How about this (not OP): most things people attribute to planned obsolescence are not planned obsolescence.

SSL operates after name resolution. It’s one way that information about your browsing habits is not protected by application-layer encryption; the domains you’re visiting are available to your DNS server.

Hehe :)

The top image is a sunny day; the bottom is cloudy. (Look at the shadows). The exposure in the bottom image is much brighter - you can also see this from the appearance of the building on the left - dark in the top image, light in the bottom image.

This has nothing to do with pushing saturation; it’s just a different (better) exposed photo. People throw terms like saturation and HDR around willy nilly.

There are no HDR haloes and the saturation is only high in the greens. I think you’re just comparing two pictures, one of which has bright green in and feeling weird about it.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/petrol

I think there is a difference between different people - and maybe it has changed generationally too. I can think of some obvious potential reasons though:

1. the number of people who are being horrible is increasing. The increasing division in society is reflected online. That means people have more reason to block people.
2. the proliferation of social media bubbles makes people less used to encountering opinions that differ significantly from their own.

I usually find myself blocked by people who just disagree with me. I (increasingly) rarely lose my rag online, but people find it annoying to have someone reply to them who disagrees on certain things and who doesn’t just shut up and go away quickly.

I have a pretty high tolerance for that kind of irritation but after a few dozen replies back and forth I’ll also use the block button. It’s less about not seeing their posts in the future, more as a way to force myself to disengage and get annoyed again.

The erosion of free speech in the UK continues, though it’ll be interesting to see whether the far-right (who claim to want to protect women and girls, don’t forget) will care about it.

I got banned from /r/WorldNews and /r/ukpolitics for saying that “from the river to the sea” isn’t antisemitic. It was in the early days post Oct 7th when reddit was virulently pro-Israel; I don’t think they’d do the same nowadays.

I didn’t leave immediately but thinking about it again really pissed me off as I’d been a regular commenter without much issue for years. It genuinely left me feeling quite depressed thinking about how little I mattered to them. When you get banned there’s always some shit about how you should ask if you don’t understand the ban, but one sub never replied, the other went further and told me to stop messaging their mods (I did so once a week when I wasn’t receiving replies, to not spam them) so that was meaningless.

The irony is that here I’m usually getting downvoted for being insufficiently anti-Israel.

Plenty of phones only charge at 25W which is why I picked the figure :P

More efficient sensors mean better battery life, which is more likely what this is about.

Relating this to carbon emissions is absurd. Your phone’s maximum power consumption is about 25W, of which sensors are a tiny, minuscule fraction. Running your phone at 25W for an entire year would allow you to drive a typical petrol car doing 40mpg for 250 miles on the same energy budget.

Reducing sensor power usage is good, but not for this reason.

thank you for clarifying that the UN itself has no troops, despite me not making that claim in the first place

When I said “what do you expect them to do” I was referring to the UN, the topic of discussion. You then said you expected “them to mobilize their troops”.

you’re shrugging your shoulders and saying “what can we do, the UN has no power” instead of recognizing the failure of UN member nations to actually do something

That is not something it makes sense to say in light of what I actually said:

When people make fun of the UN for “writing a strongly worded letter” that is a missed opportunity to criticise national governments, especially that of the USA

First they came for the communists, and all that. Palestine won’t be the end, and when you find your own people the target of the Nazis, you’ll have no one left asking their nations to intervene so you can twist their words into an irrelevant strawman to pour gasoline on and lite.

If you think that we need effective criticism of governments who enable Israeli crimes against humanity to avoid that future, then you should be agreeing with me.

I support a two-state solution, whatever that means in your lexicon. But yes, the Israeli officials ought to be tried and sentenced for crimes against humanity.

I didn’t realise just how biased Middle East Eye was until this article. What a shitrag.

I’m gonna be as pedantic as I ever am, yeah, because boring moaning about the UN is misguided and seeps into society.

When people make fun of the UN for “writing a strongly worded letter” that is a missed opportunity to criticise national governments, especially that of the USA, who are the ones with actual actions they can take, Israel itself notwithstanding.

Apathy rules, unfortunately, and when the Nazis come for you, there won’t be anyone left to hear you say “actually, the UN does not have “troops” to save me”.

Do you think whingeing about the UN would have saved me, or else what are you even trying to say here?

The UN does not have “troops”. UN peacekeepers are members of the armed forces of member states and are deployed at the behest of the Security Council. Why then would you blame the UN as an organisation for not sending in military personnel, when the fault lies in the members and, especially those who would veto any such action?

What the fuck do you expect them to do?

Like what? People say this all the time but rarely have any concept of what the UN can do.

Israel doesn’t want to stop their genocide. Other countries don’t want to force it to stop. How do you propose the UN takes action to halt it, other than by determining that it is a genocide and demanding that countries obey their obligations under international law?

Do you want António Guterres to personally march into Jerusalem and arrest Netanyahu?

This isn’t about me, this is about what people from persecuted minorities have told me they need, when I bought this exact argument to them.

The same arguments apply, though.

Your version of blocking doesn’t exactly handle the problem you’re describing well, either, as someone wishing to spread hate or “off-screen harassment” can block their direct target which, under the model, will mean they can’t see it, and then post.

The paradox of tolerance doesn’t mean what you think it means.

The “paradox” is fully resolved if you have strong guarantees for the tolerance you care about: fundamental freedoms and equality, and punishments for those who attempt to subvert them. So you don’t “tolerate” people who are in the process of dismantling that tolerance by advocating for or engaging directly in harassment of trans people (for example) but you also don’t punish people who, for example, are opposed to trans women participating in womens’ sports - because while equal participation ought to be a guaranteed matter of equality, we’ve also broadly agreed as a society that sports ought to be split, and the precise nature of that split is not a guaranteed matter of equality.

Applying this to Lemmy, there is no risk to tolerance in allowing a discussion about sex, gender and sports. There is a risk to tolerance in allowing a “discussion” in which trans people are generally disparaged on the basis of their transition, because it can lead to actions which go beyond mere speech.

To look at this another way, rather than linking a wikipedia page with a dumb insult and saying “try learning something”, you’d be better off identifying the behaviour you don’t want to see, what action you want to take about it, and why it’s justified based on the consequences of not taking that action. “Tolerance” and “intolerance” are vague terms, so have a more productive discussion by being precise.