Remember your words when Netanyahu bombs Gaza and people want to ask the community about it.

Just because YOU don’t want to hear about something doesn’t mean en entire community should BAN discussion of it. It’s absolutely bonkers that anyone can rationalize this position.

upset you can’t talk about US politics everywhere in the platform

I’m upset that a moderator believes that banning the discussion of a major national / international event is healthy for the community. I could understand that for a niche community like Music but not one of the most popular general purpose ones. There’s no reason this should be banned other than a personal preference. This informs me that the moderators of this community are not interested in an open platform for genuine discussion.

If some other country had a historic election, I would HOPE to see open dialog spread in places like this for people to express themselves. Why ban an internationally relevant discussion when people have the choice to be members of the community. How about - if you don’t like it, you can leave.

I see you’ve chosen to ignore the point about the influence this has on hundreds of millions of people.

Ridiculous copy/paste reply. You’re not making a good case for people leaving corporate media for Lemmy. You’re encouraging them to stay where they are.

How the fuck is Lemmy supposed to serve as an open alternative to corporate controlled social media when the mods ban discussing one of the most impactful events of the day? You should be begging people to talk about politics here. Unsubbed. EDIT: AND BLOCKED. If I wanted to hang out in a fascist community I’d join twitter.

You are so fucking wrong. I have never understood this logic that because people are doing things out in the open that it’s a good thing. They are popularizing their ideas. More people are exposed to them when they’re out in the open. Had they been operating in some obscure forum, they would lack the advertising of their ideas to others.

For what possible reason could this be “positive”? So that the rest of us are aware of their first amendment protected hateful ideas? What good does that do anyone? We just elected one of them to be president of the United States. Allowing hate speech to bloom out in the open tempers our reactions and slowly seeps into our minds as propaganda.

Freedom of speech is, in the US, something that the US Constitution promises will not be restricted by Congress. It is not something any private company is required to protect. I would argue that private companies have a responsibility to its users to ban all hate speech and report substantiated threats to law enforcement.

When the mods ban US politics the day after an election.

From my experience, I would say it really depends on what kind of smoker you are.

I smoked on and off for over twenty years. I made strong associations with cigarettes in my college years. It was a way to get away, to be different, to meet new people, to relax, etc. Sometimes I smoked two packs a day, but more often a pack a week. I smoked the most while driving or after work or at the bar. My friends at the bar smoked, my girlfriends smoked, my coworkers smoked.

I read long ago that, for some people, nicotine fits like a puzzle piece into a receptor in their bodies. I believe I lack this receptor that causes biological addition and my smoking was due more to Pavlovian conditioning. I never had a morning craving. I never got “the shakes”. I quit over a dozen times, sometimes for more than a year.

When I was finally ready, and I have to emphasize that you need to be ready, I actually went out of my way to not have a cigarette while doing the things I strongly associated with smoking. I knew I was ready and it was going to stick because I quit over the course of “Beer Week” (Beer Week is when all the bars in the city have beer specials and events and serve one-off or collaboration beers from around the world). It was the worst time to quit but also the best time to quit. It was a challenge. When my friends at the bar all went out for a smoke, I joined them - without a smoke. When I was done eating dinner, I’d go outside and just sit and think without the cigarette. I even went for a drive with a cigarette in my hand and pretended to smoke it without lighting it up.

Being ready to quit isn’t about knowing it’s bad for you. To be really honest with you, I quit because I was flirting with a super cute girl who happened to be a doctor (I still remember her name - Rose. Because Rose + Doctor Who). Everything was going great then I interrupted her so I could go outside for a cigarette. The disappointment felt by the both of us when I returned was the gut punch I needed. I still have that pack of cigarettes that I only had three smokes out of.

I’ve not had a single urge to smoke for nine and a half years now.

Or you could try hypnotherapy. Worked for my mom after smoking for over 45 years.

Coven - Satanic Mass (not “music”)

Bach - Toccata And Fugue In D Minor

Victoir Peraino’s Kingdom Come - I Put a Spell on You

I just got banned from a sub for trying to explain this exact thing. Their response was “not that’s not how voting works - if I vote for a person, they get my vote. If I don’t vote for someone, they don’t get my vote.” and “Harris is literally saying the same thing.” I sent a thank you to the mod for banning me because my brain was breaking.

Reading more than a headline.

It’s not terribly difficult to get on the ballot. But each state has their own requirement so the third party candidates you see may not be on every ballot nation wide.

It’s not just the media that promotes the two candidates. It’s the billionaires and corporations who invest the most money in promoting someone they find favorable to their interests. Given the bankroll surrounding these two parties, the media really don’t have much choice but to reflect their advertising efforts.

In the US, we have what’s called first past the post elections. That essentially means the first person the get the most votes wins. In this case, it’s electoral votes, not individual votes.

Had the US had something like ranked choice voting or star voting in general elections, third party candidates would be given much more attention.

Given the voting system we have, we mostly vote in a manner that prevents the election of the most popular candidate we don’t like.

Secretly, I’ll pass judgement on someone until I realize I know nothing about them and would be unhappy if someone judged me without knowing anything about me. Then I judge myself for being judgmental.

People also just drive a lot more today than 40 years ago, in part, because jobs and shopping are further away (it’s gone down since COVID due to more WFH). A car with 100K miles on it was an old car. Now it’s not unheard of for people to put that kind of mileage on their car in under five years. I have no argument that vehicles are much more well built today.

As I said in another comment, I’m not arguing that cars are more capable of being on the road, just that I don’t believe people are going to choose to drive a ten to twenty year old car in 2035 - 2045 as much as they had fifty years prior. You could put less than $1,000 into a 100k mile car in the 90s and expect to get another 50k+ out of it. At least, I can confirm that that’s what I did with my 1976 Ford Elite and later my 1980 Camaro.

Moreover, there’s nothing aside from the maintenance of the vehicle and maybe improved gas mileage that would deter anyone from choosing to drive an older vehicle. There are far more reasons today to not choose a ten year old car than there were 30-40 years ago.

My point is about consumer choice and the advancements of technology. Will people choose to drive vehicles that aren’t compatible with future technology.

I’m not arguing that. My argument is actually because cars are far more reliable, doesn’t that decrease their resale value as more and more modern convinces are added to newer cars?

You’ve got a window of less than ten years on a modern car where then the technology in it is so old that few people would consider purchasing it to keep it for another five - ten years.

For example, my mom just bought a '24 Subaru with a huge touch screen in it. Will it keep working in ten years? Probably. Will anyone want to buy that phone on wheels in ten years? Not likely. I just bought a 2013 Mini Cooper. It “has bluetooth” but it’s strictly for (shitty sounding) phone calls and not audio streaming. I’m one of few people who’s okay with this because I’ll only drive 1500 miles a year.

Whereas a 25 year old car in 1998 was, aside from your accurate claim about reliability, perfectly fine as a daily driver. If you can find one and are capable of proper maintenance, you could still drive a 1960s car today. But because modern consumer tastes expect advancements in vehicles the same as they expect them in phones, I just don’t see used cars living as long as older cars have.

So, it’s not so much about the ability for a vehicle to remain on the road but consumer choice.

improvements over the next couple years will make current electric cars obsolete

This is my problem with any new car. Practically every new car (even ICEVs) is just a smart phone on wheels now. It’s not like in the ‘90s - ‘00s when you could still legit buy a car from the ‘70s and daily drive it and repair it in your own drive way for cheap (most people in the 50s - 80s were capable of basic tune ups, etc).

My concern is that at some point the parts won’t be made anymore. Or if the LCD command console gets cracked or something your car’s totaled. I mean, people used to own cars for at least ten years, twenty years wasn’t uncommon. Do you think a 2025 XYZ is going to be on the road in ten years- twenty years? What’s the resale value on that / who’s going to buy a twenty year old phone on wheels?

As much as people believe EVs are better for the environment, aren’t they increasing the rate at which a vehicle ends up in landfill? I hope recycling is part of the car’s lifecycle.

At the same time though, I have to acknowledge that, without an ICE, EVs have far fewer points of failure. There’s a potential for them to be on the road much longer. I just don’t see that happening due to consumer demand. Even if you’re able to update the software and swap out worn out parts, is that enough to keep the car on the road as long as or longer than an ICEV? What happens when technology changes and they find better batteries or charging methods? How much do you have to invest in the phone on wheels to keep it on the road?

It strikes me that someone asking if using a toaster oven as a space heater is “anti-inadvisable” is very much not someone who should attempt such an action.

ProtonMail, Nebula, Backblaze, Parcel, BigNews, Glass, my local paper, local coffee delivery.

I pay for Apple iCloud too but I’m trying to figure out how to get away from it.

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/commonly-confused-words/all-of-a-sudden/