There is no greater vote of confidence for a technology than sex workers adopting it. This should be cause for celebration.

I would never compare, being a sex worker is obviously incredibly more honorable

But...saying that something is more honorable than something else is comparing them?

EDIT: to be clear, her point is absolutely valid. This isn't (to misquote a replier) "But I must find way for sex lady be dumb". Her actual point is spot-on. This particular linguistic evolution just feels weird to me - feels like the new "literally".

In my first couple months, I broke Amazon so that no-one in Europe could buy video for a few hours. On a Friday, right before going on a week's vacation.

The way that the ensuing investigation and response was carried out - 100% blame-free, and focused on "how did these tools let him down? How can we make sure no-one ever makes that same mistake again?" - gave me a career-long interest in Software Resiliency and Incident Management.

laughs in WASM

The way the score is calculated is hidden from the public

I mean.....technically, I guess, the specific parameters are hidden? But the meaningful actions - the ways in which you can improve your score - are extremely clearly advertized.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not exactly a passionate advocate for the system - but it's nowhere near as obfuscated as people claim. And if you accept the premise that there needs to be some algorithmic way to evaluate someone's creditworthiness, "their past reliability in repaying debts" is a pretty reasonable choice.

People complaining about a highly-upvoted post: we did it, Fediverse, we're finally at feature-parity with Reddit!

My unpopular opinion is that DLC is not, in and of itself, bad. If you don't want it, don't buy it! If you do want it - great, no problem! In a world without DLC, you either have to buy the whole game, or not. If you tried it and didn't like it, you have wasted the whole price of the game. Whereas in a DLC system, you've spent the price of the base game, but that's effectively just a fraction of the total game price. You risked less.

What is a problem - and what I think most people who think they're mad about DLC are actually mad about - is charging a price that isn't commensurate with the amount of content you get. If a full game is "worth" $60, and it's split up into a $20 base game and 4 $10 DLCs - great, everyone is (or, should be!) happy. But if the publisher charges $60 for $20-worth of base game and then charges for DLC on top, you should be pissed - but you should still be pissed about that mispricing even if the DLC didn't exist. Yes, DLC is the reason why that pricing strategy is adopted - but that doesn't mean that DLC itself is inherently bad. There are possible implementations that are not flawed.

Arguments about the definitions of Communism or Property aside - yes, my farm. As in, the one I work on. The possessive pronoun, despite the name, sometimes connotes association rather than ownership - I do not own my school, my country, my street or (despite what Republicans might wish) my wife.

Mastodon is to Twitter as Lemmy is to Reddit.

I would love to know more! Feel free to vent.

God I fucking hate merge commits.

I think you're being a little too quick to judge (no pun intended) by dismissing these scenarips as assigning blame. The point of these problems isn't to decide whose "fault" it is or who is the "bad guy" - they are thought experiments to explore what is "right" to do, according to various schools of thought.

In the original trolley problem, or in this one, it's totally fair for you to say "whatever happens, it's not the chooser's fault - they were forced into this position, and so they cannot be to blame". That's fine - but even if they are absolved of blame the question still remains of what is right for them to do. If your answer is "whatever they want (because engaging with terorrists' demands is always wrong)", or "whatever is the opposite of what they're being pressured to do", or "whatever is the least action", or "whatever rminimizess suffering", or "whatever minimizes undeserved suffering", those are all still answers to the question, without any implications of blame or guilt to the chooser!

I reject the premise. I've had three interactions with the DMV in-person, and all three were smooth and pleasant.

Their website was irredeemably broken (and poorly-designed even if it had worked as intended), but that's a different story...

They're not inherently insulting - there are ways to use those phrases appropriately, but they can be (and often are) used sarcastically, when the speaker had been clear in the first place.

And those who don't, bounce off the fact that it's not intuitive to follow someone from their user page.

Mastodon is not as complicated as it is sometimes made out to be, but it'a disingenuous to pretend that it's simple, either.

When it was invented, it was complex and annoying, even by today's standards.

My friend, that's positively milquetoast in comparison to Stewart Lee.

"You used to be a child once, so you aren't allowed to be frustrated at any behaviours of children or choices of their caregivers" sure is a perspective.

Yes, I was once a child. And if my parents had taken me on a flight before I was sufficiently mature not to yell during it, they would have been being irresponsible and selfish. "Babies scream, sometimes there's nothing you can do to stop them" is true, but doesn't imply that you should be allowed to take them anywhere.

Tikka Masala is an Indian-Inspired dish which was invented in the UK by people with Indian cultural heritage. That's about as concise a description as you can get without running into difficulties of definition - there's no consistent way of defining what "being a dish" means without running into contradictions.

In fact General Tso's is the perfect counter-example: Multiple Chinese people have told me they enthusiastically disown General Tso's Chicken and explicitly call it American food. So if we say "a dish belongs to a country if it's invented there", then Tikka Masala is British (which I agree "feels" wrong); but if we say "a dish belongs to a country if it was inspired by the cuisine of that country", then General Tso's is Chinese, which, apparently not!

And that's without even considering the question of how far "back" you should go with inspiration - what if a dish was inspired by how the Indians used food they got from the Persians who traded it with the Chinese - is it Indian food or Chinese food? (Idk if that's historically nonsense, but you get my point) Why is the most-recent ancestor more important than the environment of creation?

TIL Obsidian isn't FOSS!