Short answer? It's normally used against conservatives, but cliques and purity politics (both literal politics and not) do come into play on occasion.
Longer answer: Lemmy was originally founded by a bunch of Marxist-Leninists and socialists of similar stripes (that's what the .ml stands for), and early adopters often made up some form of minority group/outcast - LGBTQ and the like. This has led to a very zero tolerance policy towards conservative "talking points" and the usual bag of tricks that they employ when attempting to colonize an area/group. Especially as Reddit has further enshitified, but even before then Redditors were generally thought of more in terms of r/the_Donald subscribers rather than as disparate groups from across the political spectrum.
There are of course the "joined Lemmy before it was cool" groups who resent the growing popularity of the platform - especially after the Reddit API exodus that brought you and me here - but I think they're largely relegated to the parts of Lemmy that most of the instances defederated from. Some of those places are basically the leftist equivalent of 4chan, and would absolutely use it as an insult if you failed their political belief purity tests.
In short, basically everybody would use it for a Trumper, but a small few might use it on me if I were to say something like that I think that dbzer0's support of genAI inherently makes the instance pro-corporatism so long as they're the ones benefitting from stealing labor from workers, and an even smaller few would probably use it simply because I started using Lemmy during the Reddit API fiasco.
The one thing I will say is that there does seem to be a generalized dislike for AI that has all the investors and upper management types nervous. Even by their own studies do people generally either not care about AI in their products or actively dislike it/find it intrusive. There was a study by a phone company from this past summer or fall that concluded that 80% of their users had no interest in AI or found that it actively made their experience worse, and there have been plenty of pretty damning reports about how useful it's been in various industries (just look at Microslop). That is not conducive to convincing investors to fund your product and does not show a viable path to making a profit in the future.
We've seen similar things happening recently with car manufacturers walking back on their big touchscreens (with some help from regulation in civilized places that care about things like "pedestrian fatalities" - like Europe) due to consumer sentiment. They tried for nearly a decade to push bigger and bigger screens into cars and remove physical buttons, and now they're moving in the other direction. Completely anecdotal evidence, but the last time I went to buy a car I told the salesman at the dealership that I wasn't interested in cars newer than a certain year because that was when they increased the size of the screen and put them in a more obnoxious spot on the dashboard, and he said that he heard similar sentiments from practically everybody who came in looking to buy a car - everybody hated the bigger screens.
If you think about it, it is very wasteful for you to have that chocolate bar in your food pantry. So many wasted calories as most bodies can only burn a fraction of them before converting the rest into fat. Same can be said for pasta and many other foods. We even spend a full third of our lives asleep, consuming even less calories! Incredibly inefficient!
Maybe the solution is aerosolized calories that can be sprayed via plane over vast regions of the country instead of food so that calories are owned by the people on a local, regional, or national level?
Me, buying cellphone parts from another state to assemble myself like an 80% lower to avoid having to drink a Verification Can every time somebody calls me:
I think I just invented the concept of a "ghost phone"
A wise man once said, "The billionaires forget that unions were the compromise workers made to air their grievances compared to the previous method of dragging factory owners out into the street by their hair and beating them to death."
Operant conditioning, also called instrumental conditioning, is a learning process in which voluntary behaviors are modified by association with the addition (or removal) of reward or aversive stimuli. The frequency or duration of the behavior may increase through reinforcement or decrease through punishment or extinction.
Don't worry, you're not pissing in my Cheerios or anything, I just always end up in one of those "That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works!" rants whenever they pull the "ghost gun" nonsense.
It's like how it's illegal in Mass to own a suppressor unless you're a cop or military, then you can buy as many as you want. Like...it reduces recoil a little and reduces the noise from permanent hearing loss to temporary hearing damage, it's not gonna make a gun silent. Movie magic quiet is only possible with very particular sub-sonic rounds of a specific caliber. You want silent? You put a suppressor on an air rifle. Dead silent and completely legal to put a suppressor on in all 50 states because it's not a gun, despite being just as dangerous at close ranges.
Edit: Also, these laws are often supported by firearms manufacturers because it benefits them to prevent people from being able to go elsewhere, like making aftermarket car parts illegal or forcing people to get their service done at a car dealership.
I haven't played KSA yet, forgot that it was a thing, but one of the big ones is a custom engine as opposed to the cobbled together mess of code that is KSP, which is running on an engine that is absolutely not meant to do what KSP does. All the weird physics glitches in KSP are because it's trying to wrangle the engine into functioning in this way.
KSP2 was actually supposed to fix this as well with a brand new engine, but the publisher forced them to use KSP's engine "because it would be faster" (it wasn't).
This is how you do it. You create clear and direct laws that specify what isn't okay. New Hampshire banned all billboards. I believe Vietnam recently banned all ads longer than 15 seconds online. These make it absolutely clear what is and isn't okay, and leave no wiggle room for companies to try to circumvent the laws on technicalities.
They have metal internal components just like almost every 3d printed gun does. There are some things that you just need metal for, like springs. The vast majority of 3d printed guns are actually guns purchased from a gun store and then modified with the equivalent of handmade after-market parts.
In order to be undetectable by metal detectors, you would have to keep the amount of metal in them to about that of a pair of glasses. So basically a firing pin and that's about it. I think a break action firing chamber would probably set it off like a big belt buckle would, and no recoil or magazine springs mean that it would have to be a single shot weapon with a manual reload - some kind of break action. And no barrel liner or a metal barrel at all, nor metal bullet casings. A shotgun shell might be able to make it through because of their mostly plastic shell with a copper back about the size of a quarter, but that's gonna be about it.
It's really not the issue that politicians and the media make it out to be. It's just fear mongering.
Next time you talk to him, suggest that he pick up some of those over the ear noise cancelling headphones. You don't even have to have them turned on, but the size of them makes taking them off such a visible hassle that it seems to discourage a lot of those kinds of people. And the rest you can ignore and pretend that you couldn't hear them because you had the noise cancelling on.
They probably misconstrued "pick-up artists aside" as being very specifically about literal "pick-up artists" rather than as a generalized hitting on someone in public thing.
I do agree with them, though, in that it's very culturally dependent on how okay it is. I remember from a long time ago now one of those "kids today are always glued to their phones" memes where somebody just responded with a photo of a commuter rail car from the 50s where every single person in the photo was reading the newspaper, and I have a similar story from my dad about my grandfather: My grandfather worked in NYC for over 20 years and he commuted by train. During those commutes, he sat next to the same man, twice a day - on the way there and on the way back - for years, and only once in at least a decade did they ever speak to each other. "Are you finished reading that?" Those were the 5 words that man spoke to my grandfather, who handed him the paper he had finished reading, and they never exchanged another word again. I don't think they ever even looked at each other.
I would also add that it's a very extroverted thing to do, and not in the sense of social anxiety or something, but in the sense that introverted people burn mental and emotional energy in social interaction, and by trying to engage with a stranger in a random conversation, you might be using up the spoons they have that day. I'll talk to random people in public as well, but I keep it to one-off statements that people can either leave be or reciprocate with if they want. A joke about the traffic in trying to navigate the grocery store, that sort of thing. I'm very good at talking with people, I learned it from working a service industry job as a teen, to the point where I was basically the public face of a company, but I find it EXHAUSTING to do. I'm an introvert, pure and simple, and social interaction simply takes energy to do. At the end of the day, all I want to do is isolate myself so I can recharge and unwind.
Plus, there's the whole "women having to handle a man" aspect. Women have to treat men differently and behave differently to protect themselves when interacting with men (ones they don't know in particular), and so a random stranger trying to start up a conversation is A Situation that they have to analyze. It goes back to the "women would prefer to be in the woods with a bear" thing. Women would rather a random bear try to start a conversation with them in public, or something.
Short answer? It's normally used against conservatives, but cliques and purity politics (both literal politics and not) do come into play on occasion.
Longer answer: Lemmy was originally founded by a bunch of Marxist-Leninists and socialists of similar stripes (that's what the .ml stands for), and early adopters often made up some form of minority group/outcast - LGBTQ and the like. This has led to a very zero tolerance policy towards conservative "talking points" and the usual bag of tricks that they employ when attempting to colonize an area/group. Especially as Reddit has further enshitified, but even before then Redditors were generally thought of more in terms of r/the_Donald subscribers rather than as disparate groups from across the political spectrum.
There are of course the "joined Lemmy before it was cool" groups who resent the growing popularity of the platform - especially after the Reddit API exodus that brought you and me here - but I think they're largely relegated to the parts of Lemmy that most of the instances defederated from. Some of those places are basically the leftist equivalent of 4chan, and would absolutely use it as an insult if you failed their political belief purity tests.
In short, basically everybody would use it for a Trumper, but a small few might use it on me if I were to say something like that I think that dbzer0's support of genAI inherently makes the instance pro-corporatism so long as they're the ones benefitting from stealing labor from workers, and an even smaller few would probably use it simply because I started using Lemmy during the Reddit API fiasco.