otp

joined 2 years ago
[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 5 points 10 hours ago

"This"

Not your post, but anything that's just an upvote in the form of a comment.

Also anything that's egregious misinformation or bad faith posting.

Or anything that's just spammy or bonkers crazy. I've blocked more people in my 1-ish year on Lemmy than I had in something like 10 years on Reddit...it definitely feels like Lemmy is the haven for Reddit refugees, including those who got banned for not really understanding how to engage in this type of space.

Also, any post that really doesn't fit the community. Like NoStupidQuestions posts that aren't questions or are really just AITA or DAE (social validation) posts in disguise.

I know that sounds like a lot, but for the most part, I don't vote on things. I upvote most posts that are cool/interesting enough to get me to go to the source or read through the comments, as well as any good comments. And pretty much any comment that engages in discussion with my own comments without being annoying or rude, lol

[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 hours ago

I think making a genuine mistake is fine if it contributes to discussion, especially if it's later edited to reflect the fact that it was mistaken.

[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 3 points 11 hours ago

I got the base game for free a few years ago.

I played and enjoyed it so much I bought the Platinum edition...on Steam, because it was cheaper there. (And other reasons, but this was the biggest one)

One of the few games I actually went out and bought thanks to Epic. I feel slightly bad for not buying from them, lol

[–] otp@sh.itjust.works -4 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

This is retconning/gaslighting the situation, something he's known the world over for doing.

I like how you didn't know the word, so you used two wrong words that have the same sort of gist! Haha

Retconning is only for fiction. As for gaslighting, that would be pretty hard to prove...

"Misrepresenting" might be a better word there

[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Scent is how dogs (generally) primarily experience the world.

They don't do this with other dog faces.

Because dogs don't use their faces the same way that humans do

[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 days ago (3 children)

These same regions don't activate in dogs to anything like the same degree when they see other dogs.

Probably because they use scent more than sight for being in tune with their own species.

[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 days ago

LMAO

As someone who spends more free time with electronics and other more expensive stuff than newspapers, this would cause a big rift between me and my dog.

[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 8 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I grew up in Canada.

My high school English teacher let us choose books to write essays on from a selection of a dozen or so that he was intimately familiar with and could tell whether someone was BSing or not.

I don't remember all of them, but I chose The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. I also remember reading 1984 in his class.

[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago

Napster programmers demographic, it seems at times! Lol

That, and the "banned from Reddit" demographic. Two major demographics.

[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

What is grey, then?

[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 days ago

You can have social media accounts without explicitly sharing your personal information.

Yes, they can infer a lot of info about you. But you don't need to use those accounts for sharing pictures of yourself, for example.

[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 4 points 5 days ago

Not in the US, but my mom works for a really bad union whose greatest accomplishment seems to be giving employees paid 15-minute breaks every 4 hours or so.

The union talks big about protecting employees, but really only protects them the way that an HR department would.

 

One of the tricky things with English is that we often have words that can be combined to form different words.

Like greenhouse. It's a combination of green + house. But a greenhouse is something very different from a green house. Autocorrect may cause some people to make this mistake, but generally, the concepts are understood to be different.

On the other side of things, there's things like "alot" which is mistakenly used so commonly that my autocorrect didn't even care that I typed that (and it's not just because of the quotes!).

Then there are words like login, which as a noun is definitely one word, but as a verb, should almost definitely be two words ("log in to this website", but "this is my login for the website")...but "login" seems to be universally recognized as standard for a verb, even though we don't say loginned for the past tense (we still say "logged in").

And of course, there are other words that are commonly paired together that we don't often see with the space removed, like "Takecare", "Noway", or "Ofcourse". These could all be potential candidates for the "alot" treatment. What makes "alot" special?

So what causes "Please login to the website" to be "correct", but "I workout everyday" to be incorrect? (And maybe everyone is "wrong" about login, or everyone is right about "workout" and "everyday", and the compound word is an acceptable alternative to the versions with the space)

I feel like this would be better in an AskLinguists community here... maybe there's an active one that someone could point me to? But I'm still curious to see what people think

 

I know MediaBiasFactCheck is not a be-all-end-all to truth/bias in media, but I find it to be a useful resource.

It makes sense to downvote it in posts that have great discussion -- let the content rise up so people can have discussions with humans, sure.

But sometimes I see it getting downvoted when it's the only comment there. Which does nothing, unless a reader has rules that automatically hide downvoted comments (but a reader would be able to expand the comment anyways...so really no difference).

What's the point of downvoting? My only guess is that there's people who are salty about something it said about some source they like. Yet I don't see anyone providing an alternative to MediaBiasFactCheck...

 

Bananas are ridiculously cheap even up here in Canada, and they aren't grown anywhere near here. Yet a banana can grow, be harvested, be shipped, be stocked, and then be purchased by me for less than it'd cost to mail a letter across town. (Well, if I could buy a single banana maybe...or maybe that's not the best comparison, but I think you get my point)

Along the banana's journey, the farmer, the harvester, the shipper, the grocer, the clerk, and the cashier all (presumably) get paid. Yet a single banana is mere cents. If you didn't know any better, you might think a single banana should cost $10!

I'm presuming that this is because of some sort of exploitation somewhere down the line, or possibly loss-leading on the grocery store's side of things.

I'm wondering what other products like bananas are a lot cheaper than they "should" be (e.g., based on how far they have to travel, or how difficult they are to produce, or how much money we're saving "unethically").

I've heard that this applies to coffee and chocolate to varying extents, but I'm not certain.

Anyone know any others?

view more: next ›