Well I didn’t want to have a bio, but Lemmy doesn’t let me null it out, so I guess I’ll figure out something to put here later.
I don’t use hotspot on my phone on a daily basis, I use it if I’m out in the field somewhere and my work laptop needs Wi-Fi and then the hotspot feature turns itself off automatically when my laptop is no longer connected to my phone for a period of time.
I’ll occasionally use hotspot for my Wi-Fi only personal tablet as well while I’m traveling. But that’s about the extent of my use for it.
Does your phone not turn off hotspot automatically when nothing is connected for a period of time?
Well, I don’t know about you, but I haven’t been particularly impressed by the results that an already dumb populace has achieved recently in America. So America getting even dumber doesn’t particularly bode well…
We ought to be concerned about the numbers even if there’s not much we can do about the kids entering adulthood.
What you’re describing is only possible on de-anonymized platforms that essentially have “know your customer” type policies where users have to provide some kind of proof of their identity. While I agree that there is value in social spaces where everyone generally knows the people they’re interacting with are who they say they are, I don’t think this is ever going to be feasible in a federated social platform. I think Facebook is the closest thing we have to what you’re describing, to be honest, and I believe Meta has even kicked around having a more sandboxed Instagram for minors (though I don’t use Instagram, so I’m not certain on the details there).
For me, in most cases on a platform like Lemmy, a person’s age is not something I care about. I care about what people are sharing and saying. But then again, none of my interests for online discussion at this point in my life are really age centric. I think there are clearly better platforms than Lemmy if people want to guarantee they’re only interacting within their age specific peer groups.
The article actually addressed this and apparently they are even developing some resistance to diatomaceous earth. The only sure fire treatments described are extreme heat or cold. It’s a pretty horrifying situation we’ve made for ourselves.
A study paid for by casinos shows casinos are a benefit to society instead of a drain? *Shocked Pikachu face*
It’s easy to look at all the positives when you just ignore the negatives, after all.
Yes, Koch has apparently funded a good amount of Ken Burns’ work. I have no reason to suspect that Ken Burns has let Koch influence the content of his work, however.
I would highly recommend the recent Freakonomics Radio series about whaling. It’s Episodes 549-551 and the bonus episode from 2023-08-06. If you’re firmly against killing any living creature (or at least sentient creatures), I highly doubt it will change your mind (and I don’t think that it should or that it tries to), but I also think it is really fascinating learning about the history of the whaling industry and hearing the perspective of a modern whaler in the bonus episode. Putting aside the obvious ethical issues with killing sentient creatures, it’s interesting to consider things like whether there’s a sustainable level of whaling, what a sustainable quota would look like, and how much we’re in competition with certain whale species for harvesting fish as food for our own species. I personally appreciated how unbiased Freakonomics tried to be in their discussion of the topic.
Or avoiding a certain food or drink after becoming violently ill after consuming it 😬
And make America pay for it! That’d make me laugh every time I think about it for now and forever after Donald Trump tried to get Mexico to pay for his dumb fucking wall.
Good point, but I feel like they could probably just translate that scene without having the innuendo (like the direct translation for “beach off” probably doesn’t sound anything like the translation of “beat off”, so it would become more of a whimsical non sequitur directly translated).
I think there’s a fair amount in this movie that doesn’t really translate well outside American/Western culture anyway. For me, that scene was funny because it’s repeating a pun that points to the Ken characters’ innocence when in the real world, they’d be mocked mercilessly by some people. And it forces the audience to think about their own reactions when insecure straight men sometimes follow sentences like that jokingly with, “no homo,” to point out that, despite unintentionally saying something that sounded kind of gay, they are not in fact gay. At any rate, I don’t see this scene as an endorsement of homosexuality, but rather a commentary on society’s fixation on hypermasculine language.
That’s good to know! I was initially confused about how you double a $50k amount and get to $350k, but I’m guessing it works as an additional fine every day and is like:
Maybe I’m desensitized, but I honestly don’t remember any gay moments in this movie. There are obviously plenty of guys wearing really “flamboyant” outfits, but it was contrasted with their toxic masculinity (i.e. behavior mostly associated with the types of people who actually tend to be homophobic), which is what made it so goddamn funny.
And I also have no idea what they’re talking about with promoting body transformation. Unless you know going in that the one actress is trans, you might not even guess she is. The main joke that even references genitalia is making fun of the fact that the Barbie and Ken dolls have nothing there…
And all this is beside the point anyway. Modern societies shouldn’t be catering to the precious feefees of religious/conservative snowflakes. They can just choose not to see this movie instead of ruining it for everyone.
Don’t forget, they also get legal exposure!
It’s the leaning tower of cheeza!
On a serious note, that was probably not a great way to go and I feel bad for the family.
Right, why would people assume he’s saying Jews killed Jesus when he did not, in fact, say anything about Jews and Jews did not kill Jesus? I could make the argument that people assuming the worst possible interpretation of Jamie Foxx’s words is, in itself, potentially offensive, but I’m not going to jump to conclusions about why they jumped to those conclusions. These types of non stories happen all the time on Twitter and get way more traction than they ever should. We shouldn’t even be talking about this right now lol
There’s also nothing that says you have to actually spike your hawk up every day for work. As you noted, there are plenty of practical reasons not to when you’re working. Most people I’ve known with substantial hawks only spiked it up in their free time. One guy I knew only did it when he was going to concerts.
Maybe I’m just not seeing it here, but how is continuing to sell these shoes not reinforcing Kanye’s brand? I understand they’re donating some revenue to a good cause, but the article also makes it sound like Adidas is still making a healthy profit off these shoes. This just reeks of corporate pandering and virtue signaling. If Adidas really wanted to make a difference, they could take what they need to cover their costs and donate substantially more than that $10 million.
Personally, I think it’d be nice if you could self-host just the bridge instances and connect them with beeper yourself, so that the part that isn’t e2e encrypted is running on software you can validate and hardware you control.
I 100% agree this would be a great solution. That’s what I thought this page was going to be at first until I kept reading and realized it’s just a config guide for the Matrix Ansible setup. I wish they didn’t say “self host Beeper” on that page at all because self hosting Matrix has absolutely nothing to do with the Beeper service other than their devs built the bridges that they’re showing you how to set up with Matrix.
The federal government should charge Texas for the costs to remove the unauthorized barriers. The fact that the rest of us are paying for their idiocy is appalling.