squaresinger @ squaresinger @lemmy.world

Posts

5

Comments

689

Joined

4 mo. ago

Mostly Lemmy here. I use it for my doomscrolling and distraction, and for that it's imho much better than Reddit, since the content is much less fake (I hate all that AITA creative writing and similar crap) and the politics are better.

I do sometimes use Reddit for when I actually have questions about some deeper topic. Lemmy sadly doesn't have the manpower and the decades of content to help me when I need to know how to overclock a specific 15 yo netbook or when I need help with some issue in a game or something. For that, there's sadly hardly a way around Reddit. Some things can be (badly) covered by Stack Exchange, some things I can maybe find on DuckDuckGo between heaps of AI slop, or I could let ChatGPT lie to me by hallucinating a wrong answer. But in many cases there is sadly no way around Reddit.

Oh totally, you are right with every word you say.

They are just playing with fear to justify their existence.

Never had Eternity lag before. Impressive.

That's a game I'd love to play, but right now I still have a semblance of a life left and I'm not sure I want to risk that.

Thanks for stealing copying the whole content so I don't have to click the link!

You are right with that, but there's actually a reason why companies book adspace on searches for their own product name (e.g. Lenovo booking ad space on searches for "Lenovo"), and imho it's even worse.

That way they want to stop competitors (e.g. HP) from booking the adspace, which would lead to HP being the first hit on a search for Lenovo.

That's pretty much digital racketeering. "That's a nice website you have there. It would be a right shame if something would happen to the traffic going there."

I got banned for saying that poisoning an invasive species like cats isn't any different than poisoning an invasive species like rats, except that cats are cute and fluffy and rats are not.

It was under a post about the Australian government putting up poison traps to combat the local cat population which is threatening local endangered wildlife.

You asked for an explanation since you obviously didn't understand the argument you were making.

I understand that it was rhetorical, since you thought you knew what you were talking about. But I thought, if you are already asking so nicely, maybe you'll learn something from it.

Looks like not only do you not know what you are talking about, but you are also resistant to learning.

That is not true. The first and second commandment together are monotheism.

1. I am the Lord thy God
2. Thou shalt have no other gods before me

The first one only specifies that "I" is your God, not specifically forbidding other Gods, and only the second one then forbids other Gods.

If the first one should be interpreted as "I am the Lord thy ONLY God", then the second commandment would be redundant.

Me neither. It's crazy.

What are you going to do? Use your semi-automatic peashooter against modern tanks?

Sure. Because military bases with big guns certainly don't have the ability to use said big guns.

Thanks for spotting the typo

... says the armchair porkbelly revolutionary.

How many revolutions did you fight in, mighty keyboard warlord?

On the home turf, yes it does. Also, the US only committed a fraction of their military power in these wars. Do you think the same would happen when the war zone was the US itself?

Lemmy also doesn't make that easy, since it's not like e.g. Reddit or the phpBB forums of old, where everyone moderates on their own turf only, but each instance has to essentially moderate all other communities on all other instances too.

That's what you get if you believe that laws written a quarter millenium ago are still some kind of holy infallable scripture.

Weapons have changed enormously since then and so has every part of society.

Back when the 2nd ammendment was written, the average weapon of the military and of private citizens would be about the same: front-loaded, single-shot gun. Soldiers had very low standards of training and militias still formed the backbone of the military.

It's totally possible for a large amount of private citizens to stand a decent chance against the military.

Nowadays a private citizen would have some kind of gun, while the military has tanks, planes, missiles and aircraft carriers. Even if half the country would take up arms, they'd stand no chance against the US military, which makes the whole point of "resisting unlawful government" moot.

You might not. Finance and wikipedia does.

There's a reason many big corporations have pulled out of online advertisment and focus on print/radio/TV/sponsorships instead: The effectiveness of online advertisment can be measured and it sucks royally.

The whole concept of marketing is just a huge game of "the emperor's new clothes". Nobody wants to be blamed if they stop doing marketing and it turns out to actually do have an effect, even if everyone secretly knows it's garbage.

Some of them are ok, but none of them would make a list of "best board games".