Singular “they” is older than singular “you.” And note, of course, that the pronoun “you” is conjugated as a plural, and we deal with it just fine.

It makes them look weak and pitiful

To whom? Are we even the intended audience here?

Reporting over the last 10 years has shown that Xi Jinping has been obsessed with the idea of “color revolutions,” whereby popular movements from within a nation’s population overthrow the ruling apparatus. Rightly or wrongly, the current CCP sees revolution from within being the most dangerous threat on their power, so much of what they do is best understood as being aimed at stifling that kind of movement.

Wouldn’t you want to know what these texts are saying?

They aren’t saying what you think they are saying.

Can you give an example? This sounds intriguing.

Like many others, I jumped on the sourdough bandwagon in 2020, but fell off sometime during the year after that.

But a friend of mine stuck with it, and expanded into sourdough pizza doughs for NY style or Neapolitan style pizzas in his backyard pizza oven. He had a bunch of us over today, and I don’t think I understood everything he was saying (he was doing 60% hydration for 00 flour, but stuff I didn’t quite catch about when to knead/rest), but I can say that the pizzas he was making were delicious, and he made it seem so effortless to stretch the dough out to around 14 inch (35cm) diameter. And it was kinda infectious to see his enthusiasm for something he’d been churning away at for the last few years, explaining a bunch of things to a bunch of friends gathered around, and just having a great time on a Sunday afternoon.

So a bunch of us are probably gonna try our hands at the same thing, and form a bit of an amateur pizza group, texting our successes and failures to each other.

Don’t forget “foreign power just starts drawing borders” like India/Pakistan partition and the ensuing chaos, or the Sykes-Picot Treaty carving up the Middle East after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire.

And the comment-section on those type of post isn’t the right place for a “philosophical” discussions that would otherwise be on topic for that sub/community, but exactly align with topic of that post or news article.

Can you explain why you believe this? I’ve always understood deep dives into the topic or context or general issues raised by an article to be fair game, whether we’re talking the comments on the news article itself, a link on Reddit, a link on Hacker News, a link on a vBulletin/phpBB forum, or even old newsgroup/listserv discussions.

Reddit’s decision to start allowing “self” posts that were only links back to the comments thread itself (showing just how link-centered the design of reddit originally was, that every post had to have a link to something) came after the discussions around links became robust enough to support comments-first threads.

The only instance I’m aware of where the US military built a specific model meant to be a replica of a real place was the Osama bin Laden compound. Which they did, in fact, raid.

The building of a fake town isn’t the unusual part. The building of a replica of a specific place might not even be that unusual, but it is a strong signal that they definitely intend to attack the real world place that is being replicated.

I know, right? I think some of the answers in this thread are wild.

People are allowed to have their own hygiene boundaries, but some of the views in this thread seem fundamentally incompatible with dancing with other people.

If you think that society was friendlier to trans people in 1999 compared to 2024, you are mistaken.

Ha, ok, I definitely got whooshed then.

It’s the meme format:

“Men will literally (something) but not go to therapy”

People who use it don’t necessarily endorse the original view, but are making fun of it.

I’m skeptical of this theory as well, but I’d point out that our observations show that at galaxy scales, gravity is much stronger in certain places than we’d predict using our current model of gravity and the matter we can otherwise detect, and at even larger scales the acceleration of the universe’s expansion is being driven by something we don’t understand.

Right now, the dominant theory in cosmology is that each of these observed phenomena are driven by dark matter and dark energy, but we don’t have any direct evidence of the existence of either, just indirect evidence that stuff doesn’t behave as we might expect.

So it’s a choice between theories that don’t make intuitive sense, and break some fundamental assumptions about physics.

Plenty of historical figures had what we now recognize as different forms of neurodivergence.

Peter Roget obsessively made lists throughout his life, beginning as early as 8 years old. He also liked to solve chess puzzles and invented the log log slide rule, useful for working out exponents and roots by hand. He appears to have suffered from depression, and used list creation as a mechanism for calming himself. After he retired, he catalogued lists of synonyms and compiled it into categories, creating what would eventually be known as Roget’s Thesaurus. Looking over his biography, it’s pretty obvious that he would be considered neurodivergent today.

Sherlock Holmes had trademark characteristics of what we would later call Asperger’s: obsessive attention to detail combined with disinterest in other humans or their emotions. He’s a fictional character, but his creator, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, almost certainly drew on his own life and a few others in his life to create that character.

But we document these historical figures through writing, so anything prehistoric would likely not show up in the same way.

As of last year, English Wikipedia, articles only, text only, was about 22GB compressed (text compresses pretty efficiently), according to the current version of this page:

As of 2 July 2023, the size of the current version of all articles compressed is about 22.14 GB without media

Some other sources describe the uncompressed offline copies as being around 50 GB, with another 100 GB or so for images.

Wikimedia, which includes all the media types, has about 430 TB of media stored.

The populist message has always done so well regardless of political party because we all see how broken the system is and candidates like Obama, Sanders, and even Trump capitalize on that message to win hearts and minds.

I don’t think it’s correct to describe the populist message as overwhelmingly successful. Sanders didn’t win. Trump won once and lost once (and in fact lost the popular vote both times). We can trace back a bunch of other populists who failed, too.

The nuts and bolts of elections and campaigns tend to reward coalition builders. Populists with no establishment allies tend not to do well (note that Obama courted the popularity of the masses at the same time that he was locking up endorsements from the Democratic Party’s old guard, including Biden, Byrd, Kennedy, and Dodd).

Humans tend to sort themselves into coalitions, led by organizations. Popularity is a feedback loop, and the fickle public can and does change their collective mind over whether someone is beloved or not.

I agree with you.

An apathetic populace is how despots or oligopolies consolidate or retain their power.

Activism doesn’t always work, but there are plenty of historical examples of big social changes coming on the back of direct action by the people.

On the specific topic here, of greenhouse emissions, the U.S. has been decreasing its per capita emissions for something like 15-20 years. We have a long way to go, and should be going faster, but we are making progress right now. And none of this progress was inevitable. It was specific efforts by nonprofits, by governmental entities, by private industry, and by individuals to demand lower emissions.

Past environmental successes include the elimination of acid rain, the reversal of the hole in the ozone layer, and the vast improvement in outdoor particulate pollution and smog in the past few decades. This stuff matters, we have been making a difference, and the moment we give up we will start backsliding.

I’m going to come at this from my own ethical and moral framework, and try to explain myself well enough to allow you to either agree or clearly see where we disagree.

I’ve always been of the mindset that if you have a good product, shockingly little marketing is required.

Marketing creates value in an ethical way when it helps match supply to demand, and reduces search friction for mutually beneficial transactions. Those mutually beneficial transactions distribute resources in a way that increases the overall utility in a society.

Thus, ethical marketing is still useful in an economy or specific markets where searching is difficult or costly. Plenty of useful products languish on the vine, and need consumer discovery in order to succeed.

As an example, some of my favorite restaurants I’ve ever eaten at have been forced to throw away food when there has been insufficient dining volume to use all those ingredients. Sometimes it’s happened enough that the restaurant fails as a business. And restaurants as an industry are terrible with getting their product known to the public. So there’s probably some benefit there in the act of marketing, advertising, and sales for those restaurants.

If you have your own ethical guideposts on which industries produce products that suffer from that problem (good product that
insufficient people know about, where producers are struggling), maybe focusing in on those fields/industries could be productive.

This comment basically demonstrates the weakness of these AI driven summarizes in their current state. It doesn’t tell who is who or why each fact offered is relevant to the larger story. A good summary strips out the details but preserves the high level summary information, while giving context as necessary. This generated summary kinda does the opposite, by going down a largely irrelevant rabbit hole of how he was caught, and who he was affiliated with.

The real, actual TL;DR:

Cameron Ortis, former intelligence chief of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, has been convicted of leaking state secrets to three foreigners and attempting to leak state secrets to a fourth.

Ortis did not deny leaking the secrets but raised a defense that the leaks were part of a legitimate intelligence operation, and that he was leaking the secrets to entice foreign subjects into using communications platforms monitored by Canadian intelligence and its “Five Eyes” partners (intelligence agencies of the US, UK, Australia, New Zealand). The operators of those platforms deny working with western intelligence.

Oh. That kind of tinder.

I mean Rust is a godsend as a decision for the language to use.

I have no dog in the fight, but Penguincoder has been pretty vocal about Rust being the wrong choice for a web service: slow to develop and modify, easy to make mistakes that take much more work to fix later (and blames this fact for the state of the lemmy codebase). Its greatest strength is the speed of execution, but that doesn’t really matter for web servers, that are basically never CPU limited.

I can’t imagine anything even major needing changing, let alone a full rewrite.

I think the moderation tool examples given sound pretty broken, and it isn’t just Beehaw admins complaining about them. Lemmy.world and a few others have instance admins complaining about how hard it is to remove images from the server (deleting posts/users/comments just orphans the image file without deleting the associated file), how all the moderation functions seem not to contemplate the federation issue (removing an abusive comment or banning a user on one instance does nothing to address that same problematic content already federated to another instance).