What a cringe take.

If that 3% is made up of an outsized share of power users they might be ok. I’m more worried about the power structure shenanigans that have been going on the past few years.

Wow forgot that existed. Amazing.

I uh… typed it in and it was available?

You could scan it and that would easily be the fastest way to actually deal with they problem, minified or not.

hyperbole
hī-pûr′bə-lē
noun
A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.

I guess they aren’t aware all Muslims are fanatics. /s

Even if it’s counted, is it even more dangerous, counted using the same metrics? I have no idea, but it’s not far-fetched that it’s not, at least if we mean American soldiers. Like, it’s way more dangerous to be an Iraqi civilian than an American soldier.

“Sarcasm”

Because the points only relate to the post, not you. You can’t see your aggregate total from all posts combined, which would otherwise incentivize you to post things that will add to your total “high score”.

You still have a minor incentive to post a high scoring comment, but it’s only per-comment. If you feel like pleasing the masses, go ahead and play to their wants and needs. You might get a lot of points for it, and it’ll feel nice.

But if you wanna tell em how you really feel and put them in their place, you can just not care about your points for that post. It’s whatever. There’s no danger that your -478 points is going to drag down your total, discouraging you from ever posting something that upsets the status quo.

What? lol, no, I just meant that JFK was generally a very good president and the others were largely shit.

Late to reply, but generally Lemmy users are advanced/veteran Reddit users, and advanced Reddit users more or less share a pool of common knowledge based on topics that often come up or were significant, etc. Aspartame is up there with things like fluoride in the water supply in terms of notoriety. Not saying people agree one way or the other, but it should at least be well known that it’s controversial.

Politely disagree, in that I suspect this is a hypocritical sentiment. Most users who get off of Elon news will agree with this position now but then cry foul when this community is spammed with a subject not to their liking. And as much as the ideology of free speech (rightly) resonates, just like with free markets, some minimal regulation is needed in practice; otherwise some fanatics could choke this feed up with, I dunno, 99% Microsoft news, all the time, and you wouldn’t be able to say shit because you “strongly believe people should be able to post whatever they want”. I doubt that you would stand by your lofty convictions so strongly then.

Beyond that, there is nothing wrong with expressing a desire for more or less of something—it’s just an opinion. It’s a bullshit argument to say, “If you don’t like it, instead of articulating why, just use the limited non-descriptive tool provided to reduce your passionate sentiment into a trivial binary value and cast it into the sea of thousands just like it; or else, like, go create an entirely new community or a custom feed or whatever you want. But mainly, just fuck off.”

Even if the value of money goes up, it’s by a paltry 1-2% and it still wouldn’t seem to make sense to hoard rather than invest, unless I’m missing something. In what scenario would any rich person just sit on their money? Likewise, the impact of 2% deflation on a bank loan is well within the variance in rates we see today, and I imagine in such an economy the rates would be adjusted somewhat to compensate.

Simply put, the difference between an inflating vs deflating currency doesn’t seem enough to drastically alter people’s behavior. In the short to medium term it seems almost a non-issue, at least for regular people, and in the long term people won’t get fucked out of their life savings. I imagine the vast majority of the population doesn’t invest their money. Which policy would they prefer?

Hell if I’m about to let some boojwazi tell me how to spell.

Sadly, the humanitarian concern of Ukraine’s use of cluster bombs is not the most important.

The real issue is why we’re sending Ukraine cluster bombs in the first place.

We’re not doing it as part of some strategy or for some kind of tactical advantage. We’re doing it because we don’t have anything else left to send them. We’ve run out of modern munitions and won’t be getting much more anytime soon. That’s why we’re sending Ukraine cluster bombs.

And the reason this article exists is because Ukraine is almost certainly not using them effectively, but they want to convince us otherwise. Cluster bombs don’t do shit to tanks or buildings. They were designed for targeting people hiding in the jungle. Why would anyone feel the need to write an article saying, “Hey, btw, these weapons you paid for are definitely working out really well. They’re super good at destroying Russians, for sure!”? I suspect it’s because they’re doing jack shit.

“Information known for half a century that nevertheless didn’t mean jack squat because it couldn’t be legally explained in such a way that would convince a layman court to break past precedent; but that we’ve now reframed into a compelling interpretation that much more obviously meets the standards required for a court to rule something as ‘predatory pricing’'; thus, any future cases brought are much more likely to succeed.”

tldr: We think we’ve found a way around the technicality VCs have been hiding behind all these years.

I think he was just explaining what the other person meant. You’re inferring or assuming a subtext of disagreement or antagonism that I’m just not seeing.

For money laundering?

That’s racist!