“Boring” people often have a good time with other “boring” people. So it’s maybe just a case of looking in the wrong places?

A free fork is called FossifyOrg

This sounds more like you not really being aware of your qualities, and/or you looking at females who would not be a match for you (meaning neither of you would be satisfied if you tried). While there do exist qualities which make people truely unattractive (disorders such as uncontrolled rage for example), you don’t say that.
It’s true that mating choice in humans is foremost the female’s choice, yet you might be surprised by what they see as qualities to appreciate. If you are an introvert, despair not, because 30-ish percent of all people could be classified as such, and that specifically could be seen as an appreciable quality by a woman who also sees herself as such …

You are only invisible if you literally hide away. – You do not give us much information as to why you think this way, or about your cultural background. You might be truely physically impaired or clinically depressive, or part of a culture where men and women are mostly kept separated, and that would actually make it more difficult but not impossible at all to find a match. Not having such information, i will refrain myself from just telling you to “go out of your hole more, man” and such. –

May we perhaps get a hint at your age? Because answers could get more helpful if we knew. (Don’t ever think you are too old)

Yet, in whatever way you are set up, think of it like this: there are likely, literally, millions of people in your area and half of them are women, and a good percentage of those are in your age range (the older you get the wider this range gets). You can be certain that there is a sizeable number of women who have the same kind of thoghts and feelings as you do right now, and perhaps more important even, Your emotional and mental state can and will change.
In other words, you are certainly not unworthy in the eyes of the one you would not have expected to find you attractive. Of course, you need to actually show up in places where you likely meet people who share your interests (iow. “find you attractive”) …

My own experience: considered myself an “introvert” (until more recently i learned it’s likely “more than just that”). Had great difficulties finding the right approach toward women in general, until i was 25 … when it happened for the first time that a woman approached me, in a very assuring way (like, “want to come home with me, we make food and then I’d like to show you around my bedroom”). I took the chance and although i was “easy prey” for her it was the right thing to do because she was treating my inexperience in a sensitive way. Nevertheless, she was not a good match interest-wise, so that lasted only a couple of monts (and broke in anger).
A year later, a similar thing happened again … at a seminar after-party, a student colleague who i wouldn’t have thought of just so asked if she could stay the night with me. She didn’t appear the most attractive to me but neither did i seem to be particularly attractive to others. Somehow i was wrong. That time it turned out quickly that it was me who was the more experienced one. … And that woman was an “introvert” match (whom i now think of as being “more than just introvert”, too) – we’ve been a couple for seven years. …
After that, both our paths in life changed considerably so we broke up in mutual agreement that we both needed to experience new things in life (i found a more spiritual-leaning path and learned what “love” is really about; she went with another man and discovered that she wanted to have children after all). …

The relevant part here is that despite me thinking of myself not being particularly attractive, it kept happening that women just approached me, asking quite explicitly. – And it almost always happened when i had gone into the company of like-minded people, but without the specific intent to seek out a woman. I can only remember one time when i did make an explicit move myself (even at that occasion i knew that i wouldn’t get turned down because of the way she went all so lovely excited both times we had met before).
All in all, i wasn’t together with very many and now that i’m older i still miss finding my true partner, but i can say that any of the experiences i got the chance to have, had its distinct flavour of enjoyability (well, perhaps minus the one time she later admitted she had abused me). Many of the women i love, i did never even get close to. A couple of times it was me who had to leave them behind because our paths just couldn’t go together. A number of times it was sexual enjoyment for a number of days.

If you are asking, how does it feel … well that’s asking for poetry. Every experience is different though, and so will be yours (yes i say it will). It can be very satisfying, very lacking, questionable, exciting, soothing, mind-melting, enchanting, hurting, teaching. Pick yours. :-)

Why would you care to read and respond in an ask-random-lemmy-users-for-opinions@major-instance if you wouldn’t be interested in random lemmy users’ opinions?

Looks as if someone were training a trolling bot with this account.

You seem to show some of your self-image here (a concept that replaces the misleading “ego”). The short description you give seems to tell that this is attached to “the quantity of your doing”. Hence the idea of “living = doing more = becoming more” vs. “dying = doing less = becoming less”.

While there is nothing wrong with that in principle (heaps of books exist on the different philosophical approaches on this wider topic and yours is quite popular among certain cultures), we could without changing much arrive at a different but perhaps more satisfying conclusion.
The change is from equating “living” to the experience of exercising our body and mind, to “living” being the experience of purely inhabiting and owning that body and mind. – That would probably be what people mean when they seemingly tell you to paradoxically “live a little” (implying to mean “live a little more”) by “doing less”. Which, when we really concentrate on enjoying the pure experience will not actually mean that we are just idling but it would mean we would be less occupied with exercising and more occupied with observing the living (or observing the feeling of it). Whether we actually do physical/mental exercising or not does not really matter. It’s just more easy for many people to do the observing while they are “idling” or “meditating” in a still way, but any way that fits a specific person is good. We might be surprised by how active we are when doing that.

That way we could arrive at the insight that “doing less” does not equal “becoming less” (perhaps even the contrary), neither that “dying” equals “becoming less”. :-)

edit … If we were to see “living” and “dying” purely as functions of an organism regardless of the existence of a self-image, then “living” would mean a sustained state of dynamic equilibrium whereas “dying” would be a transitory state toward non-equilibrium (that is decaying). Interestingly, decaying should then be a transitory state from being one dead organism into sustaining the equilibrium of living in other organisms (i.e. becoming the other); while there would be no transitory state toward becoming living (there’s just a transition from being a single cell to being an organism).

Do you, by some chance, mean c/ukraine on sopuli and people cheering to the real-life gore that keeps being posted there, and users getting banned for their ethical concerns about it?

e: It can be pointed out that it’s even worse here than on platforms run by single companies. With those, the admins themselves will mostly not have a stake in the company but they themselves will be employees, which in theory would enable the company to hire ehtically vetted/trained personnel. Whereas here, the admins are likely be tech people who know how to run a server but might otherwise be overwhelmed with ethical conducting, or put their own political teint onto their platform, respectively. Lemmy has been deliberately set up in such a way.

Add to that the lack of good moderation tools. Many of the issues people are complaining about are prely technical, though; what is displayed in UI and database functionality. Such things could be solved though, by actually hiring some capable software developers (takes substantial funding), or by having it done bit by bit. Would there be enough people with enough faith in Lemmy to substantially contribute

Not OP but i just found an answer. Top loaders may have a center agitator which is there to … agitate more – which we don’t want to do.

Any machine that is without a center agitator will be more gentle on clothes and less likely to cause shrinking due to fiber damage and consolidation. If you have a top-loading washer with a center agitator, reduce its impact on your garments by opting for a gentle or hand-wash cycle.

(from the same link that i posted in another comment)

Why does it happen? My first answer, it’s dur to felting which happens mostly with sorts of wool that have a hairs with a scaled surface. Felting (when producing felt) is done by moisturing, heating and heavy agitation, so that the scales interlock at a compressed state and then stay that way.

Search turns up several ways of shrinkage though, for different types of fiber: felting, relaxation, consolidation, and contraction. Interesting to read --> Why Do Clothes Shrink in the Wash?

Societies would probably degenerate to absolute chaos. Relevant book exists: The Children of Men
film: Children of Men, 2006 (trigger alert: realistic brutality!)

Exactly, thanks.
I could also have said something about misguided patriarchic structures but if they react like that just on female promiscuity, such an effort would be wasted.
(Yes i mean to say that monogamy is an invention of male dominance cultures.)

@[email protected]

To the contrary, it could fuck up several people’s lives if someone were to interfere with their peace. It’s just part of human nature that males can not be that certain about their offspring.

Via is indeed a wrapper for WebView, and i used it on an old device for its small memory footprint. Then kept using it for some features which the non-Chromium alternatives (Firefox but also Mull) have dumbed away.
That’s mainly navigation buttons in the address bar, drop-down tab switcher, the ability to export settings and bookmarks (never liked to have yet another “cloud” account that tracks my usage…), and saving webpages for offline use. Among other features such as code and resource-file viewer, network log. – It’s just a a lean and convenient UI.

Lately, i started to run it together with DuckDuckGo-browser’s tracking protection. That does take care of Via’s own built-in trackers.

The whole of paleontology/paleo-anthropology has this problem because for remains of organisms to be preserved certain conditions must be met, which is not the case everywhere at any time.

I didn’t. My answer is as much guessing as the other funny ones. It’s just the lamest one as in: if no other information is given then the question must be about the (true) semantic relation of the words themselves … which there isn’t because the accusation of treason is arbitrary. 😅

If i would guess, something like: look up “native american dwellings” and “how to make permanent shelters from tree branches”.

Nothing much, really. Usually, those who have been accused of being traitors have in fact been loyal … just to something that was not in favour at the time.

Privacy means that you can talk/act safely in your own closed-off space while no-one knows what you do. The opposite of private is public.
Anonymity means that you can safely talk/act in public space while no-one knows who does it. The opposite of anonymous is … identified.

If you want your talk be private while doing it in public or via an untrusted service, you can use obfuscation/encryption of the content/payload data of your talk (still anyone could receive it and know it’s from you and if they have the key they can decipher it).

If you want to be anonymous in public space, you have to obfuscate the metadata of your talk (so that no-one knows who said it but anyone can still receive it).

*And here is a bit of an overlap depending on where we want to draw the boundary of our privacy realm. In some cases, the knowledge about metadata like location and time of a message can be breach privacy while in other cases this is irrelevant.

You could also do both, meaning you’d have an anonymous appearance in a public/untrusted space, having a conversation with only those people who have the key to your messages. That’s a stunt which is not easily accomplished, as obviously you’ll need a way to let others know how to reach you, and exchange keys (in other words, you’ll have to first make an appointment in private and in a trusted space).

[wanted to write two sentences, no so much text :-D]

You forget to mention, a constitution that is written (and properly commented) in such a way that it doesn’t require any interpretation; and that will receive periodic review and updating according to cultural and historical development; and that holds actual punishment for lawmakers who violate the constitution. Not saying that i know of any such thing.

All the power that an advertisement network can buy. Especially youtube since it’s owned by google. And advertisers will be happy to have a way of forcing site visitors to run ads/malware or else they will not get served the content.
It’s similar to certain bank apps refusing to function on Android devices with an unlocked bootloader: you want the convenience of an e-banking application (/ad-driven corporate website)? – Your device (/web browser) “security” must be verified by the “authority” who actually owns your operating system, else you won’t. Everyone* will “be loving” their secure devices, because they “just work”.

^{*who is a potential customer buyer and therefore relevant}

Google is trying to use their dominance to actually own the www. The comment/issue section of the github site of the proposal is quite enlightening, if you have the time … especially their reactions on the general dismissal and condemnation of the proposal as unethical.