Wait... you can search a song by humming now?

I've been waiting for that for AGES.

*have killed Democracy

FTFY

Taking bags without your consent is kind of airport security's deal. They're explicitly allowed to do that.

It seems to me we're almost on the same page.

You're right - my posts aren't referring to a SPECIFIC person, but general statements targeted at a casual reader of the thread.

I think this is where most people's overreaction comes from - being so passionate about the desired OUTCOME that they forget to actually be convincing about how to get there. Yes, there are a huge number of us that are not huge fans of many of Biden's decisions, but voting for him anyway because of the limited number of choices we have. But there are clearly people out there who aren't as inclined towards making those subtle distinctions, and it's important that the discourse, as much as possible, makes clear to people that their vote need not be a declaration of undying love. It's okay to say "Biden, but not happy about it." It's really important that those people see the whole view, particularly when there's so much knee-jerk reaction towards both "YOU MUST SUPPORT HIM" and "YOU CAN'T SUPPORT HIM".

That said, while of course it eases conscience to talk about how Biden has problems, helping someone who is gung-ho about supporting him to have doubts has almost no tangible benefits to the external reality we live in from the standpoint of the outcome I desire (I don't post here to be neutral - of course I have a bias), and may actually have a negative impact. Helping someone who is on the fence understand that despite voting being essentially binary, there is a whole spectrum of valid ways to think about it, can lead someone to making a decision that can have a real impact on getting the outcome I see as best, so of course I want to counter the former with the latter.

Since you asked, I'll answer.

My acknowledged character flaw is my preachiness about my position, particularly in a environment like a lemmy thread where we're all shouting into a void. I do not, however, make apologies for my position.

I am not a dem apologist - I am a utilitarian. I would love to see both Biden and Trump out on their asses and a viable, functioning third party option. But that is one of a number of things that are not realistic right now. I look at the world right now and I don't have the ability to look at the trolley problem we've been given, sit down, and refuse to make a decision because I believe it's going to somehow punish the trolley for daring to give me a choice I don't like. I have to choose whether to pull the lever.

The absolute reality of this election boils down to two logically consistent positions that make sense.

• 1. The system is so utterly unsalvageable and without merit that I am willing to make any sacrifice to force a shock to the system that might be big enough to shatter it in the hopes that something better can emerge in the future.
• 2. The best we can do is to minimize damage until an opportune time to push for greater change.

Both of these positions are logically consistent, and make total sense. I don't happen to agree with the first one, but if that's your jam? I understand it. But own it. The logically inconsistent position that drives me absolutely crazy is to claim that a Biden loss is somehow consistent with a moral crusade to protect Palestinian refugees. That's absolutely insane and illogical to the point where it is at best based in ignorance and at worst reeks of intellectual dishonesty. If you are motivated primarily by the fate of Palestinians, a Biden victory or loss is not about Biden at all. If you are motivated primarily by number 1, and you want break the eggs to make the omelette, have the moral courage to be honest about it. I, for one, am not in that boat. I don't have the ability to perform the fancy, nonsensical mental gymnastics necessary to sacrifice an entire culture of people on the altar of my ideological purity and then claim with a straight face that I'm somehow doing it for their benefit. I have to do the cold, calculating work of estimating how many people will ACTUALLY die and/or suffer as a result of the decisions I do or do not make, and then make an unpalatable choice that protects the things I find important because that's just how life is. A series of sub-optimal choices that reflect the messy reality we live in.

I expect everyone to do the same, even if the things they find important aren't the same things I do. But when someone claims to value the same things I do and ALSO make decisions that are against those interests by EVERY single sound and reasonable measure? I already dealt with that kind of nonsense when I used to get dragged to church.

As pointed out earlier, this person I responded to in this thread isn't that person, and I do apologize for implying otherwise. But the person I'm talking about here DOES exist. That person is in this thread. And that person needs to hear this.

Possibly. But it's also pretty common in many instances of technology adoption that as more users come, the quality gets worse, and while open source doesn't have to worry about a shareholder-driven profit motive driving it, it's still easy to wind up with a muddled focus. I wouldn't expect that Linux and all of the associated software projects that make the functional desktop are going to be an exception overall. If you're an open source developer working on a project now, basically any user is some form of power user, and it's easier to find consensus of what to prioritize on a project not only because Linux users tend to be better about understanding how their software works and are actually helpful in further development, they're also likely to direct development towards features that make software more open, compatible, and useful.

Now fast forward to a future where Linux is the majority desktop OS, those power users are maybe 5% of the software's user base, and every major project's forum is inundated with thousands of users screaming about how hard the software is to use and, when bug reports and feature requests are actually coherent, they mostly boil down to demands for simpler, easier to understand UIs. I can easily imagine the noise alone could lead to an exodus of frustrated developers.

Some things are better for NOT trying to be the answer for everyone.

I mean, for me it's hyperbole, but whether it's a literal nuke or a completely unrestrained Israeli army outfitted with unlimited US weapons, the outcome for Palestinian refugees in Gaza isn't much different.

That is true, but until now we've mostly been able to enjoy the best of both without compromise or major obstacles, and even AAA games can offer quality, especially considering the value add of the modding community. We got all the benefit of a AAA title with customization and community at a fraction of the price. Sure, indies will still be there and delivering great quality no matter what, but more actively engaged big companies is still a net loss to PC gaming.

I'm scared. As soon as it becomes profitable, companies in the gaming space will be rushing to enshitiffy PC gaming the way they're doing with consoles. Big, public game companies not paying attention to the PC space is a GOOD thing.

Completely understood. Not implying you would. Just trying to impress as a matter of general statement how important it is that he NOT win. He will interpret victory as a mandate. I know everyone is sick of hearing it, but it is so important that it bears repeating as much as the discourse can support, because the voices claiming a noble ideological victory from abstention have no such qualms about flooding the conversation wherever they can.

Perhaps. But Trump will ALSO interpret victory as a mandate, as he's ALREADY interpreted LOSS as a mandate, and so we're clear on his stance...

"In statements since the war began, Trump has promised, if elected, to cut off all US aid to Palestinians and urged other nations to follow suit if he returns to the Oval Office.

The former president also pledged to bar refugees from Gaza under an expansion of his first-term travel ban on Muslim-majority countries; expel immigrants who sympathize with Hamas; revoke the visas of foreign students deemed “anti-American” or “antisemitic”; and impose “strong ideological screening” to keep out foreign nationals who “want to abolish Israel”."

Okay, fair point, and I acknowledge it. I'm no saint and I get preachy. It's a character flaw, and I apologize if I caused offense.

Nobody thinks a little genocide is okay. Nobody is saying that at all. But it's not a choice between a little genocide and no genocide. It's a difference between a little genocide and a LOT of genocide. When Trump gives his blessing to glassing Gaza with a nuke, will you tell the remnants of the civilians that are left that it's fine because the Democrats will understand now that they should've been harder on Israel?

What is actually more important? Doing what's best for the Palestinians from the options that actually exist, or punishing Democrats?

I'm not any happier than you are about the choices that we have, but wishful thinking doesn't give us a third path. This isn't a movie. To get a third option you'd have to convince at the very least a plurality of the population of the US to vote for another candidate that is gung-ho behind forcing Israel to stop (a proposition that isn't guaranteed even if the US cuts off all support today, by the way). That's a tall order, especially with how well it's going convincing 100 or so people on a Lemmy thread.

Criticize all you want. I certainly do. But understand at the end of the day that as pathetically little as Biden is doing to help, he isn't doing literally zero. Allowing Trump to win is objectively voting for MORE genocide, and in fact, the end of any potential for a Palestinian state in any form. None of this is secret - none of this is speculation. If people would take 15 minutes and read the ACTUAL Trump middle eastern peace plan that he ACTUALLY PUT FORTH when he was president, it's pretty obvious he would allow MUCH MUCH worse than Biden without batting an eye.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_peace_plan

There is no room for argument on that. Is Biden bad for Palestinians and allowing genocide? Yes. Would allowing Trump to win be WORSE? Yes. You're upset that angry wolves are eating someone, and you should be. But the solution is not replacing them with angry bears.

I don't think he'll stop. But from a practical standpoint you're voting between the status quo level of genocide, and an even GREATER level of genocide. Voting for MORE genocide is objectively worse.

I can see the point in theory, but when this would've been really helpful, my experience is 80% of the time the video maker's hand is obscuring the important stuff, and the video is often out of focus or frame anyway, and a red circle on a photo as an alternative will usually do just fine. The nice thing about still photos is, the photographer REALLY has to think about each shot, and if it is showing the important thing they want to reveal in that shot. If it isn't, they're forced to either retake it or take extra photos to get the point across.

With a video, the videographer is distracted by talking and doing a thing at the same time, and they just think "Yeah, it's video. I got it." and they often don't even rewatch the footage.

Absolutely. You usually don't need a whole step-by-step 40 minute walkthrough anyway. You need help with a SPECIFIC step and it's MUCH easier to scroll through a page or CTRL+F the part you need than try to scroll around a freaking youtube video that you can't search unless you run it through a text transcriber. Not to mention the bandwidth and storage waste, the annoying, unclear voices, the sponsor ads...

I swear people learning most things from youtube videos either have COMPLETELY different brain wiring, or are just straight up insane.

Well, I guess that's not fair... they might ALSO be lying about learning. That's the hustle culture, I guess. Learning things is less important than the APPEARANCE of learning things.

"does not intend"

They're collecting accidentally. Whoopsie!

If a wolf didn't want to be domesticated, particularly with the technology humans had at the time, there was no way it would have happened. Dog domestication is generally believed from genetic estimates to have begun around 20,000 years ago. Not only is this around 15,000 years before humans started working metal, it was likely long before they had the technology to build cages with any kind of reliability. The point is, when the domestication of dogs started, humans most likely had the ability to KILL a wolf, but to subdue one alive with any reliability and force it to its will for domestication? At the very least it's questionable, particularly given how resource intensive it would've been to do that to a powerful, threatening animal that is resisting while you're a group of subsistence hunter/gatherers.