Telegram is the same. It's the app people will migrate to because it's the app people learned to use when WhatsApp can't operate for some reason. Not many people there. People here are overly attached.
For the people who suggest users just change apps. Imagine I just ban all your current forms of text communication (you can still have e-mail), but only you, your family and friends will keep their ecosystems. Do you care you won't talk to them anymore? Can you convince them to use a new app? Does it affect your life beyond social interactions? Is it worth making your life harder?
The article didn't go in the direction I expected. Theoretically, open source software can be fixed by experts outside of the main company, but it would be very niche. The expert would need to be familiar with the specific hardware at least, have varying degrees of medical knowledge and have access to the individual in need in some cases.
Forced updates and treating medical software as no more special than a game is the problem when dealing with apps. Tag medicals apps and make it so that system updates have to be manual or go through warnings before being deployed. Offer the option to go back to a version that previously worked. Create regulations to make companies liable for malfunctions.
Daily quests, login rewards, any other mechanic that wants to dictate when I should play, all that ruined my relation with a lot of games. I actively try to ignore them nowadays. If my line of reasoning is I should play a little more because the reward is around the corner and will be gone tomorrow, I'll let the most precious opportunity go to waste to protect my mental health.
Who exactly are you talking about when you say Brazil? There's a lot of people here that really don't care at all, but there's also people working to preserve the forest for a variety of reasons at different levels.
The problem that I see is that power comes in great part from the responsibility to educate yourself. In a community, you don't have to know everything to contribute to its workings, but someone has, enough people do you escape the clutches of external players. Everything is quite individualist right now though. Things must just work without the help of anyone.
“That immediately causes them to tune out because … that puts their guard up,” she said. “If you were to go to anybody and say, ‘I am telling you this because you are potentially a violent person,’ and that person feels that fundamentally they’re not, that’s going to cause that person to get defensive and tune out. That is something that we’ve seen across all of the research that we’ve done, that the young men on college campuses find that [prevention education] is either completely ‘name, blame, shame’ or is irrelevant to them as men within their campus community.”
The culture of victim blaming creates an enemy instead of focusing on the real issues. And the biggest issue is that we can't recognize abuse as easily as we believe we naturally do. It's normal, it's okay, but it isn't.
I don't think it's the same concern. It's not that people will become pedophiles or act on it more because of the normalization and exposure. It's people will see less of a problem with the sexualization of children. The parallel being the amount of violence we are OK being depicted. The difference being we can only emulate in a personal level the sexual side.
Maybe there's the argument that violence is escapist, sexual desire is ever present and porn is addictive.
Adapting is a survival mechanism most times. You do it because you have no choice. Conforming would be accepting the status quo, that you'll always have to adapt because it can't be changed.
Personally, I believe we should aspire to shrink standards and embrace more variety. It's more work for a lot of people, but it would benefit everyone in the long run.
Adapt if it doesn't hurt you. Create space for the other if the only argument against is it's going to be inconvenient.
I understand the sentiment. By saying we, I meant myself and the other users. We should take more responsibility for what we share. Maybe we can try to make that part of the culture. The title should be the information we personally want to spread or call to attention.
We really should moderate the titles more. I just realized that every article I ignored I basically accepted as truth. Or, at least, my brain accepted as truth in the background. I'll see the same lie twice a day everyday and start processing as fact.
I read it as being at least one of the three. If it's not kind, is it a relevant fact? If it's only your opinion, does that contribute to the discussion?
I think the questions are a tool to make us aware of our behavior. People have issues and can get triggered without noticing and engage in a conversation to their own detriment. Be kind is generic. Do you really want to attack and cause harm to someone else (someone might, BTW)? Are you using facts as a weapon? Is it in your best interest to say something, or in the interest of something positive?
Also, if the reason is to distract yourself, that's a reason. It's not a good reason all the time though.
But they are not equivalent. People that erase trans people read it like that and project. In a medical setting, the biology is important and the language makes sure all parts involved are included in the conversation.
I've never played any of the games, but I would understand that Link is a silent character that uses sign language.