“how do you compensate for the fact that your capitalist ideology cares very little for the fact that things valuable in a capitalist economy (resources) are not evenly distributed? how do you compensate for the fact that your communist ideology cares very little for the fact that things valuable in a communist economy (capacity to work) are not evenly distributed?”

It’s pretty standard to have a first offense under 2 years suspended

Be the change you want to see in the world

Touchscreen basically being unusable in any kind of rain no matter how light

A bit of nuance to what you say there…

LGBT people say gender (not sex, gender) is a social construct because the evidence points to this. How gender has been expressed has varied wildly over recorded human history (from customs to clothes to behaviours to jobs to everything else). In any given point of history someone’s sex has been linked strongly to a particular gender expression, but the fact that those expressions vary deeply from culture to culture show they’re socially constructed rather than purely biologically determined.

When you say they think they’re not “important”, I think LGBT do think gender expression is important. What’s not important is squeezing into the two expressions that society traditionally had. Or welding yourself to society’s expectations based on what genatalia you have.

History (for the most part) had two distinct gender expressions corresponding to the two sexes. But this itself was heavily influenced by society being tightly coupled to the biological reality and differences between men and women. Women had babies. Men were stronger. The gender expressions followed from that and you had to stay in the one society expected because that’s what kept society functioning. Religion is a social construct that enforces this.

But as society has evolved we’re no longer bound to these distinctions in the same way and the gender fluidity of people - which has always been there - is now able to express itself in more variety.

There are people born male who are far more comfortable living in society’s ‘female’ behaviours and traits. And vice versa. There are men who are attracted to men and women to women. There are people born female who have deep seated psychological need for their body to be male. All these people have always existed it’s just in the past they got sidelined as ‘sinners’ or divergent because society basically consisted of childbearing and hard manual labour.

We used this, simple and works. Straps the dryer to top of washing machine (lashing strap runs under washing machine, over dryer and is cranked tight). Plus you get a pull out shelf in between

https://www.argos.co.uk/product/5982099

Have also had combo washer / dryers which also work but don’t tend to dry as well or as quickly as dedicated dryers.

The dryer would always need to go on top if you have two machines. Plus look for one that lets you connect the condensed water to the same drain as the washing machine. (You can get ones that collect water in a drawer but need to constantly empty them which is a pain)

Just remember: imposter syndrome is real. Everything you learn exposes you to ten things you don’t yet know. Successful devs are comfortable with this reality - the job is one of constant learning. Best of luck!

Looking forward to more :)

It may be what you say, the algorithm being dumb. Or it may be deliberate: you’ve shown yourself willing to categorize these annoying ads so you will be sent more so that fb can collect more data on them.

Abandoning is the only option. It’s a dopamine casino now, full of flashing lights.

Here’s a devils advocate type answer. On balance, I err on the side of Israel rather than Hamas but am not a die hard supporter. I say that because comments below may appear to make me out as such, but I’m just trying to represent the coherent argument for the sake of discussion rather than the strength of my own views per se. For the record I regard the suffering of innocent people in Gaza as grotesque.

Settlements.

The justification for this behaviour is complicated but essentially amounts to the belief that the Geneva conventions were not drafted with Israel’s particular dilemma in mind. The Geneva conventions were drafted by European powers for whom the annexing of territory was strategic and imperially motivated rather than existential. Israel does not believe it can have security if a Palestinian state is established in the West Bank. The justification for this being Arab/Egyptian aggression in '48, '56, '63, and ‘73. Not to mention more recent state sponsored actions by Hezbollah, Hamas et al. A Palestinian state on the West Bank could maintain a standing army on the Israeli border, could invite other Arab nations’ armies to base themselves there. Echos of the previous conflicts listed above. This is unconscionable for Israel, one only needs to glance at the map to see how indefensible its position is if a foreign army was amassed on the West Bank. Ignoring settler activity or evicting Palestinians if a single member of their family commits any kind of act against Israel is just a convenient way to achieve the larger goal. The settlers of course are a lot more religiously / ethnically motivated. The government is too but I think realpolitik plays a larger role.

Gaza civilians

The capricious and deliberate targeting of civilians and children with no other goal is of course horrific. Israel of course will maintain that that’s not what they’re doing, that they are acting on intelligence against Hamas who are using people as human shields. Which is also horrific but is a different type of justification. Everyone of course will have decided in their own minds if they believe what Israel says about its intelligence or whether they believe what Hamas says about their lack of presence in an area.

If we assume for a moment that Israel is being honest about that particular aspect: that they are ok killing innocent people and children if Hamas die too. What’s the justification for that? I think their view is that they’re dealing with a problem that no Western country has to deal with. Britain has seen maybe a hundred deaths over 25 years from about 20 Islamic extremists. The US has seen 3000+ deaths from a similar number. In both cases the number of Islamic extremists are small enough that you could remember their individual names. Israel on the other hand has ~25,000 signed up members of Al Qassam terror brigades on their doorstep. That is a different level of threat all together, by three orders of magnitude. Hamas will not engage with the Israeli military in a standing battle because they would lose. So they are engaging in a guerrilla type strategy where shielding themselves behind civilians is an integral part so they can opportunistically strike out in suicidal attacks. It doesn’t happen accidentally, but repeatedly, it’s a core part of their strategy. A state needs to decide whether they’re ok with Al Qassam brigades existing or killing the civilians they surround themselves with. It’s a shitty choice, but it is a choice Israel sees as Hamas’ when they choose their mode of fighting. Leaving Hamas free to plot their next maraudering attack on Israeli civilians is unconscionable, so the death of Hamas human shields has to be ok. There isn’t another way.

This is a situation so unfamiliar to the West that it is easy to see it as capricious and brutal, horrific and evil. And the death of innocent people are those things, but one has to see the trolley dilemma in full.

America actually has been in this type of situation, only once as far as I’m aware, and it provides a useful insight into how Western countries justify themselves when confronted with the same dilemma. On 9/11, United 93 was identified as under terrorist control and inbound to Washington DC. Fighter jets were dispatched to shoot it down. The deaths of the 40 innocent people on board would obviously be horrific, but one can see the logic that letting a terrorist controlled plane be flown into a densely populated city would be to cause the deaths of hundreds of even thousands.

Was the mission to shoot down United 93 the right one? Was it evil? What if those 40 civilians had been 40 orphans on their way to be placed with foster families? How completely horrific does the situation have to be before it’s better to let the terrorists fly they plane into hundreds or thousands of people?

Israel sees itself caught in this kind of dilemma 24/7 with Hamas. Each signed up member has the proven intention to cross the border and maraude around killing grandparents, babies, children. So Israel calculates that, regrettably, it is necessary to kill them and the civilian shield they themselves have created. It is a shitty awful dilemma with evil on both sides, but Israel feels justified holding Hamas to blame for their human shields deaths the same way most of the American public would have blamed Al-Qaeda if the US Air force had managed to shoot down United 93. (The fact that in reality events meant they didn’t have to doesn’t take away from the logic of what they were prepared to do)

Keep Lemmy small. Make the influence of conversation here uninteresting.

Or … bite the bullet and carry out one-time id checks via a $1 charge. Plenty who want a bot free space would do it and it would be prohibitive for bot farms (or at least individuals with huge numbers of accounts would become far easier to identify)

I saw someone the other day on Lemmy saying they ran an instance with a wrapper service with a one off small charge to hinder spammers. Don’t know how that’s going

Neither can most of reddit…

Yes. Far more useful to embrace its hallucinogenic qualities…

“Best Guitar Pics”

merely an example. Be sure to let BestOfLemmy etc know…

“dull and completely unimaginative”

and your solution is to tack “Porn” on the end? oh dear

Maybe look into the creativity side more and less ‘Google replacement’?

Why does everything have to be sexualised and sensationalised? That’s encouraged on Reddit, and any other profit driven social media, because they’re bending over backwards to bleed you dry of engagement. It’s thoroughly unpleasant.

Lemmy has a chance to be something different. BestGuitarPics is what you’re actually curating. Or AwesomeGuitarPics if you want a little something extra. Jamming “Porn” on to everything just to try and stir a sense of interest is just sad.

The “implied perverse thrill” seems a bit of projection on your part

You can read the critical reception of the film yourself here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saw_(film)#Critical_response

A sample of adjectives: “nasty”, “nihilistic”, “mean”, “insinuatingly creepy”, “derivative”, “loathsome”, and, yes, “perverse”

“visually appealing/stimulating images that have no context and at best provide a simulacrum of interest in the object or activity”

what a silly self serving definition. “porn” has a particular meaning which you can look up in the OED, Cambridge, Websters etc. Definition 3 is how it was used - with negtive connotation - for “torture porn” and (the example in MW) “the pornography of violence”.

The extension of that to mudane everyday things (food, cars, guitars) and especially when the material shared typically falls well short of “sensational” is just a lazy habit that reddit picked up (and other online spaces too) that I, and clearly others in this thread, think Lemmy wouldbe better without. etto…

further auto-defecation shall follow when you realise a “passport” is just a document to let you “pass” the “port”…

that was the beginning of the change, when it was still meant pegoratively and implied the watcher was getting some sort of perverse thrill out of it. later things like ‘earth porn’, ‘food porn’, ‘guitar porn’ are just stupid and rely on the really unpleasant trend of using “porn” to mean anything mildly interesting

“guitar porn”

can we not?