The subjects that you can’t even bring up without getting downvoted, banned, fired, expelled, cancelled etc.

    • infinite_ass@leminal.spaceOP
      104·
      11 days ago

      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.

    • JackbyDev@programming.devEnglish
      2·
      10 days ago

      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.”

  • AFallingAnvil@lemmy.ca
    27·
    11 days ago

    For legal reasons I cannot have any opinion on the following: Gestures broadly at everything in the Middle East

    • Noel_Skum@sh.itjust.works
      51·
      10 days ago

      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.

  • GetOffMyLan@programming.dev
    242·
    11 days ago

    “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.

    • weeeeum@lemmy.worldEnglish
      7·
      11 days ago

      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.

      • Robust Mirror@aussie.zone
        21·
        10 days ago

        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.

      • Skua@kbin.earth
        17·
        11 days ago

        I’d probably also develop a short temper about spanners too if they were being shoved in my face by tech companies as hard as chat bots are

        • egrets@lemmy.world
          18·
          11 days ago

          We’re excited to announce the new Sony WH1000XM6 headphones, enhanced by the power of spanners!

          I don’t see why my headphones need a sp-

          Conveniently built in to your headset, you can use the spanner to adjust bolt tightness on-the-go!

          Okay, but that’s not wh-

          We’re proud to be leading the market in spanner-augmented products to bring a new level of convenience to your life.

          …

          Spanner may sometimes only appear to tighten bolts. Please don’t ask us the energy cost of manufacturing the spanner.

  • ℕ𝕖𝕞𝕠@slrpnk.net
    18·
    11 days ago

    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)

  • hperrin@lemmy.world
    16·
    11 days ago

    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.

      • hperrin@lemmy.world
        61·
        11 days ago

        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.

    • Cratermaker@discuss.tchncs.de
      3·
      10 days ago

      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.

    • ClassifiedPancake@discuss.tchncs.de
      1·
      11 days ago

      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.

      • hperrin@lemmy.world
        2·
        11 days ago

        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.

  • rez@lemmy.mlEnglish
    206·
    10 days ago
    • “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
    • smackjack@lemmy.world
      10·
      10 days ago

      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.

      • boogetyboo@aussie.zone
        72·
        10 days ago

        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.

    • Ziglin@lemmy.worldEnglish
      21·
      10 days ago

      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.

  • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.mlEnglish
    141·
    11 days ago

    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

    • BreadOven@lemmy.world
      2·
      11 days ago

      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”.

    • Ziglin@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      10 days ago

      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.

    • moistclump@lemmy.world
      2·
      11 days ago

      Economics doesn’t seem as big of a thing as the other 3. Anyone who’s nerdy enough to talk economics without making it political could probably have a pretty good discussion. I vote we change it to Elephants. Religion, Abotion, Politics, Elephants, or Rape.

      • Tyfud@lemmy.worldEnglish
        32·
        11 days ago

        Economics is poorly understood by the vast majority of Americans. To most people, it is purely political.

      • HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world
        1·
        10 days ago

        The fact i can tell you using economic theory its a good idea to make people unemployed as the cost of living increases, that rent controls are a really bad idea, and even ignoring profit its probably wise to increase the costs of tickets to shows and events makes me very unpopular

    • Tiltinyall@beehaw.org
      3·
      10 days ago

      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.

    • wuphysics87@lemmy.ml
      54·
      10 days ago

      It is also the fast lane so move TF over if you are moving slower than the other lanes

      • Gorgritch_Umie_Killa@aussie.zone
        94·
        10 days ago

        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.

        • mub@lemmy.ml
          41·
          10 days ago

          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.

          • brisk@aussie.zone
            3·
            10 days ago

            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.

          • Gorgritch_Umie_Killa@aussie.zone
            12·
            10 days ago

            1. 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.

            2. 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.

            1. 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.

            • mub@lemmy.ml
              11·
              10 days ago

              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.

              • el_abuelo@programming.dev
                2·
                10 days ago

                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.

          • Gorgritch_Umie_Killa@aussie.zone
            1·
            10 days ago

            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)

      • Ars Fireside@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        1·
        10 days ago

        Well, it is controversial, unfortunately. I never understood the logic behind calling piracy a theft, because nothing actually gets stolen, only copied.

    • comfy@lemmy.ml
      1·
      10 days ago

      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.

  • Etterra@lemmy.world
    11·
    10 days ago

    Apparently asking what people are going to do to relax after voting must be taboo, because my post got deleted without me being told why.

    • infinite_ass@leminal.spaceOP
      72·
      10 days ago

      The moderators have the power therefor when they do something rude it actually isn’t rude. In fact you are rude for suggesting that they are being rude, and deserve punishment.

      It’s funny how power works.

      • Boomkop3@reddthat.com
        2·
        10 days ago

        I’ve seen screenshots posted of lemmy logs on other instances. Some mods seem to be quite disconnected from reality.

        Tho, to be fair, we only get to see the bad stuff there. I’m sure the majority of mods is great

      • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
        1·
        10 days ago

        Humanity deserves its face stomped by a boot forever. No easy escape with some farcical nuclear armageddon, you have to stay here and live out the horror.

  • Tehdastehdas@lemmy.worldEnglish
    122·
    10 days ago

    Eugenics, or creating better humans with the wisdom not to trash the planet and constantly risk the final nuclear war. With new, more powerful weapons being invented every century, we may not be able to survive without eugenics, because when a single sociopathic dictator can afford an Earth-ending weapon, one of them will use it.

    • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
      6·
      10 days ago

      The funny thing is that a lot of those problems are better attributed to society/culture/education than genetics or biology, since it’s people that vote/support other people. Unless you can somehow breed out psychopaths, and whatever makes people willing to sacrifice the collective for personal gain, from the human species, eugenics won’t do shit.

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      4·
      9 days ago

      Eugenics isn’t a stupid idea on the face of it, but then you look at where our dog breeding has gone…

      The good news is that humans are pretty adaptable already. The only things that really definitely could sink us are our inability to react to very abstract, gradual problems and our tribalism.