Ooooh it's a specific accent, gotcha. Thanks!

IDK what "trans-atlantic" means for you, nor what you mean by putting on an accent or impression, but I'm German and I made it a habit to try to pronounce foreign words closer to their native language. I do roll rs in burrito, for instance. It's not a big change. Croissant is a given since everyone here pronounces it fairly French anyway. I don't know how Sashimi is pronounced, but if I had regular encounters with the word, I'd probably learn.

Because violence tends to either escalate or peter out. Either you run out of people that support you or you eventually force the government to throw all its might at suppressing you. Unless you are very well-prepared, organised and have sufficient and resilient support, it might fail and not achieve much other than provide further pretext for crackdown.

Historically, non-violent resistance has a good track record, if (and only if) it is targeted well and applied with resilience and persistence. It has a potential to galvanise the participants, stir people into action (which helps with recruiting more) and cast the injustice of a violent system into relief.

Mind, non-violently doesn't mean writing stern letters or standing on the wayside looking pissed. It absolutely includes disrupting, getting in the way, being a nuisance, being impossible to ignore. The Nashville sit-ins, for example, obstructed the business of lunch counters that refused to serve black people by taking up spots reserved for the people that the establishment would actually like to do business with. In our example, people might occupy the offices of the corrupt administrators, asking to talk to them and making them listen to their constituents in the most literal way, refusing to leave until they get results.

It most certainly will be considered some form of unlawful conduct and will possibly be met with force. The police will be called and start making arrests. But a well-organised and patient campaign to coerce the corrupt officials into rescinding their decisions or resigning (at which point their successors will be subjected to the same demand) doesn't need to hurt people.

It just needs to erode their will until complying with the demands looks like the most bearable option.

Sure, if the provider is RFC882 compliant. I believe 882 has since been superseded too?

I believe when I last researched the question to address some issue in my own regex, some Stackoverflow comment brought up an example of an address that could receive mail but wasn't compliant.

Hence the more robust approach, which is also the only feasible way to ensure that there are no typos and that the recipient is actually the one signing up: Send a verification mail to that recipient. If the correct confirmation token gets back to you, someone or something probably got and read that mail.

You can do some minimal check to avoid things like spaces, ensure there is an @ in there somewhere, but beyond that, it's really not sensible to check them against some long-winded regex.

Particularly when you're vibe-coding, can't know whether the generator got the regex correct and also can't debug it.

Most likely, it won't do much; a drop in a bucket.

But enough drops can fill a bucket, and enough letters can at least bog down their mail handlers, send a message and hopefully get on their nerves.

Tl;dr: turns out heatwaves can melt dress standards.

One coworker bantered with another yesterday because of the latter wearing shorts, along the lines of "pants or skirts only here". I pointedly rolled back from my desk to show I was wearing shorts too. He suggested they should all pitch in to get me a Kilt. We met two others on the hallway wearing shorts. I guess he was out of jokes.

In general, the more traditional business dress standards seem to have relaxed these last weeks. Particularly when women wear short pants, pencil skirts are swapped for loose ones and summer dresses replace pantsuits, that indicates they're less worried about comments than about heat stroke and I don't think it's just due to shifting workplace culture.

(Though I do hope that this is also indicative of a shifting workplace culture; there is a push for more progressive policies but I don't think I need to elaborate on the resilience of some mentalities.)

That section is weird cross between fetish erotica and hate porn:

"That faithless country is like a woman that... does depraved things. Things like, uh, what's the most depraved I can come up with? IDK, donkey dick? I'm sure really lusty women like donkey dick. So this faithless woman just really, really enjoys donkey dick. And jizz, loads of jizz. Love that- I mean, she loves that. Not me. I'm severely disgusted by the vivid image of her just going to town on that big, nice-

Shit, gotta rewrite the page. Maybe keep it less graphic so I can actually finish writing it. Anyway, yeah, such a dirty woman.

What was I writing about anyway?"

I originally meant to reply to the "look nice enough to be accepted" sentiment, but ADHD butchered it front to back and impulse control didn't catch it.

My half-finished thought was that you should wear what makes you happy instead of wondering whether you "look nice enough". Basically, trying to reassure / validate you that you look nice as you are.

Then I remembered that many people hold others to some arbitrary standars of how they have to look and lamented that. That reasoning probably should have made me scrap the first part because it kinda contradicts it.

Then I felt I should emphasise that "to be accepted" shouldn't depend on being "enough" by any standard. I'm not entirely sure in retrospect what point I was going for with that either.

All in all, it was a chaotic train of thought, unfinished, phrased with the eloquence of sleep-deprived AuDHD and posted without overthinking it. Sorry.

I don't think there's a good way to salvage it, probably shouldn't have posted it, but I did and so I'll leave it up for context's sake.

A guy I know is trying to pitch a tool to people he made with AI. Which is to say AI made it for him, because his coding knowledge just about covers HTML and CSS, as best as I can tell, so everything else (and probably a good chunk of those too) is slopped up.

Recently, someone apparently had difficulties signing up with their email, but only their email. Their partner's worked fine. The guy was at a loss. I'm not sure he could read the code at all or has any idea of how troubleshooting works.

If it was open source, I'd probably look into it just out of curiosity. My money is on "AI trained on junior devs' output did the junior dev thing where they discover RegEx and try to use it for email input validation", because the provider has a dash in their domain and that's the simplest explanation for email address troubles.

He also should hire an actual developer to fix his shit. My rates start at 100€/h, increasing by 10€ every time he suggests I ask AI.

I think happiness is the most (platonically) beautiful thing about anyone, regardless of identity, presentation, age, clothes, whatever. I know not everyone thinks like that, but I wish they did.

Also, acceptance should never be conditional on looks. The only condition for acceptance should be that it's mutual.

The effort has just not been worth the time or the expense
I've exhausted all my energy, for minimal recompense
The distinct lack of acknowledgement has now begun to gall
And I've come to realize that I don't give a fuck at all

If you actually want to rape/steal than you're probably too far gone for Christ's forgiveness anyways.

Actually, at least in scripture, facing and resisting temptation is a virtue. There is a whole story about Jesus going into the desert to expose himself to the devil's temptation just to flex his morally superior willpower.

On a Christian blues album I listened to as a kid, there was also a song ("Fireproof", I think?) that has the devil tempt the narrator in various ways, with the result always being "Ain't no way, devil: I've been washed in the blood of the lamb. Ain't no use, I'm fireproof."

It's a whole theme. In the flavour I grew up with, there was this undercurrent of "we're constantly fighting a spiritual war", so facing temptation was a battle, and defying it a victory in that war.

Of course, that encouraged talking up the severity of the temptation you faced to make your victory look even greater, Caesar style: "Look at this strong, vicious adversary that the superior Roman Legions (under my command) overcame!" I'd credit that parish with many things, but excessive honesty is not among them.

Shame about the album though, it was a banger.

I think the difference is that his issue with the child-fucker accusations is the bad press, not that he considers it a failing. Iran and the pool are objectively something that visibly went wrong. He doesn't want people to give him shit about his involvement with Epstein, but he doesn't even want people to acknowledge the other two being failures.

Bonus: A game you no longer play could still net something on the second-hand market, or maybe you'd trade it with someone. I know there was a group of people at my school that collectively had like two or three copies of the various Pokemon games they'd pass around, exchanging and loaning them on the fly.

Steam Family Sharing is a thing, but not quite so trivial to set up as handing them the cartridge. Never mind about reselling digital copies of games.

Please don't give me hope...

Defeatism is the catalyst of resignation. Resignation is the enemy of progress.

If movements get more successful the more support they have, then participating in hopes of success becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: the more people hope, the more people stand together, the more likely it is that their hope will come true. It's worth a try, because the more people try, the better their chances.

The Civil Rights Movement was fueled by pent-up frustration, catalysed into courage by hope, guided by cunning strategists. It didn't achieve all its goals, and what it did achieve is being rolled back bit by bit, but it did achieve something. It took more than just hope, but without, it would have never taken off.

Hope is the antidote to defeatism. Allow yourself to hope, no matter how ridiculous it may look now. Better to hope and be wrong than to despair and be right.

It's also a size thing, I think.

If a forum has a few dozen regulars and a few hundred occasional users, you'll see some names pop up frequently and build some impression of the user behind it. In my view, that's a good spot between anonymity (I still don't know the person behind the name, and I don't need to) and accountability, because there's a certain reputation attached to that name. If the name has meaning, standing for something with it does too.

With the internet growing in size, forums growing in population and social media... well, doing what it did, the volume of names exploded. Sockpuppets, alt accounts, bots, huge communities, higher turnover of users all make it harder to attach meaning to individual names. Some random name I don't know, won't remember and have no relation to replying "+" doesn't mean much to me. It's not much less anonymous than an upvote.

Lemmy is smaller. I have started picking up on names here and there, forming associations. I remember seeing yours before, for instance. Didn't you also grow up in a charismatic cult?
As Lemmy grows, I imagine keeping track of all the frequent fliers outside smaller communities will get difficult too. Upvotes are just the convenient solution for the problem of a growing user base where using explicit replies to signal approval would lead to a lot of clutter. Easily accessible lists of votes might make that more transparent, but wouldn't fix the impersonal nature of large platforms and the toxicity that encourages.

And there, ultimately, lies my point: If we're equipped to handle communities of a few hundred people at most, how do we cope with an internet of millions?

Either way, it seems like Trump is the one who is terrible at his job.

Sound reasoning but his feelings don't care about your facts

I'm not convinced down votes do much. I know I don't care a whole lot, personally. They feel like a somewhat toxic holdover from other platforms, a useless form of impersonal disapproval rather than genuine and productive discussion.

Sometimes, I genuinely produce an L take, in which case I'm more concerned about the replies pointing it out.
Sometimes it's just bad phrasing or misunderstanding, where I also try to figure out what I did wrong by how people respond.
And sometimes I find that I kicked a nest of hornets whose opinions and down votes also mean nothing to me, providing validation at best.

I tend to engage way more than I should, telling myself that someone else might read it and take something away from the arguments being made, but just downvoting is probably even less productive. Hence, if you don't wanna deal with their cuntery, blocking them is the most useful and healthy solution for your own sanity and enjoyment.

(I should also note that there are people I've gotten into arguments and disagreements with on here without blocking them. I don't want an echo chamber, and if I silence all who disagree, that's where I'll end up. That's tangential to the point, but my personal reason why I use blocking more sparingly.)

It requires exponential levels of labor for every cosmetic

Unless all games use the same models and shit so the cosmetics actually are directly transferable because we're only getting "generic variant of the One Game every game is now a generic variant of for the sake of content portability". If you get too creative with your designs, you can't participate in the universal cosmetic sharing and mutual marketing thing all the cool kids do.

I wonder whether the engine will actually lock down your range of options to prevent that problem? Or maybe just heavily discourage developers from not implementing the "One Game" stuff. I'm both put off and curious to see how it'll develop.

legal agreements with disparate game owners

Actually, the "stamp all your stuff from the same mould, and because we own all the things you stamp from that mould, we can freely share them between games and also hold your work hostage" approach would solve that too. If it all becomes too generic to copyright individually, whoever holds the rights to the One Game has freedom to do with his games whatever he wants.

Sure, I make an asset in my game for a skin the player bought in your game, who keeps the money?

The longer I think about this, the more I worry that my One Game joke is the only way to actually make this work, and also very desirable for Epic. That would make it less of a joke and more of a foreshadowing.

Because I'm pretty sure the answer to that question is gonna be "the owner of the One Game". Whoever first published that skin will get a cut of the sales, but since they're so easily transferable across the standard objects you're expected to have used, you don't need to do much to have it transfer anyway. Besides, your skins also get shared with other games, making for free advertisement!

Unfortunately, one game made Nazi uniforms, Epic refuses to ban them because they make good money off it and now you've either got Nazis running around your game or you need to somehow get out of the asset sharing thing.

Okay, now I'm horrified at the prospect of how this might develop.

Now now, let's not speak of violence.
Announcing intentions is a bad idea.