- 1 Post
- 46 Comments
first, you’re talking about software “engineers” which means you aren’t talking about engineers in general.
and there’s a good chance none of them have ever had an engineering course in their life. they’re hackers who are good at making code.
the reason they probably seem reluctant to share is that what they’ve cobbled together with bubble gum and bailing wire is difficult to explain quickly and thoroughly AND they’d be taking time away from their assigned tasks to do so without having any change to their deadlines.
stop blaming them and start blaming their management for not giving them the time and permission they need to help you. go to the management and say you need so-and-so to be assigned 40 or 80 hours specifically to help you understand these widgets.
and in the future you need to push for clean up, documentation, lessons learned, and training to be part of every project estimate.
The question was “what term annoys you” not “what term annoys you that you’re sure Lemmy will approve of” (or that a malignant narcissist billionaire isn’t also annoyed by).
I’m open to an explanation of a commonplace situation where it’s necessary to have a separate word for “is of the gender that matches that assigned at birth.”
To me it’s like if I say I enjoyed the sunrise" and someone says, “you mean the Earth sunrise?”
I mean yeah, sunrises happen all over the solar system, there are different kinds of sunrises, probably all beautiful in their own ways, but in general the default “sunrise” a human is likely to be talking about is the one we experience on Earth.
“cis” I feel like it’s an extra term for “straight”. The “default” for lack of a better term (and one that isn’t othering) is near the not trans & not gay part of the gender / sexuality spectra. To me everyone in that zone is “straight” (boring/default/whatever).
“begs the question” because people exclusively use it wrong. Just say “leads to the question” or “poses the question.”
And I’m still really salty about everyone giving up on the term “literally” to allow it to mean its exact opposite.
https://www.childstats.gov/AMERICASCHILDREN/tables/pop1.asp
70-something million children. Let’s make them eligible to vote, and let parents vote on their behalf if they’re too young. As another poster said, the parents who abuse that on “both sides” would more or less come out in the wash. The parents who took it seriously would probably adjust both their vote and their child’s vote to benefit the child.
(One interesting thing is that would mean citizen children of non-citizen immigrants would get to vote.)
Violence must be organized and accountable to be just. Non-violence is always preferred, and is always the initial approach.
But if there is a credible threat, defensive violence is OK as long as whoever is being violent accepts whatever accountability may come.
I’m conflicted about it, but the fact is one reason the US has been so successful in leading the world in relative peace (as compared to WWII and before, not compared to the ideal) is because we have so much capacity for violence in our back pocket.
“Talk softly and carry a big stick.”
If Mastodon wins out in the long run the only reason will be persistence.
All these other “like Twitter but ______” micro blogging or whatever sites only stay viable while they’re profitable.
If Bluesky or Threads become (net) unprofitable, they’ll die. Mastodon is already unprofitable, so that can’t kill it.
I think we could compete with #1 just by word of mouth.
For #2 some person or group needs to develop a Mastodon app (FOSS obviously) that has a “just do this part for me” option, probably automatically enabled.
#3 is on us. We have to do what we can to make Mastodon (and Lemmy) more open and accepting without falling pretty to the paradox of tolerance.
#4 is hard… Although I think if Mastodon follows or tries to replicate the “early” Facebook user experience where most or all of the content people got was from people they follow, that could be better. The only challenge is that algorithms tickle our anger/hate/disgust impulses to drive and maintain engagement. That’s some very strong “lizard brain” stuff.
So… let’s get going y’all! :)
If "disagree with* can be interpreted as “irritates me”
“Not gonna lie” “If I’m being honest” “To tell the truth” (older)
Ugh.
They’re such idiomatic crutches. Just fucking talk. Say what you’re gonna say. If you need an “um” just say that. Don’t waste my brain’s clock cycles interpreting those phrases only to realize they’re meaningless…
If this is a transition from how I live now to never needing to work again, I’m guessing the first 6 months to a year would just be disbelief and slacking. Video games, TV/YouTube, etc.
I’d probably do more of the things I do with my limited off time: gardening, taking care of family & pets, taekwondo.
Honestly have no idea what I’d do once I became accustomed to it. Maybe travel? Participate in local politics more? Volunteer? I would definitely have a sense that I needed to do something to make my life “worth it” that I currently get from working to provide for my family.
It’s definitely a result of conditioning, not some fundamental truth of the universe. But nearly 50 years of that conditioning is hard to break overnight.
I’d make phenomenal amounts of money available to states to implement gun safety legislation at the state level. Red flag laws, domestic violence, background checks, training requirements, locks & storage, etc.
If I have enough Congressional support I’d do head-to-toe Article III reform, add a bunch of courts at every level, maybe add a level between the appellate and supreme, and get a couple more Justices on SCOTUS to cover the added workload of supervising the courts at the level below SCOTUS. There’s currently more circuits than Justices so a couple of them have responsibility to review multiple jurisdictions which I think makes for… challenges.
I will legit try to find countries with constitutions and parliaments that I could relocate to to live and work. The American constitutional Republic will be over if Trump becomes President again.
He’ll certainly start his retribution with the big fish of anti Trump people and organizations, but it won’t take long for it to “trickle down” to everyday people as well.
I’m lucky enough that it’s feasible for me to find work in my field outside the US. Others aren’t so lucky.
This sort of depends on what you’re looking for.
Do you just want a listing of facts with no analysis? Probably Reuters or Associated Press (AP).
Do you want facts and context and minor analysis (like historical comparisons, etc.)? That’s gonna be BBC and NPR/PBS. Maybe The Economist.
If you want deeper analysis or opinion… That’s gonna be tricky. Probably Al Jazeera, The Guardian (maybe), … I dunno if it’s possible to find one balanced need source that will have in depth analysis or opinion. Probably best to pick two that are about the same distance from “neutral” in either direction.
If the market crashes hard enough these huge corporations that have been sucking up all the single family homes will probably start unloading them at lower and lower prices to pay their creditors. It could be good for people who want to buy. Couple that with the coming crash of corporate office space and it could be quite an interesting time.
The real truck is going to be coming up with legal/constitutional bans on corporate ownership of single family houses.
First: a company should pay at a minimum a wage that can afford housing nearby (probably within 15 minutes’ drive). The company should pay everyone for work hours + that round trip nearby commute time
If the company is paying that wage, then employees who live farther away are making a free choice to do so. They still get that round trip nearby commute time paid, but time beyond that is not paid. Or paid at some diminishing rate.
Companies should recognize a worker’s time list for the company’s benefit. But there has to be a balance because of the temptation to game the system.
“choose” is doing a lot of work there. Have you priced housing lately? The real “choice” I see is that companies “choose” their location such that their employees can’t afford to live nearby on the wages they’re earning, or the companies “choose” to pay employees to little in wages to afford to live nearby.
It might be a big tripping hazard to go full “free trade agreement” just to get a carbon tax. The better approach is probably going to be some sort of mutual taxation/tariff/duty pledge. Something where all the countries that opt in would levy a duty of some sort on all goods that involve carbon emissions in their lifecycle outside the transportation of said goods (this is a trade agreement after all), and waive that duty on all member nations’ exports.
When people hear “free trade” they think of a system that waives all import duties, which may or may not be what is desired here. I can think of some bad actors passing a “carbon tax” just to get all the other duties on their goods dropped.
The alternative of course would be an actual free trade agreement but with a lot more qualifications than just “carbon tax.” Like union support, a living minimum wage, free education through age 18 (for example), environmental protections, reasonable intellectual property protections, no wars of aggression, etc etc., PLUS a carbon tax.
The other thing to note is that nearly all the “permanent” weight you lose (the loss you can actually maintain) is lost from exhaling carbon. Water weight comes back when you rehydrate (and you should hydrate). You don’t poop much weight out (it’s a lot of water and dead blood cells). But the output of the Krebs cycle (respiration) is carbon dioxide.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citric_acid_cycle
That’s carbon you ate in various forms: protein, fat, and sugar.
Strength training is useful but a weight loss exercise regime will have a lot of sustained heavy breathing, i.e cardio.
(Plus with cardio you’ll be ready for most zombie apocalypses.)
Well that’s why I asked OP if this is “net” calculation (good - bad) or if just the good counts.
By my evaluation I don’t think any billionaire (or equivalent using PPP calculations) has ever or could ever do enough “good” to overwrite the “bad” they have to do to accumulate that much wealth, unless they literally spend it all on improving people’s lives including getting down in the trenches themselves.
Because they’re busy going out of business, I’d imagine. It’s actually a pretty complicated process if you want to avoid a bunch of extra problems down the line. If publishing the recipes helped avoid some of those problems, they might do it. But they’re more likely trying to protect themselves from creditors and get their taxes sorted and final paychecks and selling inventory and equipment and real estate…
We don’t have a set temperature for all year, that seems silly to me. The outside temperature, the price of electricity/gas, the energy efficient of your house, so many variables…
Apologies for not converting, but in the winter we stick to the mid to high 60s when it’s in the 40s or below outside. For the summer if it’s getting into the high 90s or low 100s we have to go up to the high 70s to avoid going broke on electricity.
PS go clean out the heat exchange fins on your compressor outside, sometimes animals or weather will clog them up with debris which kills the efficiency of the compressor.
The use for reddit’s general subreddits is completely gone for me, but I do still have some very topic specific (gaming) subs I still visit. I’m not sure if lemmy will ever reach that level of membership with specific topics.
That’s not to say it can’t, but I think it’ll be difficult and maybe even take some concerted effort that wasn’t necessary for reddit. I don’t think Digg has anything like that.
But I do think reddit probably can’t get more profitable if all it has is niche communities. Now if they could be content with whatever profit they get being a collection of niche communities, they’ll probably be fine. But if they have demands to increase profit, which I think they do, then inevitably start doing dumb shit that damages the small successful communities, that would probably be the death knell.
This is even worse logically than the premise of the Trolley problem. You’re basically reframing a terrorist or criminal holding a gun to a bystander’s head and demanding something trying to say it’ll be my fault the person dies if I don’t give them whatever they ask for.
No. It’s got nothing to do with me (or the judge). The criminals threatening violence are the bad people.
The only good “Trolley problem” rewrite I’ve heard is the crying baby and the hiding refugees. https://www.truthorfiction.com/crying-baby-ethics-question-causes-viral-controversy/
All the others are either too contrived (how did those people get in the trolley tracks? why is there no driver? why am I able to get to the lever or how do I know a fat man will detail the trolley?) Or it’s just a terrorist blaming someone else for his actions. The crying baby one challenges me on a very deep level.
Are you interpreting that as bad or good? It was clear there was some fuckery going on at reddit for the past many years, increasing rage/anger, bots everywhere, engagement focused bullshit.
Is “doom scrolling” a thing you want to be doing? I’m not implying “you could be doing something better with your time” because it’s your time to spend. But at the same time, change is good, right? Maybe instead of having one active platform, mix lemmy up with mastodon? Or start watching every Crash Course and Sci Show video that exists. Look up ZeFrank and dash down that rabbit hole for a couple years.
I guess we’d have to dig a little deeper to understand what you mean here.
Conservatives have been blocking or gutting gun safety laws for decades and gun deaths have been rising for decades. Other countries that have implemented gun safety laws similar to what liberals in America propose have seen their gun deaths go down. As far as I know America is the only country that recently had gun deaths become the number one cause of death for children, passing cars.
I am aware that there are really creative ways to cherry pick and interpret the data in America to make it look less bad than it is, but I’m not really interested in creative conclusion-driven data analysis.
Ignorance and/or tradition are not excuses for continuing bad behavior, though.
The “acceptable” behaviors were actually wrong then just like they are now. Getting away with something bad doesn’t make it not bad.
Being forgiven isn’t the same as getting permission. I think we can forgive people for their past bad behavior in light of the fact that it was accepted at the time. Especially if they acknowledge it’s wrong and don’t continue to do it.
I find that I see memes here about a week before my wife shows them to me (presumably from reddit)