Please_Do_Not @ Please_Do_Not @lemm.ee

Posts

5

Comments

445

Joined

1 yr. ago

Agreed that audio improvements are higher priority than video ones imo, but real life visual improvements (e.g., better glasses/prescription, high quality binoculars if you have a use for them) seem at least as significant as audio quality differences.

Pretty much everything about Apple Music is worse than Spotify except for their catalog and their lossless audio, but it was still 100% worth the switch for me. Compression sucks.

This mirrors my experiences exactly. It's just hard for me to understand sometimes that people aren't experiencing a difference that is objectively present and significant. But I guess I may miss plenty of details in other things that are significant to others. My mind goes to frame rate for certain games, where resolution feels super noticeable to me, but the difference between 40 and 60fps just doesn't seem as massive as I see other describing it.

It's a good point about genres and production making a difference as far as whether or not it's worth it, and that it's the most popular genres for which fidelity is least important

Literally every fable ends with a good lesson, how to pick! The salt merchant's donkey sticks out as a memorable one because it's complex--the donkey's mistake is not trying to lighten its load, it is doing so excessively, trying to reduce its load to zero every day. The merchant's revenge seems somewhat cruel, but isn't actually forced upon the donkey until/unless, even though the sponges are very light on the last day, the donkey tries to make them even lighter by slipping into the water. It's a classic "pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered" type message, but with some interesting nuance to it.

Probably.

Chimichurri! Parsley, garlic, Fresno peppers, oregano, salt, pepper, olive oil, and vinegar. Just chop finely and mix. Good on everything from meat to seafood, potatoes, brussel sprouts, and dry toast. Can't go wrong with it.

That makes a lot of sense. I think I read the caption differently in the second image, seeing the word "fanatical" as identifying a group within the group rather than describing the whole. Like "an average Muslim won't kill you for it, but the fanatical ones will, so best not to show an image." Maybe wishfu/optimistic interpretation.

That makes a lot of sense. I think I read the caption differently in the second image, seeing the word "fanatical" as identifying a group within the group rather than describing the whole. Like "an average Muslim won't kill you for it, but the fanatical ones will, so best not to show an image." Maybe wishfu/optimistic interpretation.

Yeah that feels obvious now lol. For whatever reason I was focused only on the caption of the first meme and just saw the second as racking on one more group rather than reading into the caption. But I read the word "fanatical" as identifying a group within the group rather than describing the whole. Like "an average Muslim won't kill you for it, but the fanatical ones will." Maybe wishful interpretation.

A walkup apartment means no elevator, so to be fair to anyone else, a small walkup could still require like 15 flights of stairs. And by "small" I was referring to the apartment, but obviously still joking about the whole comment. Saying that a small apartment is only for fit people is supposed to be like saying a stool with a 300lb limit isn't a stool.

Yeah my question isn't why is an image of him offensive. Since they've actually made the choice not to break that tenet in this meme, my question is why is it more offensive to reference Mohammed in the second panel than it is to actually have a picture of Jesus in the first image. Seems like an equal critique of both Christianity and Islam, so I don't know why one is worse, but all the comments are just about the rule barring images of Mohammed.

I am asking why it's more offensive to say "Mohammed has an annoying fan base" than it is to say "Jesus has an annoying fan base," which the original photo does. I get that both are offensive, it just seems like they are on par for a meme, and both are in there.

So I am not Christian or Muslim, but is there a reason that referencing Mohammed is more offensive than having Jesus in the first image?

Definitely seems to work better/more consistently now

100% agreed with this point. I don't think the article attacks bike makers for their specialization, but I think a lot of the people reacting to pieces like this take it there or read active/intentional fat-phobia into brands' current practices.

Totally agreed and I see the connection with the (deplorable) "all lives matter" reactionary argument. I don't think this article makes the argument I was referencing, but many people's reactions in these comments do. I honestly don't find much that I disagree with in the article, but in how people suggest the bike industry addresses those issues, there may be a lack of balance.

If it's not meant to hold 300lbs, it's a decoration, not a stool! My apartment is only built for 2 relatively fit people, being a small walkup. So I consider it more a sculpture than something functional.

I agree that there should be options for bigger people, but that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be bikes as light and high-performing as possible made for those who can use them, and if that's the focus of a given manufacturer, that's not an ethical issue. It's just their specialization, and there's plenty of room for other designers to focus on bikes for heavier riders as that market becomes viable.

Everyone deserves to ride bikes, and bike designers deserve to focus on the types of bikes they want. 7-foot NBA players deserve to be comfortable in cars, but it's not Ford's fault or responsibility that finding a car is more difficult for them than for those between the 10th and 90th height percentiles. No less unfortunate, but changing the design of all cars or expecting app major manufacturers to design for outliers isn't necessarily a solution.

Yeah I just don't see the solution that a lot of people are pushing for. Should everyone's bike be heavier because some people need them reinforced? And should scooters not be popularly used until motors than can push 3x the weight are common?

Having bike and scooter options available that work for everyone should be a goal, but criticizing existing models doesn't make sense to me.

Well only 15% and 4.5% of adults are obese in the Netherlands and Japan, respectively. Nearly 50% in the US are. I don't see any reason why the few design differences between a classic American hybrid or road bike and either of the types you mention would drastically affect their weight capacity, but it's also just much less of an issue in those countries.