fine_sandy_bottom @ fine_sandy_bottom @discuss.tchncs.de

Posts

5

Comments

1,679

Joined

2 yr. ago

No I didn't want to add anything to the discussion, thank you.

"We made a minor incremental improvement to our manufacturing process using existing technologies what will improve battery cycles by 1%! Amazing!"

If only the claim were accompanied by a detailed explanation of what the people involved have actually achieved.

I use LibreWolf which implements pretty tough fingerprint mitigation... but I end up disabling a lot of it because it breaks a lot of sites.

It's not just the US.

The underlying cause you're looking for is wealth inequality.

The vast majority of people are worker drones. We will work hard all of our lives in unsatisfying jobs with minimal leisure time, and if we get really lucky we can stop work for a few years before we die when we're too sick to work any more.

This general discontent will manifest in hatred in one way or another. Social media is channelling it into different things but the underlying cause is the same.

That's fine, you do you and all that.

The thing is, laptops haven't been "lap"tops for many years. Many workplaces have infrastructure where you carry your laptop around and dock it into your desktop monitors & peripherals at your desk.

I personally really like to work at our public library. In my backpack I have the laptop, monitor, keyboard, and mouse. It's a really great set up and I can be just as productive as I am in my home office.

I think that's fairly hyperbolic.

Sure, the system is corrupt and there are a lot of high profile cases that just don't seem to produce very "just" outcomes. That said, the vast majority of cases you don't hear about are still producing reasonable outcomes.

What a silly thing to say.

Obviously, if one insurer refused to cover what ever thing, they would lose all their customers to other insurers who covered sensible risks.

The point is, you can't insure against risks that are too likely to occur.

They've made some... curious decisions in the past which diminish my faith in their ability to navigate this one.

I have a lenovo external usb-c monitor.

I love it. Use it every day. It's great.

I'd never buy this rolling screen gimmick.

What a silly thing to say. In some very rare instances, that most people will never encounter in their lives, fighting is the smartest thing to do. In all other cases it's probably the dumbest thing to do.

I think that to stay sane in the legal system you have to satisfy yourself with knowing you've done your best even if you didn't get the outcome you wanted.

No.

You do not require a sense of ethics or justice to determine whether evidence indicates a defendant is guilty.

I'm somewhat astonished that you think owners of this type of property ought to be indemnified in any way.

If I inherited such a property, I would absolutely try to find a "greater fool" to buy it.

I would point out though, properties like that aren't going to be unsaleable over night. They're just going to be less desirable than other properties.

That's not what I said at all.

I can't be any clearer. Jurors consider whether evidence confirms the defendant performed the acts they are charged with.

They do not "perform determinations" in any way. They do not consider ethics. They do not dispense justice.

Lemmy will never supplant Reddit because of that

There's a lot to unpack here.

I dislike the use of the term "wrong" in this case immensely.

Everyone ought to be able to decide what to do with their own body, free from judgement. That includes whether to grow a fetus, and the decision making process is completely irrelevant.

It's wrong to opine what's right and wrong regarding someone else's bodily autonomy.

If the question was, "if you were pregnant and you were told your child was going to be severely disabled, would you seek an abortion" the answer is "most likely".

I think you might have missed the point.

I mean it would be great to have some kind of socialised home insurance that wasn't "for profit", but such a scheme should still refuse to insure homes which are likely to burn down.

This is a terrible idea.

We bought our present home 6 years ago. One house we looked at was in a low lying area, probably less than a metre above the high tide line. We didn't buy that home because I'm not an idiot.

Since the dawn of time people have been building homes in silly places and losing their money as a result. It's a shame.

In the next century there's going to be a great many people displaced due to climate change. Let's not start out by indemnifying those who pretended climate change wasn't a thing.