No, I don’t think there’s an ulterior motive. Reddit kicked out all the active mods and mods who knew what they were doing, and then brought in people with zero mod experience. Of course you’re going to get more issues with mod abuse now. Not everyone has the temperament to be a responsible mod, and I think Reddit is simply reaping the consequences of its choices

I don’t particularly like the layout of libreoffice, but I find that onlyoffice works for me. Not as feature rich, I suspect, but it doesn’t disrupt my workflow due to how similar it is to Microsoft Office

Yes, and people do do it. It’s just incredibly difficult to do it even for relatively simple programs, and the more complex the program is, the more exponentially hard the reverse engineering will be.

The problem is not necessarily turning it into code, since many decompilers do it already for you nowadays. The issue is understanding what in the world the code is supposed to do. Normally, open source code would be commented and there would be documentation, so it’s easy to edit or build on the code. Decompiled code comes with no documentation or comments, and all the variable names are virtually illegible.

It’s sometimes easier to build something new than to fix what’s broken, and this would be one of those cases where it’s true

Not necessarily an acronym, but here’s a fun one for Japanese: Laughing in Japanese is warau, which gets shortened when typing to just w. If you want to laugh a lot, you would type wwww. That ends up looking like a field of grass, so that in turn gets shortened into 草 (kusa, or grass). Basically, 草 is the Japanese equivalent of lol

Also, in Chinese, thank you is often abbreviated as 3q, because when you say it out loud, it sounds like “thank you” (san kyu)

Not gaslighting, and from what you seem to describe, doesn’t appear to be manipulative either. She just seems to be angry. Not to say that you can’t be both angry and manipulative, but I don’t see clear intent for her to try to guilt trip or gaslight you.

Gaslighting would be if she lied and said that she sent you a message when in fact she didn’t. i.e., lying with the intent to make you question your judgment and perception

Guilt tripping would be if she pressured you into giving her a gift as compensation for ignoring her message. i.e., taking advantage of someone’s feelings of guilt to get them to do something for you.

I don’t see any lie, and I don’t see hee trying to extract anything out of you. Worst case interpretation, she’s being a bit petty. Best case interpretation, she’s scared of being alone outside.

I noticed your final paragraph, and I would be cautious in general about saying that someone who’s trying to convince you that their anger is justified is automatically manipulative. That’s kind of just how anger works. People think that their anger is justified. Otherwise they wouldn’t be angry. Manipulation occurs when you start to feel like you are being used for their own motives.

Either way, you should probably talk to her about it. It seems like she thinks the issue is more severe than you appear to think, and that is something that should be discussed with her

End of mankind - nothing, really. Even with climate change or nuclear war, the rich will live on. It will be a shitty, greedy, undeserving populace that lives on, but mankind will live on.

End of the world as we know it - climate change. I don’t know of anything else more existential

Not a paleontologist, but I think it’s a mix of both wrong information being spread back then and also new info being discovered.

I’m pretty sure people knew that birds were dinosaurs for a while, but people just liked the idea that dinosaurs were monstrous lizards. Giant monsters just capture the imagination in a way that giant birds can’t.

And then paleontologists started finding fossils that had imprints of feathers still on the body, and it became really hard to ignore that dinosaurs were a lot more bird-like than people would like to believe.

My impression has generally been that once dinosaurs started to be viewed as bird-like, people started to see them as animals rather than as monsters, and that just kinda snowballed into dinosaurs becoming more and more bird-like

Windows comes with a secret option to turn off updates with group policies, so you don’t need to modify anything or use a script. It works just fine for me. No updates (unless I manually click update).

The option for automatic updates is several layers deep in a nested menu tree, and I don’t fully recall what the path to get there is. But you should be able to find it online.

There are certain careers that can’t be replaced by AI - anything that requires working with your hands will not be replaced by AI unless robots suddenly get invented. But if robots exist, then there’s likely bigger things to worry about than your job.

I would look for non-routine jobs that require a lot of handiwork. Non-routine because it will be hard to replace with general, non-AI automation, and handiwork because AI is currently digital only.

Carpentry, plumbing, engineering, laboratory research, teaching all likely fall into the safe category

Thanks for the input.

I personally interpret your story not as evidence that Lemmy is insular. Or at least not in the way that perhaps you intended it. It seems to me (and this has generally been by experience with Reddit) that Reddit is generally really good at putting people together with others of a similar viewpoint. To me, the fact that you are more accepted on Reddit seems more indicative of the fact that Reddit prevents people who disagree from even talking to each other. Downvotes and upvotes, after all, have basically never been used as a measure of discussion. Both here and on Reddit, they just measure how many people agree with you.

My experience on Lemmy has generally been that even while people disagree with you, they make a more earnest attempt to engage with your viewpoint.

I think, beyond simply offering counterpoints, Lemmings are also better at accepting nuance and taking measured opinions. It would be really interesting to track changes over time in the usage of certain keywords on Reddit that would imply nuance. For instance, words like “but,” “however,” “think,” “believe,” “may,” etc.

I have no doubt that the usage of these words would go down after seeing how Reddit is like now, but it would definitely be interesting to see the formal data on it

The screen size matters significantly. More specifically, what humans care about is pixel density. A 24 inch 1080p screen does not look the same as a 27 inch 1080p, which does not look the same as a 32 inch 1080p.

A 24 inch 1080p screen is perfectly fine. A 27 inch 1080p, you can start to see the pixels more clearly. A 32 inch 1080p IMO is unacceptably bad.

I would say the standard should be 1080p for 24 inch or under, 1440p for 24-27 inch, 4K for 27 inch or above

I personally run a 24 inch 1440p screen because I’m pretty picky with pixel density, and the monitor was relatively good deal.

Games, as with all creative media, by default improve over time as people learn what makes something enjoyable. I think people tend to forget that. So I think for older games, you have to keep 2 “ratings” in your head - how was it compared to the games at the time, and how is it compared to games now?

I loved GTA3 when I played it. But that was back then. I’m not sure if I would say the same thing now, comparing it to modern games.

I get that people like to clown on all the remakes and remasters that are coming out, and for the most part, rightly so. But I also think it’s really important to encourage high quality remakes for this exact reason - when a good game ages poorly, it doesn’t feel quite right to just tell new, younger players to deal with it if they want to figure out what the hype is about

Isn’t that just a government job with extra steps? I thought the point of UBI is that it’s meant to be, you know, universal.

As a side note, people have this tendency to think that government programs must be means-tested. That is, there must be a criteria that is met before someone is eligible for the program. Same with your assumption in the post - you assume that it must be better to add a stipulation. There seems to be this natural skepticism that if there is no criteria, people will take advantage of the program. I want to challenge that skepticism.

Adding criteria for eligibility inherently means the government must establish a bureaucracy for checking that the criteria is met. This has two notable downsides that people tend to not consider. First, it causes an applicant to wait longer before they can hear back from the program. With existing programs, it sometimes takes months before someone hears back. This ends up discouraging anyone from applying, even if they meet all the criteria. After all, what’s the point of receiving aid in 3 months if you need the aid now?

Second, it causes the cost of the program to increase. A bureaucracy is difficult to maintain. The more money that is spent on checking for eligibility, the less money that people in need will get. And what is the work that such a bureaucracy will do anyways? How does it benefit society to hire someone to say that people’s needs aren’t “real enough” to get government aid?

Which leads me to a third, additional point - it’s morally questionable to require people to meet a certain criteria before they can receive aid. To put it in another way, why do you feel like you need to gatekeep other people’s needs? If a person says they’re struggling, why should anyone say that they’re not struggling enough?

There are a group of people - seemingly a large group of people - who believe in some twisted sort of retroactive reinterpretation of their past experiences.

If something ended badly, then clearly everything has always been bad. If something ended well, then everything has always been well. I see it most often with relationships (a breakup means your ex was evil the entire time). But based on this example, clearly it is not limited to just relationships.

It feels oddly reminiscent of bipolar disorder every time I encounter examples of it.

I see… Do you happen to know of any better alternatives for investing?

Out of the loop - what’s wrong with Robinhood?

xePMBg9 learns the ways of the desert

Is the post cut off? I get the impression there’s supposed to be more text here

Researchers here. The scientific method is unbelievably tedious. Way more tedious than you would think. So much so that people are willing to pay researchers to do it for them. A simple yes or no question takes weeks or months to answer if you’re lucky.

But the upside is that we can remove our own biases from the answer as much as possible. If you see an obvious difference between any 2 groups, then there’s little to no point in doing the scientific method. But if the difference is less clear, like borderline visible, then biases start to creep in. Someone who thinks there’s no difference will see the data and think there’s no difference. And someone who thinks there’s a difference will look at the data and think there’s a difference. The scientific method excels in these cases, because it gives us a relatively objective way to determine if there is a difference or not between 2 groups