Lvxferre [he/him]

That’s a language-dependent ambiguity; this sort of “noun¹ noun²” construction in English is actually rather vague, and it can be used multiple ways:

• material - e.g. fish fillet (the fillet is made of fish)
• purpose - e.g. fish knife (the knife is made to handle fish)
• destination - e.g. fish food (the food goes to the fish)
• inalienable possession - e.g. fish tail (the tail belongs to the fish, and removing it means removing part of the fish)
• alienable possession - e.g. fish bowl (the bowl “belongs” to the fish, but you could give it another bowl)
• etc.

As such I believe that in at least some languages it’s probably clear if you refer to chicken egg as “an egg coming from a chicken” or “an egg a chicken is born from”. Not that they’re going to use it with this expression though.

For reference. @cuerdo@lemmy.world used as an example “my penis”:

If I say “my penis”, it is likelier that I am talking about the one attached to me rather than the one I bought in the market.

In Nahuatl both would be distinguished: you’d call your genitals “notepollo” (inalienable possession), and the one you bought “notepol” (alienable possession). (Note: “no-” for the first person. For someone else’s dick use “mo-” when speaking with the person, i- when talking about them.)

Just language things, I guess.

You know what? That’s a great idea, I might actually try it. At least teach them how to meow in a specific way to ask for their treats.

If the parking was obstructing something else you can report it to enforcement for towing/ticketing or the owners of the lot.

Let’s say this was a public place. Now you need to go through all the bureaucracy to contact the relevant law enforcer. There’s a good chance they won’t fucking care, even if parking the car that way violates some law. Or alternatively there might be no law in place (even if there should be one), so there’s genuinely nothing you can do.

Now let’s say this was a privately owned place, like the parking lot of a supermarket. Do you genuinely think the owners care if their “esteemed customer” Karen’s car gets in the way of “some fucking cripples”? (Note: this sort of arsehole really, really likes to park their cars in spots for people with disabilities. Or often half of their car.)

In either case: congrats for wasting your time and solving jack shit!

And in both cases you’re relying on some higher up to do shit, when it’s actually more civil to tell the owner they’re doing shit wrong. As in, you know… leaving some message.

If it was not obstructing something else

i don’t reasonably expect someone to reach for pen and paper to leave a message in this case.

I read this reply as nothing but ego and lots of assumptions (shooting my brains out, wtf?)

If that’s the case you should at least try to develop basic reading comprehension.

I was clearly listing possible ways to handle this, and the possible outcomes. No, the odds the car owner is a violent piece of shit are not zero; waiting for them to say tête-à-tête “don’t do this, please” is not reasonable. And this is fucking obvious dammit.

I also genuinely think you don’t know what “ego” and “assumption” mean, otherwise you wouldn’t use either here. Just like you don’t know what “passive aggressivity” means.

Besides what Grumpy said (I agree with it): I think leaving a mildly rude written message was the best approach here, once you put yourself in the shoes of whoever wrote the message.

Odds are the car owner parked their car in a really obstructive way, making shit worse for everyone else. It got in your way, and it’ll most likely get in the way of other people too. So, what are you going to do?

• Nothing? You’re giving a free pass to some fucking Enzo/Valentina Karen, who’ll likely do this shit again, and again, and again, because they don’t fucking care about other people.
• Wait until the car owner arrives, and tell them something? You don’t know the owner. It’s possible they simply say “oh, I see, sorry!”, but the risk of actual violence is non-zero, they might pick up a gun and shoot your brains out.
• Leave a polite message, like “please don’t park your car this way, it inconveniences other people”? Remember, there’s a big chance the car owner is a Karen, they don’t give a fuck about other people.
• Leave a message telling them to off themselves? Now you’re going too far; not even a Karen deserves that.
• something else? Feel free to point it out.

So you leave a mocking message. That makes the person feel bad about themself, and highlight people dislike them because of their actions. That’s exactly what the person who wrote the message did.

No condom. I’d sub the “please don’t reproduce” with “I’m glad people like you don’t reproduce” or something like this. To add injury.

My cats, in the meantime: train themselves to know when humans dispense food, everything else be damned!

Nah. The guilt by association fallacy is more like:

• [P1] Hitler ate bread.
• [P2] Hitler was a bad person.
• [C] Thus if you eat bread, you’re as bad as Hitler.

That is not even remotely close to what the DinoCon is doing. If we interpret their actions as an argument, it’s more like:

• [P1] Knowingly associating yourself with a bad person makes you a bad person.
• [P2] Those people knowingly associating themselves with Epstein, a bad person.
• [C] Thus those people are bad people.

You might disagree with the first premise (it’s a moral premise, so it depends on your values), but the argument is perfectly logical.

Moral standards matter; even if you never met the victim, or saw the abuse happening, and the source is (like you said) “professional rabble-rousers”.

I think the DinoCon is doing the right thing.

Sure thing, buddy. Whatever you need to tell yourself.

…since you’re insistently lying (yes) about what I need: I don’t “need” him to be innocent, and I don’t “need” him to be guilty. From my PoV he’s simply some old guy, with a bunch of hypotheses that range from “this is interesting” to “nah, bollocks”, always backpedalling when proved wrong. That’s it.

Is this clear?

(Also take a clue from the fact I was the one bringing him up, even if the thread is about the DinoCon.)

We all knew who Epstein was by that point. He should know better.

Yes, and? Myself said so in another comment dammit. The question here is how much he should be blamed. Should we blame him for:

1. Abusing some children himself?
2. Not abusing them, but actively helping Epstein to do so, in matters directly related to the abuse?
3. Not directly helping Epstein with the abuse, but knowing to be associated with a paedophile, and not giving a fuck about it?
4. Not knowing he was associated with a paedophile, but being in a position he should have done so?
5. Nothing?

Are you getting the picture? It’s a fucking gradient of shit. Both #1 and #5 are likely bollocks; but from #2 to #4 it’s all “maybe”. We don’t know what he did, and we don’t know what he knows.

And before some muppet says “but you said «I guess he’s still in the “when in doubt, treat them as innocent” category for me.»!!!”: I was clearly talking about what I formalised as #3. This is bloody obvious by context dammit, check the comment I was answering to!

How self deluded do you need to be in order to convince yourself that Chomsky reached out to the most notorious convicted pedophile in American history for some help with his taxes?

That is not even remotely close to what I said.

You don’t even know what you’re screeching at.

At this rate it’s safe to ignore you as dead weight and a noise. Feel free to keep screeching at your own assumptions, as if you were screeching at what I said, but don’t expect me to read it.

Yeah.

At the very least we can safely blame him for not doing basic due diligence: even a hypothetically honest “I didn’t know” shows disregard for the victims of his “associate”. It’s already morally awful, even if [AFAIK] it wouldn’t be illegal in USA. [Would it?]

There’s also the possibility he actually knew about it, but didn’t act on it. Morally speaking that would be even worse than the above, and [again, AFAIK] already a crime (omission).

That sounds like Chomsky? Doing the taxes of an uber wealth financier/convicted pedophile?

The inverse: the über rich paedophile doing Chomsky’s taxes. Get things right if you want to screech dammit.

Plus Chomsky being smart+shitty enough to bullshit when in trouble, instead of saying “none of your business”. If Chomsky did the later instead of the former, it’s a sign he didn’t see any need to bullshit.

Stop lying to yourself.

A person lying to oneself would not say “when in doubt”. Or to “not [be] aware on how much Chomsky should be blamed”. Or talk about the “hypothesis” he is innocent. They’d be vomiting certainty: “Chomsky is [innocent|guilty] lol”.

Instead, a person lying to oneself would be vomiting certainty like an assumer, re-eating their own vomit, and expecting others to eat it too.

So perhaps the one being a liar (or worse, an assumer) here is not me.

I am half inclined to believe he just wanted help filing his taxes and a guilty Chomsky would have the sense to lie.

Yup, that sounds like him. He isn’t above bullshitting but not bothering to bullshit hints he believed he had nothing to hide.

I guess he’s still in the “when in doubt, treat them as innocent” category for me.

That fucker ruined Linguistics too — he was in friendly terms with Noam Chomsky.

Personally I am not aware on how much Chomsky should be blamed for this association; it’s possible Epstein was simply using him. But even in the hypothesis Chomsky is innocent, it stinks.

Ditto. Specially because they’re focusing on the executives of those organisations, i.e. the people with actual decision power. That’s the right way to do it.

I never played DCSS. Does it have anything to cause monster infighting, like Nethack does with the ring of conflict? If yes, that would be probably your best bet: let them fight, and kill the survivor.

Either way this looks extremely nasty.

It’s more like

• [This case] “etymology shows this usage of the word is acceptable”
• [Typically] “language change shows the usage of that other word is also acceptable”

IMO they’re both poor grounds to defend the acceptability of a certain word usage. But they don’t really contradict each other; in fact they’re both the same fallacy (fallacy of origins aka genetic fallacy).

I believe a better way to defend the acceptability of a certain word usage is to highlight language is a communication system; the point is not to use this or that word, it’s to convey meaning. So if $vegetable milk conveys the meaning, it’s fine; if “skibidi” also conveys meaning, it’s also fine.

Just my two cents.

Mayor Poopington is likely talking about the fibre around mature coconuts (left).

Context: Discord.

It’s corporate parasite for corporate parasites.

I like how you phrased it. And it explains well why Canonical is so detached from the userbase, or doesn’t care about fragmentation — it’s simply that its host target audience is other parasites also corporate.

Mir came about because the people behind Wayland were fucking around for years without making progress.

This implies the motivation was either one or another. It’s both: Canonical saw there was room to push for Mir, because the Wayland project was stagnant.

Now that Wayland has actually matured, Mir is a Wayland compositor.

They saw they lost the fight, and gave up.

Snaps predate (and do a whole lot more than) flatpak.

This does not contradict what I said: even if snaps are older Canonical is still pushing them as much as it can, because it can’t control the alternative other distros would rather use (flatpaks). Or the distribution of software using that package system.

1 out of 3 isn’t great. (implied: “two of your examples are invalid”)

Nah, 3 out of 3. False dichotomy and red herring aren’t enough to discard either example.

But for the sake of argument let us pretend this was a 0 out of 3 instead. The point would still stand, given those are solely examples highlighting Canonical’s modus operandi.

Speaking about the third example (Unity) you didn’t mention: the situation was rather similar to Wayland: Canonical was displeased with GNOME 2.X, likely predicted 3.0 was going to be a trainwreck (it was), and then did its own thing instead of contributing with another project it wouldn’t be able to control.

I think the general Linux userbase is so used to non-profit projects that it forgets Canonical is a corporation, and corporations always seek control.