If you’re pressing a button and want to cancel you can pretty much universally just move off the button before releasing the press and it won’t trigger the action. Works 99% of the time with a mouse, almost as often with a touch interface. Some custom-coded buttons will action on start press (not great imo) and some buttons do some other action on a long press, but if you’re holding it and nothing else has happened just dragging off is safe enough.

Seems to be a federation issue between programming.dev and lemmy.world, as far as I can tell every lemmy.world post and all comments under them are showing up with 0 score but other instances are fine.

There definitely are rules to language, which are determined by how the language is actually used. The issue with prescriptivists is that they invent their own rules which often go against how the language is used, i.e. the rules are nonsense.

Take the “less vs fewer” argument. Everyone happily uses ‘less’ in pretty much the same way for nearly a millennium, then some prescriptivist asswipe comes along and says they don’t like it so now there’s a rule. Prescriptivists spend the next couple of centuries yelling about their new rule and creaming themselves over how they’re now ‘better’ at the language than other people while everyone else just doesn’t give a fuck and continue to speak normally.

In the end language is just a tool to communicate ideas. If you clearly understood someone but whine because they ignored your made up rules you’re the asshole.

Yep, looks like it’s all working from this end now

You clearly didn’t bother to read anything I wrote (or you completely lack reading comprehension), but I’ll give it one more shot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zucchini

This article is about the vegetable. For other uses, see Zucchini (disambiguation).

In cookery, it is treated as a vegetable, usually cooked and eaten as an accompaniment or savory dish, though occasionally used in sweeter cooking.

A 1928 report on vegetables grown in New York State treats ‘Zucchini’ as one among 60 cultivated varieties of C. pepo.

In France, zucchini is a key ingredient in ratatouille, a stew of summer vegetable-fruits and vegetables prepared in olive oil and cooked for an extended time over low heat.

In 2005, a poll of 2,000 people revealed it to be Britain’s 10th favorite culinary vegetable.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vegetable

1
: a usually herbaceous plant (such as the cabbage, bean, or potato) grown for an edible part that is usually eaten as part of a meal
also : such an edible part

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vegetable#Terminology

Posting this link again because you didn’t read it.

Culinary vegetables unarguably exist since we’re referring to a physical thing which indisputably exists. I have seen a courgette before, I can confirm vegetables do in fact exist. You’re arguing that they don’t exist because you disagree with the words used to refer to them, which is also wrong. The fact many people use the culinary definition of vegetable when referring to courgettes means that the culinary definition of vegetable is correct; language is defined by how it’s used.

Vegetables exist. The culinary definition of vegetable also exists. The fact you don’t like that definition is irrelevant.

The first sentence of your article says cryptids aren’t real, vegetables do exist and we interact with them every day. I’m really not sure what point you’re trying to make. If someone tells you their name is Bob but fails to cite a source that does not mean Bob doesn’t exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vegetable#Terminology

I leave on time, how is that an insult? I’d be much more insulted if someone asked me to work for them for free. That’s what unpaid overtime is.

Utter nonsense. Your argument is that because you can imagine a god and spread the idea they are real. The logical conclusion there is that anything you can imagine is equally real. Bigfoot really is wandering around a forest, spaghetti absolutely does grow in trees, and the moon landing was definitely on a sound stage (but they also really landed on the moon because I can picture that too).

I’m not convinced. Most magic systems in fiction have rules, meaning they can be scientifically proven and studied. Magic is simply when something falls outside your understanding of how the world works. It’s all about your perspective.

There’s a part in the Lord of the Rings where Galadriel shows Sam and Frodo a scrying pool. To Galadriel it’s normal, simply the way the world is. To the hobbits it’s magic.

‘And you?’ she said, turning to Sam. ‘For this is what your folk would call magic, I believe; though I do not understand clearly what they mean; and they seem to use the same word of the deceits of the Enemy. But this, if you will, is the magic of Galadriel. Did you not say that you wished to see Elf-magic?’

I still can’t wrap my head around the fact there’s a group who intentionally named themselves “proud boys” which somehow isn’t a group for openly gay men. If they weren’t a neo-fascist terrorist organisation I’d think the whole thing was a joke.

It might not necessarily be that the instances are stricter, it could also simply be that those instances are targeted more often by hate/trolls so interact with those instances more often. Admins are less likely to defederate from an instance they’ve never seen or heard of. I see a lot of obviously LGBT-related names in this list which likely get more hate than average.

It’s well outside my field so I’m definitely not qualified to answer that, but the trials seem to be building on this study so that might give more insight.

This probably isn’t going to be available to you then, though it is possible it paves the way for a tooth-replacement treatment. This article seems like bad science communication. The video, tweet, and website they link to all state that they’re researching congenital conditions, the inquiry form linked to on the website explicitly states in English they’re not considering people who lost their teeth later in life and specifically calls out articles like this one as misinformation.

We are currently receiving a large number of inquiries that differ from the purpose of this research, which is very troubling.
This research is a study of therapeutic drugs for people who are missing teeth due to congenital (from birth) diseases (diseases, etc.).
This research is not aimed at restoring teeth to people who have lost their teeth due to acquired causes, as some news and social networking sites have reported.Additionally, we are not currently recruiting candidates for　clinical trials (adult males).

If someone said they were concerned about their sugar intake would you tell them to just stop eating entirely? It’s possible to take steps towards privacy-friendly services without cutting yourself off from the modern world in the same way as you can cut back on sugar and still eat food.

You absolutely do not need to “burn all your devices” to improve your privacy, suggesting so is unhelpful at best.

There’s no point looking for logic. These people truly believe granting a licence restricts the rights of people who don’t agree to the licence, which is the exact opposite of what licenses do. It’s blatant misinformation but if you call them out on it (even by quoting their own link) they literally think you’re an astroturfer for AI, because that makes more sense to them than the fact they’re obviously wrong.

People already do, this comic is about a real thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_duck_debugging

QR codes essentially just encode text, as long as you’re using a sensible QR code reader and check any URLs before opening them there’s minimal risk to scanning a QR code.

Have you considered events from their perspective? From what you’ve described, they were told to wait until a notification was sent, then they were given a notification with the instruction “send this”. If it was me my first thought would absolutely be that that’s the notification to be sent, the only reason I’d hesitate is because those sort of communications are well outside my job description.

The reason they sent the product afterwards is obvious; they were told to send them after the notification was sent, and they had sent the notification.

From what you’ve described, you are communicating incredibly poorly then blaming your workers for misunderstanding.

Why do you people do this? This isn’t !askbots@lemmy.world.