Aa! @ aaaa @lemmy.world

Lemmy shouldn't have avatars, banners, or bios

---

Read more

Posts

3

Comments

318

Joined

2 yr. ago

It sounds like you're describing every libertarian I've ever met

WSL is pretty good these days. Dual boot with Windows is still a pretty risky move with how easily Windows will overwrite your boot loader. I usually recommend you pick one os or the other rather than dual boot, so I'm in favor of WSL or virtualbox. Personally, I have never cared for needing to reboot just to switch operating systems. I tend to stick with one and the second one does nothing but take up disk partition space.

WSL lets you run both simultaneously without rebooting. Virtualbox lets you do the same with extra setup. Virtualbox makes it easier to do GUI setups than WSL does, and the network configuration is a little more obvious.

The best option is to get a second machine so you can run both. If that's not an option, virtualbox is the better choice for learning. If you just want a Linux environment on your existing setup (similar to using a Mac) then WSL is usually good enough

Yes, my experience with websites over the past few decades.

NSFW stands for "not safe for work." What do you think it means? It's pretty straightforward in its meaning.

It isn't censorship if you can just turn it off and see everything. It's a warning for people who want to browse at work but not view content that can get them in trouble

Just turn it off and ignore it if it doesn't apply to you. The rest of us want the tag to be used for its purpose.

Which you can easily turn off if you don't browse Lemmy at work.

Just because you don't use the tag for its intended purpose doesn't mean everyone doesn't. The tag has a clear purpose, denoted by what it stands for. Most people with adult jobs understand its purpose. Don't ruin the tag's purpose for the rest of us by devaluing it

An NSFW tag isn't censorship, it's a warning for people at WORK. if you don't use it for what it's for, that's not working people problems, that's your fault.

If downvoting for disagreement isn't okay, then why is it okay to upvote for agreement? (And why did you downvote me, if you think that's a bad thing?)

Voting is so users can express their opinion of what does or doesn't belong in the feed. People who can't handle mild criticism or disagreement shouldn't be posting things in public spaces

Personally, I agree with the vegan philosophy of reducing factory farming of meat. What I think is bad for society is villainizing anyone who doesn't 100% agree with the most extreme viewpoints. Which is explicitly the sort of posts I downvote

And also why I'm no longer allowed to downvote toxic vegan posts in Lemmy.ca

Disagreement isn't an invalid case for voting, despite what Reddit had people believing before.

The voting system is to let people know how many people thought this content was good or not good for the feed. If you shouldn't downvote for disagreement, then you shouldn't upvote for agreement either

But nobody has any problem with that

Voting on content in the feed is helping to curate it for others. If a community gets more down votes than up votes, maybe the community is the one at odds with people

Voting on content that is in the Lemmy feed is engaging in good faith. That's what the voting system is for.

What is not good faith is suppressing anyone who doesn't 100% agree with what your community is for

The tag is for warning people browsing at work not to click... Using it to prevent someone from clicking on a post that would be unacceptable to read at the workplace is exactly what it's for

It's not like it's censorship, it's just a warning tag.

What do you think the tag is for?

People at work don't (shouldn't) click on NSFW-tagged content. If it draws your eye even more, then I assume you don't browse from work.

How would it defeat the purpose to tag content that most workplaces would not be okay with? If you don't mind seeing the content, then the tag might entice you. People at work will recognize it and not click

The NSFW tag is part of the mechanism to curate the feed.

I'm not sure why people get offended by people wanting to use social media but not wanting to view content that can get them fired. If the content doesn't bother you, then you shouldn't filter NSFW content. It's not like the NSFW tag is censoring the content and preventing you from seeing it if you click it.

For people with jobs, why not make it easier to filter the things that companies don't like? It doesn't affect you any.

It really bothers me that Odo didn't choose to be the same plastic blue barrel that nearly killed Worf

Tabasco?

I prefer hot sauce on old pizza, not vinegar

Ask a project manager

They sometimes do

I would much rather they have the mute button. Put them in soundproof booths so he can't talk over her when it's not his turn.

I know those words, but that doesn't make any sense

You're arguing opinions and trying to convince someone as if they are facts. There's plenty to criticize about how AI is used, but it is a valuable tool for those that use it.

The amount of value it provides is very subjective, and even if you don't find it useful, many others do. You might as well be trying to argue that you don't like photography because it doesn't provide the same experience of drawings and paintings. You wouldn't be wrong to feel that way, but you would be wrong to tell someone else that they need to feel the way you do.

Doctors said that they think Trump's mental health is in decline. It does not say he's too old, just that he is unfit based on his behaviors.

There's no double standard here, because the standard isn't about age, it's about mental health.