No, it’s not you, the joke just doesn’t work.

So in other words, the documentary was so successful in decrying the rampant hyperconsumption that was accepted in its time, that such rampant is no longer considered acceptable or normal. And on that basis, you consider it to be facile, obvious… “problematic”?

No shit its conclusions were already obvious to educated people. They were never the target demographic. Literally nobody references Supersize Me as a “study”. It isn’t, and it hasn’t ever claimed to be. It’s a shock story to grab the attention of the least well-informed segment of the population. That you’re trying to call it out for not succeeding at being something it never claimed to be, and even more so for succeeding at the thing it did try to be, is not a problem with the documentary.

Whenver you come up with similarly hot takes, the comments always end up being filled with a you offering litany of obtuse bad reasoning.

Ah, sure, the youths these days are so violent, they’re always going about the place besieging castles and knocking down fortifications.

Being a proud maritime nation, sure we should be celebrating this by having each denomination of note show a different famous vessel?

£5 is Boaty McBoatface.

If someone damaged my property, I’d feel pretty aggrieved… and it still wouldn’t make them a terrorist. And the police wouldn’t do nothing, because damaging property is a crime. That property being a few planes doesn’t magically change the equation. Just like the government wouldn’t be doing nothing if they hadn’t designated PA as a terrorist organisation, because a whole raft of criminal charges would still apply.

Literally, and I want to stress this, literally nobody has suggested that PA should not face appropriate and proportionate consequences for their actions. And you knew that. You knew damed well that people have no problem with the government taking action, as long as that action is legal and democratically responsible. Yet you deliberately chose to dishonestly equate opposition to terrorist designation with support for them getting off scot free, even though that’s an obviously false and mendacious equivalence.

You are not very skilled at this dishonesty malarkey. Consider yourself called out.

I think that’s probably a fairly uncontroversial opinion. In the city-builder genre, Lethis: Path of Progress aimed to be the definitive city-building game of its time, hoping to match the peaks of Caesar and Pharaoh in the city-builder heyday. Instead, Lethis ended up being a huge flop, precisely because it slavishly copied the mechanics of Caesar without understanding that games as a whole have evolved since then.

Lethis lacked certain quality of life features that now feel obvious and baseline. What’s sad is that these features had already evolved towards the tail end of the city-builder heyday, in games such as Children of the Nile, and now feel glaringly obvious by their omission. Other city-builders that haven’t been so tied to the classics have seen more success (although there’s been no true breakout hits, sadly, no great renaissance in the genre).

The inside of the cone is coated in chocolate to prevent it from getting soggy from all the melted icecream. It tends to pool at the bottom because that’s how gravity works.

There is no “random” plug of chocolate. It’s an inherent function of the product. No matter what the flavour of icecream is, the cone itself is inherently a chocolate product.

So yes, you are, in fact, knowingly purchasing chocolate products, as evidenced by the fact that you’re currently complaining about all the chocolate in these cones that you keep purchasing. If you hate chocolate that much, then maybe just don’t buy it?

This is entirely a problem of your own making. And people are correct in pointing out that your responses have been nothing but toxic.

I don’t follow any blogs particularly consistently/regularly, but the one that I find myself coming back to at intervals is Raymond Chen’s The Old New Thing. It’s got a pretty heavy programming focus, but also occasionally covers interesting little trivia from Windows history. I’m not a professional coder, and I no longer even do any coding as a hobby, so take it from me when I say that there’s content of interest to programmers and non-programmers alike.

References and phrases don’t make a culture. The words may change, but the culture here is absolutely the same as Reddit. Which is why it’s so damned cringe when you see someone on Lemmy offer a smug, self-satisfied criticism of some supposed inferiority in the Reddit userbase. That kind of smugness is peak Reddit-culture.

“Summation” already means something else, and funnily enough words can have different meanings in different contexts without causing any confusion.

OP literally emphasised the distinction between process and result in their post, specifically so that this exact confusion would not occur, and yet still everyone is talking about the word for the result instead of the process.

PCCs were a mistake. Never should we have let the ruling class impose a politicised police force upon us. It was inevitable that it would lead to ignorant nonsense like this.

What an absurd comment. As if defederation were ever a suggestion? As if it were even possibility? I’m struggling to understand what point you were even trying to convey here.

Did the previous lack of transphobia-specific guidance somehow negate the fact that abuse and bigotry, including transphobic bigotry, was already against the rules and banworthy in this instance? Do we constantly having our finger hovering over the ‘defederate’ button, just in case an instance is not deemed ideologically pure enough?

Well apparently, yes! In spite of the fact that this guidance takes a very sensibly neutral tone, it is precisely that neutral tone (predating this specific guidance, but as a response to the same neutrality that it embodies) that has directly resulted in this instance being defederated by at least one major instance already.

That the fediverse supports defederation does not mean that it’s acceptable for everyone to bring it up at every opportunity, as if it should be the action of first response. Defederation is a last resort for rogue instances, and to bring it up outside of that context is dreadfully gauche.

I never cease to be baffled by the seemingly boundless glee with which Americans will repeat this myth that has no basis outside of Internet cope. Literally nobody born in the last 100 years would read “trump” to mean “fart”. The only meaning of “trump” to British people is the winning suit in a game of cards, or the concept of winning in general. There’s literally a collectible card game in Britain called “Top Trumps”, and let me tell you, it ain’t about huffing farts. Unlike your absurd comment.

And even if people did understand “trump” to mean “fart”, it’s still an astonishing feat of mental gymnastics to claim that “it makes no sense that you would elect someone called that”, because funnily enough, a person’s name is totally unrelated to their ability to do the job, and lots of people have funny-sounding names that go completely unremarked upon, because people understand that a name is just a name.

I absolutely hate the guy, and yet when I see people purporting to make fun of his name based on something that isn’t even true, rather than, y’know, attacking his actual policies and actions, it makes me despair at the pathetic state of American politics. Seriously, your country is going to the dogs, and the best thing you could think of to combat that is to baselessly make fun of a guy’s name?

There was certainly a ‘no-brain’ somewhere in her thought process, I’ll grant her that.

But a tomato isn’t even an actual fruit…

“Actual” refers to the ordinary “plain English” meaning. Under the “plain English” definition, i.e. non-technical, non-domain-specific, a tomato is a vegetable.

It’s a botanical fruit, but an actual vegetable.

That feels like a rather tactless choice of phrasing in the headline, given that there are people literally under fire by Israel right now.