

Isn’t near transit stations exactly where you’d want to put high density housing?
Isn’t near transit stations exactly where you’d want to put high density housing?
Alright, wrap it up boys, we’ve been made
I broadly agree, but I think there’s a bit of a “correlation is not causation” effect at play, too
I would expect people who are very career-focused would prioritise socialising less, and also be more willing to do a long commute for a job they are highly invested in. But the reduced socialising wouldn’t necessarily be caused by the commuting (not entirely, at least).
It makes it difficult to use the pavement, especially for elderly people and people with disabilities, costs the council a bunch of time and money to repair, and doing the repairs often require killing off the tree
I think the best example of how deeply ingrained classism is in the UK is the video of now ex-Prime-Minister Rishi Sunak as a young man:
I have friends who are aristocrats, I have friends who are upper class, I have friends who are working class… well, not working class.
I think people often don’t immediately see how stark the class divide is in the UK, especially tourists, because the UK has a relatively large middle class especially around touristy areas. But the difference between Kensington and, say, Middlesbrough is stark
What point are you trying to make?
That there’s better FOSS software (just generally)?
That there’s better FOSS document editing software?
That you don’t like Libreoffice dark mode?
It looks pretty good to me
I like him, so we’re up to America + this one guy
When in doubt, double down with more slurs, I guess?
“Anyone got a lighter?”
Technically, it’s basically equivalent to “oh my god”, but the Vietnamese phrase Oi Troi Oi is outstanding
As a more serious aside to the above, it is generally worth paying a bit of attention to which instance other users you interact with. There’s obviously no blanket statement you can make about the users of particular instances, but there are definitely certain instances that are more appealing to… certain groups of users.
lemmy.ml in particular has a bit of a reputation for having tankies on it, but there’s lots of very interesting and reasonable people there (or here, I suppose, given this is an ml community), also.
I think 3) is a really interesting point, and probably the primary reason why a model like that may be less viable for e.g. the Guardian. I think having that parasocial relationship is key to having people take interest enough to be willing to pay for the extra content around the main news output. My concern is that a model like that might incentivise being intentionally divisive and/or making the main content be more like entertainment than information.
Sure, personalised ads can be seen as a form of an invasion of privacy, and everybody has a right to not engage with any organisation for any reason they like. But ads are an imperfect solution to the fact that it’s impossible to run a news organisation at that scale on voluntary donations and un-personalised ads alone, and it’s definitely preferable (in my view, at least) to having a total paywall.
Unless you have an innovative alternative income source to propose, I’m not sure I see what alternative there is.
Respectfully, your argument seems to simultaneously be that they:
a) need a better source of income, because ads and subscriptions aren’t raising enough revenue
b) are acting unreasonably by asking you to allow them to use one of those revenue sources
“Would you rather pay for this service, or have ads on it?” Doesn’t seem like an unreasonable ask, frankly. Especially given that it can be trivially avoided with an ad blocker, anyway, and will not prohibit you from reading the article if you do so (this, to me, is the key difference compared to other outlets that have similar requirements).
As far as I can tell, their statement was that they will always make the content available for free. Serving that content with some ads alongside it doesn’t violate that policy.
Edit: as an aside, having “my one news source” is a bad way to engage with the media. Every source will have their own priority, biases, errors and blind spots that will change over time; you should have a diverse set of sources, ideally with different mediums.
Per the above, here’s some of the sources in my media diet, in no particular order: The Guardian, Byline Times, TLDR News, BBC News (digital & radio), Al Jazeera, Le Monde, the UN, Novara Media, PoliticsJOE, New York Times, Reuters, AP, Financial Times, Bellingcat
Edit: wrt “Centralist [sic] bore me”, yeah, sometimes a reasonable take on the news is boring, but important nonetheless. Sorry 🤷
Can you elaborate on what you mean by web tech? I don’t know much about how matrix works
GIMP is really powerful, but goddamn its UX is abysmal, unfortunately
No, you didn’t lmao
Would you call them He if you found out?
Yes I would
if we were friends I might call them the way they want
You specifically said you would actively misgender them, unless they’re your friend, in which case you “might” not actively go out of your way to do so. That’s a dick move, simple as.
And no, you can’t pretend that answer isn’t real by adding “I would never interact with or see a trans person” because that’s not how life works.
So what you’re saying is that if you don’t know the particular person, you will actively go out of way to be an asshole to them, but if they’re someone you care about, then you’d pretend to respect trans people enough not to intentionally fuck with them.
Lovely.
Just because you don’t think there should be social characteristics associated with gender doesn’t mean that there aren’t
I mean, they’re right that it’s not FOSS - the F is free as in available to anybody who may wish to use it, which is incompatible with defining who is allowed