In https://lemmy.world/post/50116148 , I asked for ideas on how to improve the rules.

The 3 pieces of feedback I received:

1. should we have a “no mass downvoting” rule? too often I see an unpopular opinion post where every OP comment just gets blanket downvoted despite very much engaging in good faith - 2 upvotes, 0 downvotes
2. I just wish people upvoted unpopular opinions, instead of the opinions they agree wirh. Anything people don’t agree with, they downvote. :( - 18 upvotes, 0 downvotes (not sure if this is something we can easily turn into a rule)
3. Remove no politics rule. Let’s get some political unpopular opinions - 4 upvotes, 3 downvotes

Let me know what we should change from the list above - if anything.

If AI truly wanted to excel in the world of communication, and many more areas, then engineers should've devoted all of their time into translating langauges. Because Learning a new language is fucking hard, it's difficult because you have to not only understand different forms of grammar but also sentence structure, dialect, how to articulate sentences and phrases automatically from one another.

Some words andhow they are spelled could mean from a different mark and abrasion to a whole different meaning and to a whole different context.

Perfect Example; Japanese Katakana is IMMENSELY different than Kanji and Hiragana, yes they do mean similar but if you fucking translate it to english, there's no ACTUAL ONE TO ONE EQUIVALENT.

Yoroshiku onegaishimasu CAN mean: Nice to meet you, I'm counting on you, pelase take care of me, thanks in advance or I appreciate your cooperation.

It can literally mean several tons of things. But meanwhile English; there's nothing we can say that can equal to that besides those translations. There's no blanket words for context situations.

Another example; German gives us Schadenfreude: pleasure at someone else's misofrtune, but we borrow the word because translating it into English takes a whole ass sentence.

Many different words in general arabic, mandarin, navajo, finnish, turkish each language encodes how we see things completely different. But what did we do with a tool that can make our lives easier?

We obsess over AI making Art, Music, and Videos. Meanwhile, the crux of the barrier of one of the hardest things in our society and existence is literally right there. God what a waste.

There are some exceptions at times (like pickles), but for the most part, I hate the texture of crunchy vegetables. Particularly onions, broccoli, and cauliflower, but pretty much any veggie, is worse uncooked or undercooked imo. I hate most raw vegetables by themselves or in salads, but undercooked ones may be even worse because I was promised and expecting something cooked. Crunchy peppers or onions ruin a pizza as one example. Under-done carrots and potatoes in a curry, which I had yesterday, is another perfect example.

This may not be a universally unpopular opinion but I definitely feel like I've had a lot of people seem surprised by me not liking raw veggies.

Caramel isn't a flavour, it's just burnt sugar. I don't care for it. It's sticky and unpleasant and I would rather it not be in my desserts.

Many people who loudly pride themselves for tolerance, kindness, and openness toward difference drop those principles the moment someone expresses a preference or view they dislike. Disagreement itself is fine. What is not fine is the usual responses that follows: comments whose main purpose is to insult, shame, and make the other person feel small, delivered in front of an audience that can be counted on to approve.

It's status performance. The goal is not to show why the opinion is wrong or change minds; it is to hurt the speaker and fish for applause. Feeling morally justified does not change the nature of the act; when the sole intention is to hurt they're being evil and a bully.

The people who upvote or otherwise reward those insults are part of the same behavior. Standing by and cheering while someone is targeted is participation. It supplies the social payoff that makes the cruelty worthwhile.

This is one of the reasons large parts of the internet feel needlessly hostile. When perceived moral superiority is used as cover for meanness, and when an audience reliably encourages it, the result is environments where many people simply stop speaking. The claimed values of kindness and tolerance are revealed, in those moments, as conditional.

And no, this isn't about being tolerant towards people with extreme views. The idea for this post was sparked by my previous post about AI music and the vicious personal attacks I received for admitting to enjoying some of it.

When I refer to "cold meals", I'm talking about temperature (Cold, cooked meals).

To me, cold meals taste much better compared to hot meals. With chili, for example, the flavor becomes more rich after it has cooled down.

Additionally, cold meals are less messy than hot meals. For instance, melted cheese and grease from meats will harden when refrigerated, thus no longer dirtying the hands.

Finally, consuming hot meals can put you at risk of burning your mouth, causing prolonged pain (which sucks BTW). Cold meals do not have this issue.

IMO, the only benefit hot meals have over cold meals is warming you up and (for some meals) being ready to consume immediately after preparing it.

I have a very pragmatic view on music: all I care about is whether it sounds good or not. That's it. That's literally it. And from that standpoint the advent of AI music has been a major net positive for me.

You can choose to ignore that and come tell me about the ethics of using AI or how you care about the story behind the song and so on and that's all fine but just note that you're no longer addressing what I'm actually saying here.

I'm also not claiming it's great - only that it's good. I've yet to discover an AI song that I go back to like I do with many human-made songs but if I want to put on a playlist playing in the background then one consisting of entirely AI-made music reliably provides me well above average track after another whereas with organic music I need to sift through a ton of absolute crap to stumble upon the occasional good track that still rarely exceeds what AI is able to output. I can go on YouTube and put on a 2 hour playlist of Jazz House or similar and I don't get the urge to skip a single track.

Currently I feel like where AI still trips is lyrics - they still are only plausible sounding nonsense once you actually start paying attention to it but especially for instrumental music it has far exceeded the level of a good average human artist.

Few examples of what I'm refering to: with vocals and without.

I believe that I should listen to the community about things that impact them.

Check out the sidebar. Are there rules you think we should add/remove/change? If so, tell us.

Once we have feedback, we will review, and put changes to vote.

Vote manipulation will receive bans.

I find these types of posts to not contain anything funny at all. It doesn't become more fun because everyone is spamming it.

I really don't get the fun. It just fills my feed up with garbage.

That's all.

The dubvee guy made something the way he wanted it and shared it with others. If someone doesn't like the way he did it they can fork it or use another front end. Not everyone likes the same things and that's okay.

Just my opinion but it might not be that unpopular, who knows?

In my opinion the idea that we should only plant native plants and must eradicate invasives is comparable to ideas like allowing only white people and deporting brown people.

Plants, like people, have been migrating since ever, through different means of transport like long shoots extending the area of growth and seed dispersal by wind, water or animals. There is no point in history we could point to and say "This is the distribution of plant species over the planet that's desirable and we should strive to return to that." Just like there's no point in history where human people were distributed on the planet in a perfect way we should strive to go back to.

The idea is simple: In a modern world, there are a lot of people who simply fail at fostering democracy, but actively harm it when casting their vote. These forces need to be clamped down upon for the good of all and this planet in general.

What woule be reasons to deny the right to vote? Here are a few, but this list is not exhaustive.

• Is antivatx
• Denies clinate change (or is a "sceptic")
• Is a religious funfamentalist
• Sees queer people as sick freaks
• Believes in some form of race or gender essentialism
• Shills for billionares or big tech
• Likes generative AI and LLMs and sees them as the future

All these mostly boil down to a denial of objective, measurable reality and general anti-empiricist perspectives, mixed with personal tendencies that are simply abhorrent to a flourishing, tolerant society.

Or, to be a bit more blunt: Why the fork does a right-wing dipshit with not enough IQ to boil water be even allwowed close to a ballot box, yet alone have their mental missfires discussed with any shed of serious tone, when all they deserve is laughter and mockery at best?

Disenfranchising people who vote for the destruction of the planet is morally correct and with the ammout of propaganda by the Epstein-Class being pumped into the every information space, we might need to do this sooner then later...

I did not overly consider a certain method of enforcement for this idea, just the "moral" aspect, since the means are pure logisitics in the end.

English is my second language, you can drink a shot for every error you come across.

Holy shit why are these nuts so terrible?

Ok hear me out before smacking the downvote. I know, fuck reddit, fuck spez, burn it down, I'm right there with you. When the Library of Alexandria (allegedly) burned down, a ton of information was irreversibly lost. Scholars have been debating for centuries just how much human knowledge was lost there. If, for whatever reason, reddit were to get shut down and wiped, would we lose a comparable amount of knowledge?

One of the reasons reddit is popular as a search term is because you can get answers or opinions from real people. Not (at least, a few years ago) corporate- or government-backed sites that will spew whatever they're paid to, not shills pushing their own shitty product claiming it's a wonder solution to [insert problem here]. Real people who have some kind of knowledge base and/or experience in the topic at hand. Yeah, some of it's shit, but a lot of it at least makes a solid starting point.

If all that user-generated knowledge, all those discussions, all of that, was wiped from existence, how much poorer would we be as a species when it comes to knowledge or access to information?

All this got on my brain because I was reminded that I never mass-deleted my own posts. I was debating it, but I keep thinking about that one person who really needs an answer to their question at 3am, they do a search, find a promising thread, and the answer they need is replaced by "Glitter frog assume capricorn pincer rockets hip This post has been mass deleted by Redact." They go to the next search results, a New York Times spread on the "Top 5 HACKS to fix [problem] and, idk, it feels like not deleting is the lesser of two evils.

Obviously the true solution is probably the whole decentralizing reason we're all here. But between somewhat decent information on a shit zionist site and the complete loss of accessibility to information in favor of even more blatant corporate content, I would kind of rather keep the information there for now, instead of deleting it for a satisfying but ultimately insignificant middle finger to the other site.

There's a lot to be said on both sides, but my unpopular opinion is that the overnight disappearance of the other site would be a detriment, not a benefit,. At least for the time being.

Alright, im ready to be cleansed by the flames of the fediverse

We'll vote on the scale, but I think we can all agree that it should be gold-plated.

• Better soundtrack
• More likable characters
• No CGI

We have /c/fuckcars but no /c/fuckplanes. Yet a lot of the same arguments apply. They cause air pollution (roughly double the amount per km traveled), noise pollution and they (airports) take up a lot of space near dense living areas. Sure, some places can practically only be visited by plane, just like some places can practically only be visited by car. But people don't consider not having your holiday that far away or giving pushback on a busines trip that should have been an online meeting. Besides work-from-home being encouraged, work-from-home-country should be too.

Cars need to be discouraged in favor of busses, trams and trains. Planes nees to be discouraged in favor of high-speed trains, staycations and hopefully new alternatives like modern sailboats or electric planes.

Sadly, Tesseract users won't be able to see this post for some reason.

Anyway, I've heard this is apparently an unpopular opinion.

Thoughts?