Yeah I just can’t stop getting ragebaited by the Electron hate. All Electron haters are free to develop their own efficient, pleasant looking, cross-platform native app instead since it’s so easy

I wonder if this introvert/extrovert dichotomy really exists this much or if it’s just psychological astrology. Personally, I find it completely irrelevant to myself, but maybe that’s just me.

I will be extremely extroverted around people I like and extremely introverted around people I don’t like. I can feel recharged by interactions with people I like and discharged by interactions with people I don’t like. Isn’t that obvious?

With strangers it’s all based on my perception of them, derived from their appearance, their context, and any other clues I have.

In groups it’s based on the composition of the group. The percentage of people I like or dislike, and also the context. When I’m alone, I’m perfectly content alone. I love being alone and I love hanging out with my friends.

To be honest, I suspect my situation is how pretty much everyone is. I feel like my friends who describe themselves as extroverts and my friends who describe themselves as introverts are really just doing the same thing as each other and as me. I suspect that people who are very pronounced one way or the other, are doing so out of a self-fulfilling prophecy effect resulting from having decided at some point in the past to conceive of themselves as introverted or extroverted. The same way an astrology fan may unwittingly begin to behave according to their sign stereotype.

Real. I can’t stand fake things, especially fake nature. Wood veneers, marble painted plaster laminates, LVT, no no no. I’d sooner have no tree at all.

This is like a special moveset of self-buffs for a brawny no-magic character in a JRPG

Bravest slop identifier

This is absolutely not a problem of being bad with numbers. That’s like if I had trouble reading a Chinese sentence about gardening and said I’m just bad with plants. My issue is that I’m not familiar with the notation used to explain the concept - not a problem with the concept itself that the notation merely arbitrarily symbolizes.

Being good or bad at math is not really an inherent thing, aside from some geniuses and some people with disabilities. If you want to be good at math, you can be!

This is how those onlyfans promo account posts read. “Would you (obese gamer virgin) fuck me (fit nude model) however you want if I begged you for it enough???”

And then the comments like “yes baby I’d love to 😋😍😉”

Ugh, that second one is the worst. How dare you invoke that name in my presence

I’ve always had an irrational dislike for the word “Bubba”. It’s just annoying to say, and I feel like it only ever shows up in annoying contexts. This flower is the first counterexample so far

Acting so good the message is transmitted in a still frame

Parkour fans rejoice as skill finally becomes useful

Yeah this is the kind of thing where you really need statistics. This sticks out because it’s a prominent example of something new, an autonomous vehicle, doing something notable - killing an animal for the first time (or at least one of the very first well-publicized times on record).

For people’s reaction to this to be that this is because it’s an autonomous vehicle is the same sort of cognitive bias that causes things like, " The first person to get a math problem wrong in class was a girl so it seems like girls are bad at math". When of course it could be that the probability of boys and girls getting problems wrong is equal, and that the girl was simply the first one to get a unlucky roll on the dice of the universe. It could even be that boys are more likely to get problems wrong, and the girl was especially unlucky. It could in fact be that girls are more likely to get problems wrong, too, but this single instance doesn’t give us enough evidence for that. It could be that boys actually have gotten more problems wrong, but we only hear about the girl getting the problem wrong due to sociological biases, or vice versa. Etc.

I get that we shouldn’t trust corporations, and it’s not fun to defend a corporation, but it is important to defend rational thinking. And the rational way to approach this is to employ statistical methods to judge whether a vehicle being autonomous truly makes it a bigger risk to animals in the road or not. Any other line of reasoning is not right for this kind of problem.

I don’t have time to fully respond to this right now, but I just wanted to say that I do understand and sympathize with the things you’re bringing up here. I was hoping to engage with you politely, and my feelings are hurt by your insults, but I understand your anger. When I said I look forward to your counterargument, I meant that earnestly and respectfully. I’m sorry for upsetting you with my reply - I was hoping to lend an angle of positivity to you that you may not have considered, not discount your own view.

It allows individuals to distribute content to a network of hundreds of millions of people, with a very low barrier to entry, and in ways that are not centrally controlled. If my government is banning certain types of speech or information, websites in other countries may still be accessible with it. People in my own country may even make sites with that information, as it’s fairly easy to bypass those laws. The Internet holds all sorts of content that pisses off billionaires. Piracy, privacy tools, the Internet Archive, government document leaks. Think how I can read about the Epstein files so easily by searching or asking about it here on Lemmy - and then think about how much harder it is for me to find that information from a news company, if it’s even possible at all. Why do you think governments and billionaires around the world are so eager to monitor and centralize and rewrite the fundamental workings of the internet? They are coming after the internet because it is a threat to them.

I look forward to your counterargument.

Not the internet, but billionaire controlled platforms. The Internet is one of the best tools ever for fighting against centralized power!

Seriously. What candidate is it that this innocent perfect figure here represents? Which politician is it that is like this?

It kind of sounds like you’re talking about it purely as a thought experiment or as something to inspire other philosophical thinking. But I think the issue most people have with the simulation theory is when people think that it’s actually the way that the world is or think that it’s worth investigating the way that the world is just because it theoretically could be the way the world is. But theoretically the world could have been created by the god of the Bible or any of the other million explanations proposed by the million other religions that have existed. Almost every religion proposes a hypothesis that could indeed explain reality, but just because it could explain reality doesn’t mean it’s reasonable to investigate it.

I agree with you that all the questions you raised are interesting and worth thinking about, but none of that really relates to thinking that we actually live in a simulation. You’re just using the idea that we live in a simulation as inspiration to start thinking about these other ideas. But actually thinking that we live in a simulation is much less reasonable.

Yep, even on the side of the right ideas, half the people still got there via the same wrong methods that the people on the wrong side use. They just coincidentally happened to land on the right side instead. It is quite disheartening, exactly

Not sure. Google patched it by just limiting the amount of blurs an app could request: https://android.googlesource.com/platform/frameworks/native/+/20465375a1d0cb71cdb891235a9f8a3fba31dbf6

Is it really being a pedant, or is it just being precise?