I think you’re in the same boat I am where I fucking haaaaaaate the culture on link aggregators (and probably other social media) where people will bitch and moan to no end that their preferred format (publicly reacting to disconnected headlines whose articles they haven’t read) isn’t giving them literally all the information they need to form a cogent opinion.

• “I had time to write a 300-word short essay about this headline, but I’m going to whine if I get called for something in the first paragraph that invalides everything I said.”
• “I can’t believe this headline mentioned a pretty common thing I’m not personally familiar with but the publication’s target audience obviously is.”
• "Headline didn’t answer every single question I could possibly wonder? Uh, clickbait much?
• “The headline writer didn’t account for this batshit non sequitur I drew from it, so they’re basically lying.”

They genuinely think that the article body should be effectively superfluous to the headline – not just to have a basic gist of but to discuss and debate current events, which is insane. It reminds me of people who think they can learn math and physics by passively watching somebody else do it – which is true only to an utterly incosequential extent.

Speaking as someone who’s read thousands of articles for research, I feel confident saying that reading the article is an insane force multiplier to understanding. Any time you spent reacting to the headline would’ve been 3x as effective put into reading even just part of an article. This doesn’t just apply to current events, and even I haven’t thoroughly learned this lesson; so many times I’ve been editing Wikipedia and arrived at a point where reading one goddamn article for three minutes would’ve saved me half an hour of fucking around (“two hours of debugging can save you five minutes of reading the documentation”).

This is my way of pleading with you (you, the non-CombatWombat reader): it’s enriching once you can steel yourself and work through the initial dopamine drought, and it quickly becomes enjoyable. It’s not your fault it’s so hard psychologically; this was done to you by formats that value engagement with the platform over engagement with the material.

But if you don’t, please at least accept that headlines cannot always contain everything you want.

Yeah, there’s no fucking way “Well Grok told me these are the prompts they used” would be admissible as evidence of any kind.

Yes, and my comment was assuming the partner washed as a baseline – unless it’s to the standards I wash my fucking toilet bowl with at least.

Washing helps remove fecal matter, but anyone giving analingus is still lapping up microscopic shit particles off of someone’s asshole.

Agreed. Armpit fetishes are weird and gross to me, but they’re a distinct rung down from “I want to shove my face between someone’s asscheeks and aggressively mop up microscopic flecks of their shit with my tongue.” I’m giving ass-eating people the side-eye if they make fun of armpit people.

Look, by the time you’re resorting to asking about dissolving and reconstituting the EU as a mechanism, I’m going to boldly suggest that you aren’t going to find anything the army of career civil servants navigating this crisis first-hand haven’t already considered.

Edit: Just saying, though, that we could go with The Onion’s idea.

Raiden, turn the game console off right now.

Congrats, Jordan! Take as much time as you need. If things get out of hand here, there’ll always be people ready to help.

Here’s the local 11Alive (WXIA-TV) story. The International Business Times is a churnalism rag that I wouldn’t trust to tell me the sky is blue.

Nope. It comes from Flickr around nine years before being uploaded to Commons. The Commons description “My cat loves styrofoam peanuts” is likely lifted verbatim from the Flickr post, as we tend to do this with other such descriptions.

Cat’s name was Cooper, by the way.

Not a shitpost, OP. Correct me if I missed something.

Is the issue that there are people paying for YouTube Premium?

Every article I read about Intel makes me more thankful that I got a Ryzen 1700 in 2017 and never looked back.

From this distant vantage point, the Earth might not seem of any particular interest. But for us, it’s different. Consider again that dot. That’s here. That’s home. That’s us. On it every corn you love, every corn you know, every corn you ever heard of, every cultivar that ever was, lived out its life. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident recipes, listicles, and culinary doctrines, every shopper and forager, every binger and dieter, every planter and harvester of fields, every succotash and popcorn, every monoecious couple in love, every pistil and stamen, hopeful seedling, barbecuer and chef, every eater of cornmeal, every corrupt subsidy, every cob and kernel in the history of our tummies lived there—on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

I don’t want to distract from the article itself, but on a generic level, The Signpost is worth reading for anyone interested in the “behind-the-scenes” of the project. They published another article about this a couple weeks ago.

I wouldn’t use Mullvad when it’s openly hostile to peer-to-peer torrenting. Even outside of the obvious – piracy is one of the best and most unique use cases for a VPN – I use torrents wherever the option is available for legal downloads because that’s normally faster, spares a load on the server, and strengthens the download’s resiliency. That Mullvad wants to restrict that is their (reasonable) call, but it’s not one that’s going to get my money.

Oh, shit. I’m sorry. I’ve heard some wild takes on Lemmy lately, but I still shouldn’t have assumed.

But now I still have to disagree; this is part of a worldwide psychological experiment for Google to learn about users’ willingness to do useless work.

EDIT: I’m a dum dum.

I use and routinely contribute to OSM, and I hate Google Maps both ethically and because the actual underlying map is just half-baked.

This is a ridiculous explanation for why GMaps suggests nominally slower routes alongside the main one. What’s happening in the OP image is clearly a bug, not Google begging you to pretty please do 8 superfluous minutes of data collection for them.

• Some people have areas they’re more comfortable with. For example, some people are afraid of driving on a bustling highway or through a claustrophobic downtown. Alternative routes make it more likely that this person can forgo a few minutes in favor of something more comfortable.
• The router isn’t omniscient. Sometimes the human using the router knows more about local conditions than the router itself does, e.g. that a road it’s taking you through has a problem. Alternative routes again make it more likely that you give the user a satisfactory route.

This comment is just fucking stupid and based on nothing when a much more cogent explanation exists. I’m sure it doesn’t hurt that you travel farther, but seriously? Show any evidence at all that this is why it performs this extremely normal and explicable routing operation.

That makes good sense; sometimes you have an unrealistic expectation for the quality of answers, and seeing the mediocre reality grounds you.

That leads into another idea: checking a candidate solution’s correctness is normally much easier than finding the solution. Computational complexity theory shows this rigorously with more formalized problems. So given a wrong answer, you have a much easier gateway from which to fall into the problem. (I’ve had this happen really badly at least once.)

I disagree. It’s more like the bystander effect than anything. If I ask a question right now and you see it, unless you’re especially passionate or sympathetic or unless the answer is trivial, you probably have better things to do, feel someone else could answer better, think I can probably figure it out myself, etc. Core point being that you’re faceless in a crowd of people who could also potentially help by answering.

Misinformation, on the other hand, triggers an emotional response that gets you personally hooked into the discussion – at least moreso than the initial question likely would’ve. Someone else has stepped out of the faceless crowd of bystanders and fucked it up, and suddenly you feel like less of a bystander.

Source: personal experience in large, collaborative projects. “Someone else will get it” is almost reflexive for unfinished work, but when I see direct misinformation, it feels like my job to correct it. I’m not afraid in the former case that my work will be lambasted; I’m afraid I simply don’t give enough of a shit to try.

Twitter user discovers Cunningham’s Law. More at 11.

(This, by the way, is one of the main engines behind massive collaborations like Wikipedia, OpenStreetMap, etc. By pointing out that the Twitter user failed to mention the Law, I’m arguably falling prey to it right now.)