Water usage is probably my biggest. Living in a high desert, my wife and MIL see no problem with filling one side of the sink with hot soapy water to wash a few dishes because “that’s just how I’ve always done it”, to watering the grass and plants for hours. All of this makes me mental.
“that’s just how I’ve always done it” is the worst when it’s used as an excuse to avoid putting effort into personal growth
I hate when people say that. I work in IT and that is a very popular phrase. Well you can do something wrong for a very long time.
Nobody in your life agrees with you? You gotta get out of that toxic environment.
Lots of people wander into the desert and don’t come back…
I will not install your shitty app
If someone is trying to sell me on a cafe or restaurant by saying, ‘Yeah, it’s kind of expensive, but there are great deals on the app…’ it’s no dice from me.
The worst are the sites that just redirect you to the play/app store when visiting on mobile.
I’m surely NOT installing your fucking app after you give me a bad experience (by not showing me the content I’ve received a link to) while I’m a “guest visitor” to your site.I have my main phone browser set to automatically request the desktop version of whatever I visit, so I haven’t run into this. Does it happen a lot?
One example I know is Instagram, here’s an example. Can’t click anywhere without being redirected to the play store.
I don’t use it, it’s just the first that came to my mind, but in the rare cases someone sends me a link to it I can’t really view what they sent me because of this. And I surely won’t make an account just to see a meme or some shit.This is a setting in your browser.
I have opening apps automatically disabled for places where I have multiple accounts.
It’s disabled on mine too, that’s why it asks first whether I want to open it in the store.
It still goes to the play store (website) when I refuse to open it in the play store (app), as can be seen in the video.
So real.
If I hear “I’m sure meta is a good company that will treat your data respectfully.” one more time!
Using AI is amoral and I will never use it. As a programmer, every day it feels like I’m increasingly the minority.
I remember when I was a child and I first got experience with computers. I saw how file systems worked and thought to myself “wow I should structure my own mind this way so I can try to think as well as a computer can!”. I may have autism.
AI is the exact opposite. Taking something beautiful, clear, clean, organized, efficient, definitive. And inserting all the messy, sloppy, uncertain, unreproducible aspect of our bloody electric meat brains. It’s a move in the opposite direction of where I think humanity should be going.
don’t give up. you are not alone. patience is key and the time where deep understanding of technology will become essential again
Damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Utilize the tools or you’ll end up unemployed.
In all honesty, I don’t think I could live with myself and, at least currently, think I’d rather find a new career path.
If you ever figure out what the path is let me know cuz any employable skills I have are going to be jobs affected by AI
It ain’t trades because literally everyone is going to do that when AI kills all the other jobs
Dating apps are inherently dehumanizing
They’re also profit-incentivized to keep people single and on their platform for as long as possible.
Most of them are also owned by a single company. Match Group inc. Some of the more notable ones are:
- Her
- Hinge
- Match.com
- OkCupid
- Plenty of Fish
- Tinder
As well as most of the _ People Meet apps. Ie:
- Black people meet
- Democratic people meet
- Republican people meet
- Latino people meet
- etc
So it is no coincidence that these apps suck.
The fact that you can filter by height but not weight says it all
Getting married without a prenup in today’s world is foolish. Ask marriage counselors and they will in general tell you to get a prenup. A prenup is wrote by two people and both have their own attorney. Anyone who refuses to get one or even discuss one is someone you should run from. A prenup details how a divorce AND how a marriage should run.
Also anyone who wants operating system or device level age verification doesn’t understand how bad things will get if we do that. It’s only about mass surveillance and selling of your data. It does nothing to protect kids.
I have heard that before and I think the same as before I started my marriage: I will not start a marriage with planning how it might end. Also half of the assets is fair, ailment is fair. It stings when it happens but it’s fair. I say that as a man with a good income.
I knew the deal when I married my wife. I think part of marrying someone is the fact that ending the marriage is shitty. So you better be careful who you marry.
I mean this. I do truly wish you the best, but the reality is close to 50% of marriages end in divorce. With the exception of forced marriages, all of them started thinking it would last forever. Way too many divorces end with one side getting screwed. “Just be careful of who you marry” is a recipe for failure when taken it context of the above statistics. Many people are trapped in bad marriages and can’t really get a divorce without getting screwed. So that 50% number should really be higher. Every walk of life we plan for the worst and hope for the best, or at least if a person is paying attention they do. Marriage is a huge item. Plan for the worst (prenup) and hope you never need it. Either that or risk winding up as a statistic.
If you don’t get one (and are told to get one) then get screwed and look back realizing had you gotten a prenup things wouldn’t have been as bad…. Well I’ll have a hard time finding sympathy.
Also the half the assets sound fair. Until you realize that it’s possible to lose more then half without a prenup.
I thought the 50% stat didn’t filter out repeat offenders.
You’re correct. First-time marriage has a 41% divorce rate (in the USA, at least).
(US context) The advice I got was that every marriage has a prenup. If the couple doesn’t write it, it’s just the default prenup their state wrote and it’s going to be crap for both people.
That’s exactly correct
I remember a science fiction story where the marriage license has a seven year term and has to be renewed periodically.
That’s an interesting concept
“The Puppet Masters” by Robert A. Heinlein. There’s an acceptable movie version of the book. The marriage scene isn’t in the movie, though.
This sounds like a great idea when I look at all the married people around me.
I can’t comment on the prenups as I have never even considered marriage.
I am not disagreeing with your opinion on device level age verification. I am interested in what you think we should do to protect kids online. There has been a lot of talk about this being the wrong way to do that but very little discussion on what other methods we could do.
Would you be opposed to a “this computer is used by a child” checkbox and just that true/false would be passed to apps?
In relation to your hill: While you’re entirely correct, that’s absurdly small potatoes compared to industrial water use. Yes, we should be conscious of our water use and limit unnecessary overuse, but a higher priority ought to be regulating industrial use. Data centers are the obvious example of using way too much for bullshit that ain’t worth the water or power. Speaking of power, we could reduce water use by power plants. Nearly all generate power by boiling water. I’m a power plant operator at a plant that happens to use reclaim water as our source water, and we purify on-site for the main process, and we have a brine concentrator and crystallizer on-site to recycle the cooling tower blowdown and remove the solids to a dumpster that goes to a landfill. Unfortunately we burn methane, so I can’t say that we’re green, but we at least discharge zero water into local waterways (except storm drains when it rains).
My hill: Vote with your wallet. If you really believe in something, stop giving money to companies fighting against it. I won’t buy chikfila because the owners actively spend money on gay conversion camps and lobby to reverse the legality of same sex marriage. It’s impossible to research every little thing before every purchase, and sometimes there’s no reasonable alternative, but something like chikfila is easy to avoid. There is no ethical consumption under capitalism, but don’t let perfect be the enemy of good. Little changes can add up, and doing anything even a little bit better is an improvement over not trying.
Bonus hill: Put your fucking grocery cart into the cart corral. It takes ten seconds and prevents cars from getting hit. It’s kind of the simplest measure for societal decency. I don’t believe in the death penalty, but what value are you contributing to society if you’re too selfish to return your fucking cart?
www.Goodsuniteus.com is a start to seeing where your money goes. Still looking for a better alternative.
The good news is as the giant evil corporations buy up everything it gets easier to just stop buying shit in general.
Good idea, but they collect subpoenable data and nag about installing the app. Why do they need my data?
Yeah I would love to find something better. Back in the 90s we had a book that you could look stuff up in. It was designed more as a shopping guide for groceries but it was super helpful.
Wish there was something that provided insight without cost.
From Wallet Voting by Cory Doctrow:
Wallet-votes always go to the people with the thickest wallets, and statistically, that is not you.
It doesn’t mean to keep shopping at Amazon if you hate their business practices, it just means that you & your friends won’t have any impact on Amazon’s business policies.
Granted, you’d be a hypocrite, so definitely don’t shop where you hate, but don’t expect a giant corp to change.
I read that link and I’m not sure I understand Doctorow’s reasoning on the subject. I typically find people that dismiss voting with their wallet fundamentally misunderstand microeconomics but either way, both points (yours and mine) are definitely not hills I’d die on.
I think the general point is that the financial hurt that I can put on a company is peanuts compared to someone with deep pockets (ie: shareholders & businesses). Even if I were to get all my friends, family and direct coworkers to alter a shopping behaviour, it’s unlikely to result in any change.
On the other hand, if I were to take that same group and be able to pressure my political representatives to do something about it (as we frequently see in California), then something may change. Similarly, me quitting my job out of disgust with a non-recycling policy won’t get any attention, but if I can get my union to take it up, then the company will listen.
TL;DR: a person can’t make change, a group of people can.
Your hill - first two sentences absolutely, in UK so no chikfila.
Love the drops-fill-buckets mindset!
Piggy backing on your comment: for folks wanting to put their money to more ethical use, here are some resources:
- Change your banking account: https://bank.green/
- Donate to charities: https://www.charitynavigator.org/
- Vote for right candidates: https://www.lcv.org/congressional-scorecard/
- Join the SHIFT is a general one for climate stuff: https://jointheshift.earth/
These are mostly US and climate focused resources since that’s where I am. Would love to see other people’s resources too!
Keep right except to pass. The passing lane is for passing.
When I was driving in Mexico, I learned this is possible! They’re very consistent with this.
California (not sure about other US states) on the other hand … people will purposely drive in the left lane, block traffic, and then get mad at you when you pass them on the right.
People who believe in any religion are the same as dormant terrorist cells. One can have perfectly formal relationships with them on a daily basis, but given the right conditions, they become a huge, possibly lethal, risk.
Agreed. The amount of down votes you’re receiving shows that, even on lemmy, >25% of users have an immediate and ingrained distaste to others sharing the thought that religion can be dangerous. The religious hold their own religion in such high regards, not realizing that, for the most part, they were never given a choice of which religion, let alone the choice to not be religious at all.
“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion” - Steven Weinberg
I wonder how many of the people who downvote me have people in their family who will be sent to die in Iran for the lunacy of a bunch of Christians excited for Armageddon.
consider antivaxxer parents that stick with their beliefs despite their children who died of easily preventable diseases to find your answers.
That really happens there? My god. Well, after all priests come in many different uniforms. Sometimes even sounding like a screeching cabinet like RFK Jr.
That really happens there? My god.
some part of me wants to live in your world for this; i assumed that everyone knew that this was the case since it’s on cnn/bbc/al jazeera/rt/etc.
I mean, I have a bed sofa. Dunno about refugee status, but this is some Carrie’s mom-level stuff.
It goes so far beyond the realm of fiction; Americans are literally exporting this asshatter to latin america
I want to share my photos of our trip with you, but I don’t want you to upload them to Google, or apple, or amazon, or meta, or any social media.
If it’s a pic of you, fine, do whatever you want. But please don’t take my whole album and store it in your google photos.
Edit: to maybe disambiguate, I go on a trip with someone else, we both take photos/videos using our own devices, and then afterwards we are exchanging what we took. Not like, me sharing photos with someone who didn’t even go on the trip.
That seems logical.
Seems a bit creepy doing that…
I think it makes total sense from their POV if I’m not posting my shit publicly and they want to be able to view it in the future. I will gladly make a copy of their photos of the trip for my own record, but I will store it in a way that only I have access.
Taking a car for a 3km distance is unconscionable when walking or cycling are valid options.
Driving less than the speed limit will not kill you.
What if I’m taking my car to the car wash?
French cuisine is extremely overrated
Sacré Bleu!!!
Private ownership of vehicles should be banned. Most people’s cars are unused for 90% of the day, which is insanely inefficient. Have a pool of cars they anyone can hire just for the time they need them. It would be cheaper for everyone and there wouldn’t be three fuck ugly cars in front of every house.
Problem is that almost everyone is using them at the exact same time every day to get from and to work.
Public transit is more efficient at moving a large number of people at once in similar directions.
deleted by creator
Communauto and it’s competitors are going strong in Montreal.
It would be cheaper for everyone and there wouldn’t be three fuck ugly cars in front of every house.
They already exist, it’s called taxis. Or you can hire cars. But there still not cheaper, cause corporate needs number to go higher.
I’d kill myself right now if I was stuck sharing a car for the rest of my life with my neighbor who literally eats shit.
who literally eats shit
?
In my area, as in many others, we had a few e-scooter rental companies for a few months. They pretty much just weren’t viable because people didnt care for the stuff. Basically if its rented, people will only care in so far as they can be held responsible.
Additionally, public transport doesn’t really work here because we dont have the population density.
That principle is important.
In any system where goods ( of some kind ) are not owned by the people using them, then you have to make those goods near-impossible-to-break, which is part of where communist Brutalism aesthetic comes from.
There was a book by a shelled-moluscs scientist who was born blind: he sees through his fingertips.
He’s the one who pointed that principle out, having lived in communism for part of his life, & once the principle’s understood, it can’t be unseen.
Know somebody who cares for their tools like jewelry?
They’d all be destroyed, pronto, in communism.
That’s the price that gets paid when nobody owns what they’re using.
And THAT principle, means that it then becomes possible to design means-sharing-systems that can work.
The e-scooter rental systems that many cities now have, is 1 example: idiotproof, indestructible, & they enable significant improvement in the city.
But consider contractors who need to be able to get anywhere, with their tools…
public transport may break their work.
Rurally, not having a vehicle’s … often suicide.
& if the city’s designed like US cities, towns, & villages, where they engineer it to break any other form of transport, then you cannot get to the supermarket without a car, from many locations.
It takes much more whole-systems orientation, to get it right, than what the US has been doing…
< shruggeth >
just some perspectives, is all…
_ /\ _
Nobody owns anything in communism?
Your tools would be destroyed pronto?
Whats with the sneaky nonsense in an otherwise reasonable comment…
clutches toothbrush
deleted by creator
my hill: when i post an asklemmy, i place my answer as a comment, so the thread doesn’t become a bunch of replies to my personal answer, so each reply to the post relates directly to the original question
My biggest pet peeve is people who scalp their lawns and spray shit all over it to make it green and kill the bugs. If it didn’t kill the buggies 'n stuff I wouldn’t care so much but I’d still think it’s dumb cause all they need to do is not mow so aggressively and plant some clover to fix the nitrogen. Like their lawn needs less maintenance not more. Stop fucking spraying shit all over your lawn please AAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
Hell yeah
The abortion debate will never be resolved.
This is mainly from the two sides arguing about different things.
Pro-life is about how a life starts at conception which means that abortion is murder. Pro-choice is about how women should have a choice to have an abortion.
Pro choice is about choice
Pro life isn’t about life as they’ve never cared about any of that shit. That baby is born? Toss it in a dumpster as far as they care.
Pro life is about control and power, I’m willing to.doe on that hill a hundred times
Case and point.
You don’t actually expect me to believe that you think all Pro-life people believe that children don’t deserve a good home. Sure there might be some people out there like that. But it’s much more likely that the majority of people do actually care.
It is not even that their priorities are wrong or conflicting. I hope you can agree that being murdered is worse than those children having a bad childhood.
Please note that I am not taking either a pro-life or pro-choice position. My position is that until one side can actually understand the other the debate will never go anywhere.
If withholding lifesaving care is murder, everyone who hasn’t donated a kidney is a murderer. Everyone who didn’t donate blood this month is a murderer. Everyone who isn’t an organ donor is a murderer.
No one getting an abortion is a murderer, they’re just not agreeing to share all of their organs with another person for almost a year.
So yeah, I just don’t understand their position. They don’t call withholding medical care by sharing organs murder in any other context.
I posted this to another commenter but feel it also applies here.
I think you have lost what my original argument was about. I am asserting that the abortion debate will never end due to each side arguing about disparate things.
From what I understand, there are 3 primary ways that a debate can end; each side comes to an agreement about what is correct/what should be done, each side agrees that they will not be able to agree on what is correct, or one side decides they are unable to change the opinion of the other side.
Much of your posts discusses how one side (Pro-life) is incorrect. This does not touch on my central argument. If you proposed a situation in which one of the three outcomes could occur then that would disprove my belief.
You don’t actually expect me to believe that you think all Pro-life people believe that children don’t deserve a good home. Sure there might be some people out there like that. But it’s much more likely that the majority of people do actually care.
Instead of appealing to your own incredulity, perhaps you could just look at the other actions of the people involved. If the people claiming to be Pro Life to prevent child murder, they would take actions to prevent that outcome through comprehensive sex education and contraceptive availability. Most of them don’t. They would also not vote to annihilate social safety nets for children once they are born. Most of them do. Taking those into account suggests that child welfare is not the only or even the dominant goal of the movement.
If your entire argument is that there exists some pro life people who care about these things then sure, you “win” that’s not relevant to the overall situation. The dominant views and actions of the pro life movement in the US stem from a concerted effort to create a political wedge and to create captive single-issue voters. It worked.
The US is not unique here in its diversity of views. All across the world people (even pro-choice people) don’t “like” abortion. There is no preference for it. It is for most people a (very) necessary evil. But most western countries have managed to deal with the the abortion issue in a healthier and effective way that is more aligned with the stated goals of the pro life movement than what the actual pro life movement has managed in the US.
Acting like this is some free, open ethical debate devoid of political manipulation between people trying to save children and people trying to maintain women’s bodily autonomy is hopelessly naive.
I’m not sure what exactly you are saying I am being incredulous about. You’ve brought up a lot of points here let me try to respond to each of them.
But, before I do that, I think you have lost what my original argument was about. I am asserting that the abortion debate will never end due to each side arguing about disparate things.
From what I understand, there are 3 primary ways that a debate can end; each side comes to an agreement about what is correct/what should be done, each side agrees that they will not be able to agree on what is correct, or one side decides they are unable to change the opinion of the other side.
Much of your posts discusses how one side (Pro-life) is incorrect. This does not touch on my central argument. If you proposed a situation in which one of the three outcomes could occur then that would disprove my belief.
You talk about education and how if Pro-life proponents actually cared about reducing abortions then they would fight for “real” education, not abstinence only. But this ignores one of their central beliefs; that abstinence only is the best education to reduce abortions.
Next you talk about dismantling social safety nets. From looking at a few Pro-life groups many of them do not really talk about changing social services for kids at all. The ones that do talk about increasing education, providing counseling, and promoting adoption as an option. I think what the misunderstanding might be is that many people who are Pro-life are also republican who also believe in a reduction of government social services in favor of private services. This assignment of belief is not transferable. What I mean by this is that being Pro-life does not necessarily equate to wanting to dismantle social safety nets.
You are right that child welfare is not the central part of their belief set. The central part is “life begins at conception. And ending a life is murder”. Take for instance a hypothetical attorney general who focuses mode attention on petty shoplifting rather than murderers. I would hope that you would agree that they do not have the people’s best interest at heart. This is how Pro-life proponents see this debate.
Last thing that you mentioned that I want to comment on is about single-issue voters. Of course I would encourage people to be aware about all the issues that affect them. But I do not agree with the demonization of single-issue voters. There is a reason why on a ballot you are not required to fill in every question or there might be an option for obtaining. If we were to legislate against people being single-issue voters then that might quickly devolve into a facsimile of literacy tests. Tests which have already been ruled as unconstitutional.
But, before I do that, I think you have lost what my original argument was about. I am asserting that the abortion debate will never end due to each side arguing about disparate things.
Since you’re apparently lost, I’ll make I’ll summarize - the two sides talking past each other is how this issue was engineered. This is a manufactured debate designed for political purposes, and not for the welfare of kids. There’s a reason this nonsense took hold in the US and nowhere else in the western world.
But this ignores one of their central beliefs; that abstinence only is the best education to reduce abortions.
They absolutely don’t believe that lol. They believe it is the only acceptable option (even it demonstrably doesn’t work).
Next you talk about dismantling social safety nets. From looking at a few Pro-life groups many of them do not really talk about changing social services for kids at all. The ones that do talk about increasing education, providing counseling, and promoting adoption as an option. I think what the misunderstanding might be is that many people who are Pro-life are also republican who also believe in a reduction of government social services in favor of private services. This assignment of belief is not transferable. What I mean by this is that being Pro-life does not necessarily equate to wanting to dismantle social safety nets.
I simply don’t understand why you insist on taking what everyone says at face value while ignoring their actual actions - how they vote.
Last thing that you mentioned that I want to comment on is about single-issue voters. Of course I would encourage people to be aware about all the issues that affect them. But I do not agree with the demonization of single-issue voters.
I’m not demonizing them lol. I’m calling them stupid. If you’re a single issue voter, you are completely captive. The guy who embodies your one key issue can do anything else they want because they know they have you. Single issue voters always end up being suckers in there end.
You are more talking about how this debate came to be. My central argument is more about how the debate cannot end.
I am not sure how abstinence only being the only acceptable option is any better than it being the best option. If anything it just strengthens my argument by showing that the Pro-life side will not accept any other form of education. And the Pro-choice side will also not accept any other form of education. This topic is a nonsequiter for both sides.
Again being Pro-life does not necessarily mean that they will vote for dismantling social services.
I simply don’t understand why you insist on assuming that they are lying.
Demonize: to portray (someone or something) as evil or as worthy of contempt or blame.
Is that not what you are doing? You are blaming them for voting how they do.
Ultimately I think we have reached that 3rd situation. I have decided that nothing I say is going to change your mind on this and am choosing to walk away.
I am not sure how abstinence only being the only acceptable option is any better than it being the best option.
The distinction is important because perpetuating their only acceptable option despite it being demonstrably ineffective indicates that child welfare is not the primacy concern in play.
Again being Pro-life does not necessarily mean that they will vote for dismantling social services.
And yet, despite it not being necessarily true it is absolutely true in every practical sense in reality.
I simply don’t understand why you insist on assuming that they are lying.
I simply don’t understand why you insist on taking political talking points as 100 percent sincere instead of looking at the tangible actions being taken in this space.
Is that not what you are doing? You are blaming them for voting how they do.
You don’t even know what to do with this definition after quoting it. If course I “blame” them for voting how they do. Is assigning someone responsibility for their actions “demonizing” them? Lol. You’re lost in the sauce bruh.
Ultimately I think we have reached that 3rd situation. I have decided that nothing I say is going to change your mind on this and am choosing to walk away.
Other countries are able to have this discussion in far more healthy and productive ways. Instead of being content with your one insight that prolife and pro-choice are talking past each other, I suggest you ask yourself why that is, and why this positioning of the discussion is basically unique to the US. There’s a whole wide world out there.
Most pro-lifers aren’t even personally in it for the power, they’re just brainwashed by people who are.
Hasn’t it already been resolved in a whole bunch of countries? I mean, sure there’s still some folks that disagree with the outcome, but you’ve got folks disagreeing about the earth being round as well. If that’s your bar for debates not having been resolved then I agree with you, but I’d also say you’re not saying anything particularly interesting, disagreeable, or controversial.
You are right. I didn’t specify in my original comment but I am more referencing the polarization in the US specifically.
But everything you’re saying in the other posts is pretty generic and applies to the pro and anti abortion crowd in the other countries as well.
Just force women to have abortions. Now you are undermining their bodily autonomy AND killing babies for satan (or whatever) Both sides happy.
/joke
The debate will probably go somewhere if people took a moment to think about why murder is bad and why choice is important, then consider why that would or wouldn’t apply to this specific scenario.
I don’t think that will happen given the strongly held beliefs each side has as well as the polarization in this country.
It also does not help that there are politicians and news organizations out there that are happy to throw more fuel on the fire, driving a wedge deeper between two groups.
I believe a woman should have the right to abort the child as long as its under 18*12 months.
/s
