Me tossing leftovers in the trash does not in any way interfere with hungry people getting food.
true. but next time, just buy/make less food.
My hot take: You shouldn’t downvote comments you disagree with in a thread asking for hot takes.
Ok now you’re just asking for it
Parents’ jobs aren’t to protect their kids. It’s to make sure that their kids are sufficiently prepared for the world when the kids grow up.
There seems to be this rising trend of parents being overprotective of their children, even to the point of having parental controls enabled for children even as old as the late teens. My impression has always been that these children are too sheltered for their age.
I grew up in the “age of internet anarchism,” where goatse was just considered a harmless prank to share with your friends and liveleaks was openly shared. Probably not the best way of growing up, to be fair, but I think we’ve swung so hard into the opposite direction that a lot of these children, I feel, are living in their own little bubbles.
To some degree, it honestly makes sense to me why the younger generation nowadays is so willing to post their lives on the internet. When that’s the only thing you can do on the internet, that’s what you’ll do
I have recently learned that the new helicopter parent type is the snowplow parent - these are the ones that not only shield their kids from the world, but also fully manage their lives for them. I work for the University of California and seeing how absolutely helpless these kids are is scary.
I’m in the UC system as well. It’s both concerning and amusing how much college students nowadays go to their parents for permission on minor things. I get it, to some degree. Respect for your parents and all that. But some degree of autonomy would be helpful at that age
If you’ve spent any amount of time among people who went to / are in college in their early 20s, and people who were working in their late teens and early twenties, it becomes clear that college arranges for the students to have a managed-for-them life to a degree that I actually think is severely harmful to them. It’s basically a big day care. Education is fuckin fantastic, I’m not saying it’s not, but the nature of the way your life is organized within it to me I think is very bad for people.
Like yes you know integrals, very good, but e.g. I spoke to a guy who had not paid his phone bill for months, who somehow still had phone service but was genuinely very confused about how the bills he was getting now could have gotten as high as they were. No matter how many times I tried to explain to him, I couldn’t get it across. I finally just gave up the endeavor.
Part of the issue with the value of college isn’t that it educated, but that it acted like an ordeal to overcome and filtered out people who didn’t have the makings of being a leader. Not all of that is due to educational ability.
Breakfast tacos at home are better than breakfast tacos out. This is true of many foods because you choose each ingredient (type, brand, …) that you prefer and prepare it in your preferred way (more done, less oil, …).
Climate change is making turbulence worse.
Straws are mostly unnecessary, so metal washable straws are dumb.
Plastic bag bans are dumb because they sell boxes of plastic bags.
Plastic bag bans are dumb because they sell boxes of plastic bags.
Sorry, I don’t understand this one. You’re saying we shouldn’t ban plastic bags in stores because you can still buy plastic bags elsewhere?
You can walk into the store that has a bag ban and buy a box of bags. Then you use those bags to pick up dog poop or line your trash cans or whatever other things you used to do with the previously free store bags that are now banned or charged for. It’s not about banning the bags to save the environment. It’s about the store getting getting paid for the bag, either as a bag fee or in a box.
More and more people are against giving kids internet access. Allow me to go against the grain:
If your child is neurodivergent, or LGBTQ+, or any other form of misfit, then denying them internet access is tantamount to condemning them to social isolation. It wasn’t until I got unrestricted internet access, circa 17 years of age, that I realised that actually, no, I wasn’t a fucking alien, there were hundreds of thousands of people just like me, but I didn’t know because I was stuck in this shitty small town with shitty small town people. So I spent seventeen years thinking there was something fundamentally wrong with me when in reality there was something wrong with the environment around me.
I would have had a much happier early life if I’d gotten internet earlier. Wouldn’t have spent 90% of my teens being suicidal.
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.
What fundemental aspect of Matrix is both causing too heavy performance degradation while also being unfixable or impossible to reimplement?
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 stuffTM. 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.
What would you use besides Matrix?
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.
Never thought I’d find another IRC and XMPP fan on lemmy. Let’s replace SSM/MMS/RCS with XMPP while we’re at it.
JMP does that
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.
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.
There’s no ethical way to kill someone that’s done nothing to you and doesn’t want to die, and that’s not just for humans.
I guess we could say “humane”, or “as quick and painless as possible”?
Bullshit. You wouldn’t call it ethical to kill a 5 year old you see in the street just because it is done quick and painless.
Murder doesn’t become ethical just because it’s not also torture.
Did I say “ethical”?
Realists are just pessimists.
You should be an optimist even if you are faking it. To lift others up.
Optimists are delusional
Optimists are aspirational. The placebo effect is real, and pessimists use it counterproductively.
- I like useful delusions.
- If you are optimistic for others you ancourage them to do stuf. Doing some stuff that may not work is 100000% better than watching Netflix/TV. Especially in current nihilistic social climate.
- Pessimist and optimist are both right (not my quote)
- Example: Pessimist: I will not get this job -> So I will not even apply -> 0% chance of getting a job -> 100% correct Optimist: I will get this job -> I apply and prepare -> 20% chance of getting this job -> 20% correct But who cares if you are correct. What matters is taking a chance. This comes way more useful if you are optimistic every day. So you apply for a job whenever there is a chance. And if you apply for 10 jobs from initial 20% you get 89% chance to get a good job.
Being naive is not the same as being optimistic.
If you let your cat outside in the Americas (or anywhere cats haven’t lived for thousands of years) unsupervised I’m going to assume one of the following is true: you don’t care if your cat dies, and/or you don’t care about wildlife. Even if you live in a place with zero predators, why the hell are you trusting a CAT with road safety?
Saying this as someone who grew up with parents that let our cats live (and die, a lot) that way. And as someone who has seen two friends lose cats to coyotes in the past year. And also interrupted an attack on someone’s pet by a coyote. It’s been a bad fucking year here for coyotes.
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.
Ignorance truly is bliss
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”
Here’s one I get a lot of flack for that I don’t bring up much
I think people trying to cook up gun control laws are targeting the wrong guns, in going after semi auto or military rifles, when they should be going after cheap handguns that have been available forever. The majority of gun deaths are suicides, and that’s almost always done with a hand gun, but even if you control for that the majority of homicides with guns are done with hand guns.
Hand guns are usually relatively cheap. They are very easy to conceal. Its very common for people to walk into a bar with a holstered hand gun and make a series of bad decisions. Its too common for people to get in road rage incidents that escalate into something tragic because of a handgun in the glove box. People leave them around their house and treat them as toys that kids end up finding.
AND I would argue that handguns are not in the spirit of the 2nd amendment. They are not fighting weapons. They are for fun, personal protection, or making people feel tough without having to do any real work. They have little range and lesser power. There are are no troops in the world that deploy with handguns as a primary weapon. US military officers get them but that’s more about tradition.
Yes, I’m aware that shooting incidents done with rifles would be more deadly, but the fact there would be much fewer of them at all would be a net benefit in a society that banned or severely restricted hand guns.
Problem is that most of your anti-gun folk aren’t crazy, or don’t want to appear as such, and so they placate the defenders of gun rights with phrases resembling “I believe we should be able to have handguns because self defense buuuuuut nobody should have semi auto rifles.” Of course, the second they do ban long guns (curbing a total of 500/60,000 gun deaths a year mind you), they’ll switch to “oh well clearly that didn’t work so now we’re taking the handguns too.” It’s literally by design, simply a tactic to fool those who won’t bother looking into that whole “only 500 killed with long guns/yr” stat, nor the fact that 5.56 only delivers about as much energy as a hot .357mag rnd, but the Barrett .50BMG which is bolt action and therefore totally fine delivers about 10,000 more ft-lbs of energy, etc.
Besides that, the 2a protects things “in common use” according to Heller and “must have a historical precedent for bans,” according to Bruen therefore handguns do fall quite under the scope of the 2a and a ban would be ruled unconstitutional immediately.
Besides that, self defense is important, and unless you suggest people start open carrying ARs, the best way to do it is to CCW a compact 9mm handgun.
Furthermore “guns shouldn’t be for the poor” would help to curb crime, but at what cost? That is pure T bona-fide classism and I don’t support it, personally.
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.
Which sports do the women often beat the men in?
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.
I dont know what they’re on about with Mitchell.
(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.
I think you mean sports without a physical activity aspect
No, I do not.
Mens egos are so fragile that women were banned from minor league baseball when Jackie Mitchell struck out Babe Ruth and Lou Gherig in 1931.
Figure skating was segregated in 1903 for the same reason, Madge Syers took the silver medal from a man.
The history of womens’ sports is rife with examples like this, most sports started out as co-ed and only stayed that way until women started winning.
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’.
-
They told us for so long gender isn’t sex, and then somehow it was, as far as this sports issue
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
Nah I think it’s because your reply indicates you missed the point.
Possibly, or maybe your comment wasn’t well written enough.
Yes, it does require you think about it a little bit
@TehBamski Most entertainment is produced in abusive environments, promotes positively evil people to become famous, and twists the legal system through in such a way that it enables surveillance and erodes ownership rights. But barely anyone is willing to boycott it.
Epstein killed himself and you’re a tedious memebrained dickhead if you think otherwise.
