I'm also here:
I wonder if there's a way to figure that out... Maybe try reading the article?
It's not fully reversible. I had it done with the "gun" method as a young child, and I spent years without using earrings and the hole never completely closed.
thanks :) yes it was in light mode
Thanks, I'll look into it!
From a quick glance I wanted to flag up that this form is very hard to read with black on dark grey:
damn, I should really leave Gmail, but I've used it for everything for almost 20 years 😫
haha I ran into this too, someone changed the title of my question on one of their non-programming boards - I was so pissed, I never went back to that particular board (it was especially annoying because it was a quite personal question)
I'm happy to see a bit of a renaissance of forums in the last few years. Quite a few open source projects now run forums built on the Discourse engine (open-source, can be self-hosted for free). I was kinda sceptical at first, they look so different from the BBCode forums I was used to, but over time came to appreciate the features that drag the forum format into the 21st century.
I hope an increasing number of projects come to realise the drawbacks of Discord, namely that you keep years' worth of information on someone else's centralised platform, and it's very difficult to find past information even for members of the server, and impossible from the outside. I look at a handful of Discord channels daily, but had to mute some because users keep asking the same questions every two days...
Hear hear, it was the hostile atmosphere that pushed me away from Stack Exchange years before LLMs were a thing. That very clear impression that the site does not exist to help specific people, but a vague public audience, and the treatment of every question and answer is subjugated to that. Since then I just ask/answer questions on platforms like Lemmy, Reddit, Discord, or the Discourse forums ran by various organisations, it's a much more pleasant experience.
yeah, I sometimes thank past me when I don't have to deal with hassle avoided by my past actions (even if it's mundane stuff like washing the dishes yesterday xd)
and "adult" clearly means porn, and "ends" clearly refers to murder or suicide 🙃
On the plus side, maybe the Chinese and Russians will learn their lesson and help elect a more sensible candidate this time around.
You say this as if either of those countries had free and fair elections. Putin has been jailing everybody who could stand a chance to run against him, and in China everything is under the CCP.
For me the biggest thing missing from OpenStreetMap-based navigation apps is support for public transport routes and schedules :(
- JumpRemoved
queer liberation
If you have a decent wage, job security, a roof over your head, and decent healthcare, you can largely insulate yourself from bigotry and predjudice.
How do those protect against harassment experienced in public spaces? E.g. getting harassed when trying to use public toilets or changing rooms because of your gender appearance?
Or systemic discrimination, like not having equal spousal rights for adoption/inheritance/medical decision-making? The state doesn't have to actively persecute you to still treat you as a second-class citizen.
If only you read as far as the 4th paragraph of the article...
The experts the Guardian spoke to agreed that the US is likely to have violated the terms of the UN charter, which was signed in October 1945 and designed to prevent another conflict on the scale of the second world war. A central provision of this agreement – known as article 2(4) – rules that states must refrain from using military force against other countries and must respect their sovereignty.
Geoffrey Robertson KC, a founding head of Doughty Street Chambers and a former president of the UN war crimes court in Sierra Leone, said the attack on Venezuela was contrary to article 2(4) of the charter. “The reality is that America is in breach of the United Nations charter,” he added. “It has committed the crime of aggression, which the court at Nuremberg described as the supreme crime, it’s the worst crime of all.”
Elvira Domínguez-Redondo, a professor of international law at Kingston University, described the operation as a “crime of aggression and unlawful use of force against another country”. Susan Breau, a professor of international law and a senior associate research fellow at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, agreed that the attack could have only been considered lawful if the US had a resolution from the UN security council or was acting in self-defence. “There is just no evidence whatsoever on either of those fronts,” Breau said.
IMO we should just have settings menus alongside commands for most things any normal user might have to encounter, since that’s just a more user-friendly interface in terms of preventing accidental bad command execution and also just letting people find things on their own without having to look up a command every time if they don’t want to learn a short book’s worth of terminal commands.
THIS. As a lifelong Windows user I'd rather deal with layers of shitty GUI, than having to memorise terminal commands and always pay attention not to mistype them lest I fuck my system up.
I can't switch to Linux yet due to lack of support from my essential programs, but even if it wasn't for those, I'd still be annoyed if I had to use a terminal to change settings in my system.
Otoh according to Iain Banks's speculation, space colonisation might be the thing that finally lets humanity toss off the chains of capitalism:
The thought processes of a tribe, a clan, a country or a nation-state are essentially two-dimensional, and the nature of their power depends on the same flatness. Territory is all-important; resources, living-space, lines of communication; all are determined by the nature of the plane (that the plane is in fact a sphere is irrelevant here); that surface, and the fact the species concerned are bound to it during their evolution, determines the mind-set of a ground-living species. The mind-set of an aquatic or avian species is, of course, rather different.
Essentially, the contention is that our currently dominant power systems cannot long survive in space; beyond a certain technological level a degree of anarchy is arguably inevitable and anyway preferable.
To survive in space, ships/habitats must be self-sufficient, or very nearly so; the hold of the state (or the corporation) over them therefore becomes tenuous if the desires of the inhabitants conflict significantly with the requirements of the controlling body. On a planet, enclaves can be surrounded, besieged, attacked; the superior forces of a state or corporation - hereafter referred to as hegemonies - will tend to prevail. In space, a break-away movement will be far more difficult to control, especially if significant parts of it are based on ships or mobile habitats. The hostile nature of the vacuum and the technological complexity of life support mechanisms will make such systems vulnerable to outright attack, but that, of course, would risk the total destruction of the ship/habitat, so denying its future economic contribution to whatever entity was attempting to control it.
Outright destruction of rebellious ships or habitats - pour encouragez les autres - of course remains an option for the controlling power, but all the usual rules of uprising realpolitik still apply, especially that concerning the peculiar dialectic of dissent which - simply stated - dictates that in all but the most dedicatedly repressive hegemonies, if in a sizable population there are one hundred rebels, all of whom are then rounded up and killed, the number of rebels present at the end of the day is not zero, and not even one hundred, but two hundred or three hundred or more; an equation based on human nature which seems often to baffle the military and political mind. Rebellion, then (once space-going and space-living become commonplace), becomes easier than it might be on the surface of a planet.
Even so, this is certainly the most vulnerable point in the time-line of the Culture's existence, the point at which it is easiest to argue for things turning out quite differently, as the extent and sophistication of the hegemony's control mechanisms - and its ability and will to repress - battles against the ingenuity, skill, solidarity and bravery of the rebellious ships and habitats, and indeed the assumption here is that this point has been reached before and the hegemony has won... but it is also assumed that - for the reasons given above - that point is bound to come round again, and while the forces of repression need to win every time, the progressive elements need only triumph once.
Concomitant with this is the argument that the nature of life in space - that vulnerability, as mentioned above - would mean that while ships and habitats might more easily become independent from each other and from their legally progenitative hegemonies, their crew - or inhabitants - would always be aware of their reliance on each other, and on the technology which allowed them to live in space. The theory here is that the property and social relations of long-term space-dwelling (especially over generations) would be of a fundamentally different type compared to the norm on a planet; the mutuality of dependence involved in an environment which is inherently hostile would necessitate an internal social coherence which would contrast with the external casualness typifying the relations between such ships/habitats. Succinctly; socialism within, anarchy without. This broad result is - in the long run - independent of the initial social and economic conditions which give rise to it.
Your values and principles are the foundation everything else is built on.
I would say our life experiences are the foundation that our values are then developed on. People in different circumstances will likely end up with different values (or even if broadly the same values, they will prioritise them differently).
People will certainly judge your actions, and that’s fair for them to do much of the time, but if your actions and your values are so disconnected that the difference comes into play so strongly then you might need to read the post over a few more times.
I wasn't commenting because of my personal experiences, but because I've read about life stories of others where they had to act in ways that went contrary to their values. Like when they are stuck in an abusive family or relationship dynamic, or in a job where they have to act unethically to be able to afford housing and food. During the pandemic I've come across the concept of moral injury which seems to refer to similar situations.
Google never thought to email their customers about this?? Why tf do I have to learn about this 2 months after the announcement, from social media...
While I agree with the rest, "your values are who you are" sounds very reductive. We are not one single aspect, not just our values, or thoughts, or emotions, or actions, but the dynamic system of them all.
Fuck AI @lemmy.world Gamers Are Overwhelmingly Negative About Gen AI in Video Games, but Attitudes Vary by Gender, Age, and Gaming Motivations.
Fuck AI @lemmy.world Looking for a specific research illustration on how LLMs "do maths"
Thanks, in the end I returned to occasionally wearing earrings, so I'm fine with having the holes, but good to know :)