• 1 Post
  • 216 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 14th, 2023

help-circle

  • Glide@lemmy.catoAsklemmy@lemmy.mlWhat's the trick to Menopause?
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    Why the hate?

    Gosh people… Shutdown your brain

    You can’t seriously be shocked that people are downvoting you when your only defense is “stop using that silly little brain to think”.

    Human life expectancy has doubled in those couple hundred years. Believing that something is good just because it is old is absurd.



  • Listen, man, I can get stuff wrong sometimes. I’m still not convinced I am in this case, but, even if I am off on one very specific niche use of a word that rarely, if ever, comes up, attacking my entire livelihood over it, as though it defines every facet of teaching English, is an insane overstep.

    I am not so arrogant as to assume words can only ever have one meaning, nor to attack a stranger on the internet over a disagreement on that meaning. I have also made no such logical fallacy. You asked if I was “sure”, and followed up with a suggestion that I had never spoken with a native English speaker. I said yes, I am confident, and then offered up my background as evidence that, at the very least, your assessment on my experiences is incorrect. I can see how you could conflate that as a call to authority, and perhaps should have phrased things in such a way that doesn’t leave room for such assumptions. That said, I’d advise against jumping down people’s throats based on assumptions, else you’ll end up doing things like building a strawman argument, while simultaneously accusing others of logical fallicies.

    I’m done with this. The level of vitriol this discussion has been laced with is unwarrented and suggests that any further conversation is a waste of time. This entire disagreement should have been:

    “Hey, I think X is right.”

    “Well, this says Y is right, so you must be wrong.”

    “I mean language is funky and weird, a lot of words mean different things in different spaces, so whatever.”

    “Yeah, sure, whatever.”

    Everything beyond that was grossly unnessecary, terminally online, internet arrogance that we’d both be better off without.


  • I’m not sure if you found my original statements challenging to follow, but nothing you’ve said contradicts what I’ve said. Parts of the definitions I’ve provided are strewn in the definitions you’ve provided, and differing definitions of specific word case isn’t unusual, even within similiar cultures. Language is fluid, and the same words can mean a lot of different things.

    There is often a gap between common-use language, and the academic function of words (see “racism”). This is why I emphasized the relation of the definitions I provided to the fields of anthropology and sociology, as well as why I stated it is a use almost exclusively found, in my experiences, in academia.

    I don’t appreciate the strange, ignorant, tongue-in-cheek jabs at my background. If you think I have something wrong I welcome you to say so, but the strange sense of superiority you’ve attached to your comments is unnessecarily insulting.



  • “People” is a generic term for more than one person.

    “Persons” denotes a singular distinct grouping of people. Ie, Native American persons.

    Not part of the question, but “peoples” is used for a plurality of distinct persons. Ie, “this had great impact on the various peoples of North America” would be a sentence to lead into a discussion on how an event had varying impacts on each unique cultural group in North America. This is largely only used in academics, specifically anthropology and sometimes sociology, but understand this use helps clear up the reason for the distinction between “people” and “persons”.





  • Glide@lemmy.catoMemes@lemmy.mlDear Android users
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    20 days ago

    Fucking real, though. The cultural group responsible for checks notes “shaming people who have the wrong bubble color in texts”?, suddenly think they’re the one’s being unjustly preached to? The joke in this image is not the one OP thought they were making.


  • If you’re looking for “maybe slightly higher specs than the Steam Deck”, a good APU solution will get you there on the cheap. In particular, the 5000 series APUs are pushing 50% off in most places, because they’re the last entry in a socket type which has already been replaced.

    The challenge will be finding a pre-built that takes advantage of these facts, so you may do best either using a website that lets you define the parts you want and then builds the PC for you, or walking into a local PC shop and asking them the same question followed with “I’ve heard that Ryzen APUs are surprisingly good for gaming and affordable right now”.



  • Leveraging the company’s vast repository of user data, the AI Brain forecasts customers’ needs based on user-product interactions and contextual learning, performs advanced reasoning processes, and generates optimal solutions through orchestrating the actions of physical devices.

    This would be cute, if literally any corporate-level customer service actually understood and solved the consumer level problem. Feeding an LLM a series of your corprate-fuckery misunderstandings of what your consumers actually want is just doubling down on the end users fruatration.

    We need customer service to be more human, not less. The only time it functions well is when the CSR tosses out the script and starts speaking to you like a human being. Taking this the opposite direction is a great way to sell less product.



  • It kinda gets different when you’re talking about a series of actors intermingling in an environment designed by the seller. There are certain expectations for the experience that was sold to you, and another customer disregarding the social contract of what the expected environment is supposed to be like is problematic.

    It’s like buying a ticket to go to a theatre. You expect the people around you to also use the product and environment in a way similiar to you. Someone on their phone, screaming at the movie, throwing their feet up on your chair, etc, isn’t okay, and the people who defend their selfishness with “I paid to be here, I can do what I want” deserve to be kicked out. Cheating on an online, competitive game is no different, and I expect such players to be kicked out so the rest of us can have the experience we were promised when we made our purchase.

    Does this mean the game in question should have full control over the code you’re running on your machine? I mean absolutely not, no one is strip searching you at the entrance of the theatre, but there need to be some degree of limitations on how individuals interact with the shared environment that consumers are being offered. The theatre doesn’t allow you to take videos, and doesn’t give you access to a copy of the film to clip, or edit to your hearts content, and the notion that the consumer should have such rights seems insane. But taking an online game, editing the files, and then connecting to everyone else’s shared experience and forcing your version on others should be protected, because the code is running on your machine? To be clear, I don’t think you’re seriously suggesting that is the case, but therein lies the problem: there’s a lot of weird nuance when it comes to multiple consumers being provided a digital product like this. How they interact together is inherently a part of the sold product, so giving consumers free reign to do what they want once the product is in their hands doesn’t work the way it does with single player games, end user software, or physical products.

    The real problem is the laziness of devs not hosting their own server environments, so I hear you there. But that is, unfortunately, a problem seperate from whether hackers should be held accountable for ruining a product for others.