Wait, so browsers that disable JavaScript won’t be able to access those websites? Then I hate it.

Not everyone wants unauthenticated RCE from thousands of servers around the world.

That’s actually a really good response.

With a 3rd alt for misdirection and a 4th alt for plausible deniability.

Email also requires a lot of “human BS” to avoid conveying an unintended tone without being able to directly address it.

Do you think Epstein killed himself?

I buy whatever’s cheapest (and has the specs I want), but unfortunately that’s almost always the “EP1C K1LLERZ XTREAM PRO ULTRA X” brand… Somehow adding LEDs makes it cheaper.

I just want a plain cardboard box with the specs and SKU printed on the side like I have at work.

There’s lots of ways to make existing hardware more efficient at the cost of performance. Under-volting the CPU and RAM (or just putting them in “efficiency” mode) can probably save more electricity than you lose in generational improvements. Considering how much more powerful PCs are compared to SBCs, you’d probably still have better performance than an SBC. Also, a more powerful CPU that takes double the power but as a result can idle for more than 50% of the time would be more efficient than a less powerful CPU never idling.

There’s a lot of other variables (like idle power draw, efficiency at various power levels, idle latency, etc), but in general I think your statement would be inaccurate at least 60% of the time.

tar

It’s a distro that only cool people know about. I’m sorry you had to find out this way.

deleted by creator

most of lemmy’s users don’t know how janky it is behind the scenes

That’s technology in general

You’re just mad your distro hasn’t MOONED

I’m sure their TOU moves all risk and liability to the users, so if anyone is getting sued, it’ll be the users.

The more likely outcome is that Plex just loses most of their users, since pirates (the majority of Plex users) won’t be willing to pay to access the content they already pirated.

It’s not ethical to irresponsibly create children, but it’s also not ethical to prevent people from doing so. The most you can do is make that information easily available to people and encourage them to act responsibly.

One of the biggest problems would be enforcement of that license. With driving, cops are everywhere and regularly pull people over to check their license. With hunting, there are game wardens that patrol hunting areas and check the licenses of hunters.

With procreation, people can have unprotected sex anywhere and typically in private. You’d either need to give some group of people permanent access to enter any private space at any time (to randomly check for unlicensed sex), or force everyone without a license to take birth control or be sterilized. Unfortunately, none of those options are ethical.

I meant outed as being queer. OP said that if you do queerphobic things as a way to hide that you’re queer, you deserve to be outed. I’m asking if a queer person who does queerphobic things–not with the intention of hiding that they’re queer, but because they genuinely believe that god gave everyone “queer desires” as a morality test–should be outed as queer.

For example, I’ve seen the argument that some gay priests are homophobic because they have “gay desires” and they assume that everyone else has them too. One of those priests said something to the effect of “all men want to have sex with other men, but it’s our job not to”. Of course, most men actually don’t want to have sex with other men–if you do, you’re just gay–but those priests might now know that. I’m conflicted as to whether that’s a reasonable justification for homophobia, but I’m curious what OP thinks about it.

It’s “losers”, but yes. I’d phrase it as “not every poor and uneducated person deserves sympathy; it’s not necessarily victim-blaming to refuse to accommodate such a person.”

Disabled people should have to ask for a seat on public transit if one isn’t available; other people shouldn’t immediately get up when a clearly disabled person boards, nor should anyone expect them to without being asked. Similarly, you have no right to criticize someone (who doesn’t appear to be disabled) if they’re sitting in a seat designated for disabled people and they don’t get up when a visibly disabled person gets on.

First of all, the disabled person might not even want the seat. If they do, it’s reasonable to expect them (as an adult) to advocate for their own needs (i.e. ask). It’s actually more offensive to assume that every elderly or otherwise visibly-disabled person is incapable of that.

Second of all, not all disabilities are easily visible. I’m a mid-twenties guy and I was born with an auto-immune disorder that sometimes makes it very difficult or painful to stand/walk. It’s happened multiple times that strangers on the bus have chewed me out for not giving up my seat, even though (statistically) there were probably other people sitting in disability-designated seats that needed that seat less than me and the visibly disable person who just boarded. I can’t fucking believe I have arthritis in my twenties, either. I’m just trying to cope with the shitty circumstances I was given and the last thing I need is to constantly have to justify myself to ignorantly self-righteous strangers.

That’s mostly because men, on average, negotiate for higher wages; if the women in such positions asked for higher wages, the disparity would be much lower.

Do you think that people who act queerphobic for reasons other than hiding their true identity also deserve to be outed?