I love it, just the feeling of actually engaging of people. Something I didn't have on Reddit. I think it really opens my eyes on how much our attention gets commercialised.
Yes! I fully agree. And it feels just much more... Enjoyable. Because if a post only has 10 instead of 1000 comments, I'll actually read them and react. And gosh, the few discussions I had on Lemmy were very nice and I actually learnt something new.
Yes, I agree. Just holy cactus, MacOS is just so bad these days. The inconsistency us driving me nuts.
Why do the windows you open with the "help" menus inside of apps have small buttons?
Why do some apps (e.g. Music) have a Search entry on the left side, and why do so have it on the left?
Why do we still have tons of icons for system apps (Photo Booth, I'm looking at you) who have been programmed in a time where there have been dinosaurs around and seem to have never changed?
... And so on. Like honestly, MacOS is so much better that Windows (which admittedly isn't hard), but when I open up my good ol' Fedora I dont have the feeling that I see a new shiny operating system, and when I click on a wrong button I am in the 1990-s again. Or 2050-s. Or God knows where.
Linux has its unique set of challenges, but I fully agree that the notion that "MacOS is better than the rest" just isn't true anymore. Maybe it was, when Linux distributions were worse and there was more money put into bugfixing OS releases. But not anymore.
I think you hit the nail on the head. It is very interesting how different I (male-presenting) get treated when I wear a skirt vs trousers. The whole rest of my outfit and appearance is similar - I have the same haircut, glasses, coat, boots, backpack. But when I wear a skirt, I know that people notice me far more, and I also for some reason start getting compliments from women.
So I dont think that's something which only happens with men noticing women, but that skirts (especially yhe ones which are shorter and more fitting) society at large seems to associate with sexual attraction. I will be honest, it is a bit of fun to know I have so much power over peoples attention - that I can control the amount of attention on me by wearing pants vs a skirt. But I also fully agree with what you're saying - people can wear skirts just because they like them, not because they want to be sexy to you (shocker moment).
I know that we subconciously do it all the time, but: how do you deal with the fact that people treat you differently just based on what you're wearing?
I understand. I think you raise an interesting thought... I get where the law is coming from, but it also makes sense that the way it is treated now makes it so that dogs who would live their entire life in captivity only suffer more.
Thank you for your insight - I appreciate it and will think about it.
Hmm, I get your point - I think you're raising a compelling case.
I think, for me it comes down to the belief that only very, very few dogs are so aggressive and dangerous that no intervention will be able to change that. I (with great reluctance :) )agree that if a dog will never be able to get adopted, it is responsible to think if it would be more humane to euthasize him. But there are also far, far too many cases where dogs are killed because there just isn't enough money or interest in them to give them special treatment and care so that they can e.g. trust humans again and not see them as danger.
I also agree, however, that it would probably be a good idea to implement limiting measures to the amount of dogs out there, so that the problem isn't growing in scope - e.g. those you proposed. In the end though that can't be the solution to the moral question "is it okay for us to kill dogs with whom we haven't tried all in our power", it can just be a supporting factor so that we can avoid making these decisions as much as possible.
Well, I will be honest with you - I'd gladly pay my part so that an animal doesn't get killed. Of course no one be able to fix the issue alone (except Elob Musk and Bezos, probably), but I think that we as a society can do better than kill animals because we don't have enough money to keep them alive in a humane manner.
I understand. I'm living in Germany, so our laws also probably differ as well - but is there a law which permits that if a dog e.g. doesn't get adopted within a year, it may be euthasized? I thought that a "no killing" law is absolute and that an animal in a shelter never is allowed to be killed, no matter the circumstance.
Hi - I'm not the original commenter, but your text is very thoughtful and insightful. I appreciate you writing your comment, I think it cleared up at least a few of my misunderstandings in a very clear and understandable manner. Thank you for your post, internet stranger :)
Correct me if there is data suggesting otherwise, but I dusagree that the "not kill" laws are stupid - I think the problem is that shelters don't have enough funding to care for all dogs. A law which protects animals from getting killed cannot, in my opinion, be a bad law - because every life, even that of a dog, is worth fighting for.
I think it would make sense for certain instances to not block Threads, if people want to keep this connection. But it is always far, far easier to unblock Threads later than to federate now and then to defederate later for big instances such as Lemmy.world. I don't think the mainstream opinion is "BLOCK THREADS FOREVER!!1!1!1!", but that we should be cautious anout the risks connected with it. And if Meta will be nice and won't 3E - nice, then we can federate later on. But as long as that isn't clear, we should make sure we won't be overtaken.
I think the concept of a sports coach at an university is inteeresting in general. At Europe and the colleges here it doesn't really matter which sports team your institution has as long as it offers good education. It is always interesting to see that for whatever reason it can be different.
That sucks, dude - you get a hug, if you want one hug