example of the is/ought problem. You can try your best to make the “ought” true, but don’t neglect what reality “is”. On the road that means; assume there is an idiot nearby, and drive in a way that keeps you safe from their shit.
You are correct. If the flow of traffic in lane 1 or 2 is faster than the flow of traffic in lane 2 or 3 then it is okay to pass. Intentionally changing lane temporarily to pass a car on the inside is illegal.
The other poster confused your point.
If someone in lane 3 is going 69 and overtaking someone then there’s no reason to pass them, and probably isn’t safe or legal given there is, by definition, a car on the inside lane already.
-
Not in America.
Worked about well as you’d think
A roadway allowed multiple speeds across the lanes could be how to get around this.
If the citizens of a transport zone don’t like the rules as they stand, ie, one single speed for all lanes, they should lobby to vary them.
Apart from cases where multiple speeds happen, the speed limit is the speed limit, the person behind contravenes rules if they speed, use the shoulder, etc. They’re in the wrong, they have agency, and decide to cause the unsafe situation.
The person ahead, as that video showed to the tune of straight funktown, may cause worsened traffic conditions, but they’re not the people being dangerous on the road. (Assuming they are going within the range of the expected limit)
See, that’s the thing: It’s the passing lane, not the fast lane. A lot of semis are speed governed to 65MPH, so if I’m doing the 70MPH speed limit, I need to use it to pass them.
Thank you, even if the some people believe there is a specific lane to constantly edge ahead of poor slow drivers, that is not the ideal lane to be the fastest car in. People merge on from left a lot more than you notice. I live in a city that has a nearly equal amounts of merges from left.
approaching literally any ideology from first principals
Oh good one!
