There definitely is a critical mass needed for social media. Reddit hit critical mass around 2012 when digg imploded. When I joined reddit in like 2010, it felt very much like Lemmy currently does.
I think that’s a major problem with Lemmy, because it’s so disjointed it’s hard to hit the critical mass needed to keep conversations interesting and fresh.
I’m curious what query you used.
It’s people having their battery die while they wait for an open charger.
Toasting to the new year?
I didn’t say I think it’s a good thing, just that the truck guy probably think it is.
It’s supposed to be a good thing. I don’t get the context of the stickers either unless it’s just supposed to be a useless explanation of the situation.
Imma leave this here since they put it quite nicely. https://lemmy.sdf.org/comment/6818226
Also, just read their username and you’ll see it’s clearly exactly what we all think it is.
Almost like the entire country was built over Indian burial grounds.
Let’s be real though, there’s no such thing as curses. This is a human situation problem.
First, you only read the headline of the article. If you’re going to read headlines and speculate the rest of the story, you’re going to create the most extreme version. Headlines are intentionally misleading and catchy to get you to click and share them. Read the actual story from multiple sources, and you’ll probably find that the full story is a lot less crazy.
But yes, there are some stories that are just as gruesome as their headline. There’s not much more to a story like “6 elementary school students dead after another school shooting” and these things happen here significantly more than elsewhere in the world. There’s lots of debate about why and no one can agree on an exact reason, but it’s definitely a situational issue. Meaning that if you took the exact same person who murdered children and gave them an entirely different life from birth, they likely will be an entirely different person. It’s not something that some people are just “born” to do, it’s something their situation points them to.
My personal opinion on the solution to the issue is to have ten to a hundred times more guidance counselors at school, with mandatory, regular confidential counseling/therapy for each student. (Of course with strong firearm regulations in the meantime.) But honestly I don’t think the problem is going anywhere any time soon. The absolute craziness shown by millions of people during 2020-2021 shows that the people who need help the most will fight that help every step of the way.
I used Smart Audiobook Player to listen to an audiobook recently and it worked great.
This is a good tool for visualizing your raid needs from your capacity and total number of drives.
https://www.seagate.com/products/nas-drives/raid-calculator/
I’ll preface that I’m no raid expert, just a nerd that uses it occasionally.
The main benefit of most raid configurations is the redundancy they provide. If you lose one drive, you do not lose any data. It’s kinda obvious how you can have 1:1 redundancy, you just have an exact copy of the drive. But there are ways to split data into three chunks so that you can rebuild the data from any two chunks, and 5 chunks so that you can loose and two chunks. Truly understand how raid does this could easily be an entire college course.
Raid 0 is the exception. All it does is “join together” a bunch of drives into one disk. And if you lose an individual disk you likely will lose most of your data.
Another big difference is read/write speed. From my understanding, every raid configuration is slower to read and write than if you were using a single drive. Each raid configuration is varying levels of slower than the “base speed”
I typically use raid 5 or 6, since that gives some redundancy, but I can keep most of my total storage space.
The main thing in all of this is to keep an eye on drive health. If you lose more drives than your array can handle, all of your data is gone. From my understanding, there is no easy way to get the data off a broken raid array.
He might be, but I still get unpleasant vibes from how he writes.
Yeah, I’d rather not if he talks like he writes. Again, I am fully on board with his message, but he writes like someone who doesn’t know how to have a conversation with another person.
This writer seems like a proper neck beard. I 100% agree with most of what they say, but this feels like it’s straight out of 4chann
Edit: I read a few other articles of his and watch a few of his videos/interviews. This article is an extreme side of him apparently. I still think he is extremely socially awkward, he can’t hold eye contact for longer than a millisecond and struggles to answer questions in less than twenty words.
I do fully agree with almost everything I’ve heard him say. I just don’t like the way he says it.
I’ve literally never heard GUI said as “gee ewe eye” before.
You could just say UI, avoids the gooey phobia and sounds less weird than g u i.
I think those make sense as deviations. I’ve heard “my sequel” but you’re absolutely right about postgresql.
The name is kinda irrelevant like hard vs soft g in gif. People know what you mean when you say either.
But in that same vein, the creator of the “graphics interchange format” says the pronunciation is soft g, but basically everyone says hard g… So “official” pronunciation is kinda irrelevant.
I don’t judge anyone who uses whichever term they want, but I’ve just noticed the general trend in my smallish interaction bubble.
The only people I know who actually call it ess queue ell are either too new to know the “sequel” pronunciation, or the type of person you generally smell before you see.
It’s irrelevant if it’s in the terms or not if Sony knows for a fact that most people will not check the terms. It doesn’t matter if people should read the terms, it doesn’t matter how the terms are specified. That information is buried in a 10,000 word contract no one is going to read (the PSN Store terms and conditions is actually about 10,000 words, over an hour to read)
Customers could “buy” a product with the understanding that they owned the product in perpetuity. Sony then removed the product from the customer after the purchase without providing a refund.
You’re not even trying to understand the opposing view, so I’m kinda done with this conversation.
The fact that it’s video or a game is irrelevant to the argument, but I have amended my comment.
Second, I specifically said how they “understand the terms” because like .01% of customers read the terms and conditions before buying, even for super large purchases like cars and houses most people don’t read the entire contract. It’s a flaw in the legal system that allows companies to hide shady practices like what Sony is doing and force customers to just take it. Even if you read it, you’d need a law degree to properly understand what the document is conveying.
Most people understand the process of buying media as “I give you money, you give me content” not “I give you money, you give me a license to watch the content” it’s not explicit about the lack of ownership. If someone asked you "what movies do you own, hopefully you’re not going to be a smart ass and say “technically production studios are the only ones who own movies anymore”
You’re still jumping the moral argument and going straight to the legal one. I’m not arguing the legal one because it’s clear that privacy is not legal (by definition)
However if you sell someone a movie and hide a clever contract (that you know for a fact the customer will not read) in the deal so that you can invalidate the content at any time you feel like it, Don’t expect me to cry you a river when your customer bypasses your asinine contract by making a local copy for personal use.
If the terms are not explicitly explained in understandable language, then morally terms are non-existent and the deal should be revoked with both parties receiving their property back.
They should either be required to refund those purchases or they shouldn’t be allowed to remove them.
No disagreement there, but we live in a world where they absolutely can and will do this stuff and get away with it with no consequences. Until either of those two options you propose are reached, I see no moral issue with pirating a game content you paid for and can no longer play.
I’m not talking about the morality of a person who was already pirating it before, or pirate games videos not affected by this issue. Just a case where a person bought a game content from Sony, who then removed their purchase without compensation due to reasons beyond the terms and conditions the customer expected.
No, I think they’re being literal. There is value that they want in your privacy.