I remember doing that to read and write my answers in forums. Then someone had already posted the same comment or a better version.

Normal people talk things over? I would seriously believe that to be the farfetched scenario.

I think it’s about generating alt text for people with disabilities when they are missing from pictures.

People don’t seem to grasp how terrible doxxing can be. It’s easy to distance yourself from the consequences when everything happens online and all is forgotten within a day or two. If you call the police to deal with a problem, you should expect violence. In a similar way, expecting to make people accountable when you sick an angry anonymous mob on them is foolish. Violence is the most likely result.

I hate the term and the fact it became widespread. Unfortunately, mass adoption also means it will mutate and evolution will follow its course.

I don’t think this article goes well with the philosophy of Beehaw. I understand the arguments for violent action, but there’s no context or discussion here, just a manual telling you how to act, which includes doxxing and armed action.

The obvious solution on X’s side is to ID everyone that wants to post anything. And remember that the obvious solution doesn’t have to be the best solution, a good solution or, even, a real solution at all.

Sorry to ruin your comment, even though I mean it, but they are only talking about the birds in the nests, not most birds that go with the flow like sheep.

Maybe people are not really choosing, just going with the only option they know/ remember. If they have to choose from a menu, the first option is very likely and I imagine randomness would be involved.

“If you have an outcome-based approach and you do not reach the goals, then you have to apply additional measures […] whereas now you say okay, I tried, but unfortunately, it didn’t turn out the way I wanted to,” Paulus explained.

Politicians and producers love good ideas that will attract the public’s attention, but should be tweaked just enough to not be executed as intended.

He was, uh, totally asking for it.

I’ll admit that I got confused. If you visit the site, the article is a response to the research that says women also hit men. I’d argue they simply chose stories of men beating women, flipped the gender and wanted people to be outraged.

I’ve never played any of the games, but I would understand that Link is a silent character that uses sign language.

Telegram is the same. It’s the app people will migrate to because it’s the app people learned to use when WhatsApp can’t operate for some reason. Not many people there. People here are overly attached.

For the people who suggest users just change apps. Imagine I just ban all your current forms of text communication (you can still have e-mail), but only you, your family and friends will keep their ecosystems. Do you care you won’t talk to them anymore? Can you convince them to use a new app? Does it affect your life beyond social interactions? Is it worth making your life harder?

The article didn’t go in the direction I expected. Theoretically, open source software can be fixed by experts outside of the main company, but it would be very niche. The expert would need to be familiar with the specific hardware at least, have varying degrees of medical knowledge and have access to the individual in need in some cases.

Forced updates and treating medical software as no more special than a game is the problem when dealing with apps. Tag medicals apps and make it so that system updates have to be manual or go through warnings before being deployed. Offer the option to go back to a version that previously worked. Create regulations to make companies liable for malfunctions.

Daily quests, login rewards, any other mechanic that wants to dictate when I should play, all that ruined my relation with a lot of games. I actively try to ignore them nowadays. If my line of reasoning is I should play a little more because the reward is around the corner and will be gone tomorrow, I’ll let the most precious opportunity go to waste to protect my mental health.

I think submitting the whole article will put the instance in danger of copyright strikes.

I think that’s exactly the point. The current situation is already bad, tools that reinforce the bad part of the system shouldn’t be accepted.

I think there’s something missing in this article. It sounded familiar and I remembered the old news when they mentioned Google and Australia. The issue with Google was that the news would show in the search results, which meant there’s no need to visit the source.

We really do need more romance in games not being presented as a mean to get a prize. Maybe some randomness could be applied and the same actions would not always result in the desired outcomes.

It was curious when I realized, not many years ago, that people found strange to play a character with a different gender. Imagining a different sexuality is probably the same. In both cases, games don’t go deep in making you feel like the other, which is kinda sad.