Senal
@Senal@programming.dev
- Comment on I just WON'T 4 days ago:
- Comment on Jon Stewart: Trump Is The Opposite of Who His Supporters Claim He Is | The Daily Show 1 month ago:
It seems like you don’t quite understand how federated services work.
Here’s a quick primer on how you can improve your federated internet experience.
- You can block individual users
- That will remove posts by them from your feed.
- All future and historical posts by them will also be removed from your vision.
- If you feel like a community as a whole is allowing behaviour you disagree with you can block that entire community
- You also have the option of creating your own space with a similar theme, a space that you can police in exactly the way you prefer. ( for example “Video No Politics” )
- In the possible case of disliking the content and/or moderation of an entire instance…you guessed it, you can block that also.
- Creating your own instance is also a possibility, it can be a bit involved but is certainly possible.
- Then you have all the control, you can invite your friends, success.
You could also continue to complain about things you can easily fix, that is also an option.
Given your replies so far you seem to be looking for something a bit less echo-chambery (or as i suspect a chamber where the echoes are more to your liking)
Luckily this is entirely possible and relatively easily achievable, have fun.
- You can block individual users
- Comment on [deleted] 2 months ago:
Another indication you haven’t actually read any of the papers, even the titles
3/5 of the papers are for both dogs and cats.
No goalposts were moved i was responding to the information you posted, if you aren’t going to actually read them yourself your opinion on what constitutes goalposts means nothing.
Other than the final line, nothing in my response even mentions dogs.
However, lets say we only apply what i said to cats, every single point still stands.
I’m assuming you don’t have any actual arguments or you would have mentioned them instead of picking up on a single word that doesn’t actually change the content of the response.
Feel free to surprise me though.
- Comment on [deleted] 2 months ago:
TL;DR;
Posting a link to a bunch of other links you don’t seem to have actually read isn’t a good basis for an argument
Scientific evidence, sure, but if you’d actually read them you’d see they aren’t as inline with your argument as you seem to think.
Do you mean the one behind a paywall
Perhaps the one consisting almost entirely of owner reported (and thus inherently bias) results
Maybe the meta-study that specifically calls out how little quality and volume there is in this areas of study, comments on how self-reported studies are bias and in conclusion basically says:
“It doesn’t seem to immediately kill your pets in the limited studies that have been done, we have even seen some benefits, but we don’t have enough quality data to be that confident about anything”
How about this one which is again largely based on self-reported results.
You should actually read the “Study Limitations” section for this one.
Or the last one which is about vegetarian diets, again goes out of it’s way to specifically call out the lack of current research and that the majority of current research supporting these diets is “rarely conducted in accordance with the highest standards of evidence-based medicine”
I’m aware i’m cherry picking quotes and points here, but only to illustrate that these papers aren’t the silver bullet you seem to think.
Not to say there is no validity to the argument that these diets can be beneficial but it’s a far cry from vegan diets are scientifically proven safe for cats and dogs.
- Comment on My cat just came home smelling like weed. What should I do? 3 months ago:
It doesn’t escape me, but what part of what I’ve said has invited confrontation or dismissal? I’m asking honestly.
In this case i can’t see any big red flags.
The tone is a possibility, as i said, being correct isn’t an absolute defence against being considered an arsehole.
To be clear, I’m not implying you were incorrect, or the tone was incorrect, just that that kind of certainty (evidence based or not) gets some people’s backs up.
It’s grating that it keeps happening and I keep telling people to stop.
I don’t think it’s what you actually meant but this could be interpreted as “Somebody didn’t accept my answer and argued, so i told them to stop, they didn’t even though i was clearly correct, this is grating”
Hyperbole aside, it’s frequent enough that I can see a pattern of people starting petty arguments trying to win and throwing low punches instead of clarifying what is being said and why.
Firstly, welcome to public internet forums in general, this is common behaviour.
That aside, there are numerous trolls and bad faith “debaters” around, but just because you consider something petty doesn’t mean the other person does.
This is what i was trying to convey in my reply earlier, if almost all interactions end up with what you consider petty behaviour it’s worth considering the possibility that you are contributing to that outcome somehow.
Like, I don’t even want to argue.
So don’t, if you don’t want to continue the interaction then don’t reply.
Meaning what, it’s also me?
Possibly, yes.
lol If I’m the one telling people to stop and act like adults and that gets 180° turns in behaviour, what does that say to you?
Honestly, it says to me that your communication skills might need some work.
Again, to be clear i don’t mean your communication of facts and information, i mean your ability to understand how phrasing something in a certain way might illicit a certain kind of response.
“Stop acting like a child” is a very good way to build enmity and confrontation, which is useful in some cases, if you intend to illicit that response.
However, saying something like that and then being confused/frustrated when people get confrontational and dismissive suggests a lack of understanding about the impact of tone and phrasing.
- Comment on My cat just came home smelling like weed. What should I do? 3 months ago:
Because stoners are basically a cult at this point, and refuse anything even as remotely negative as “it’s not good for your cats?”
I mean, i specifically stated it wasn’t related to the actual topic being discussed, but i can address this anyway i suppose.
Possibly culty i suppose, about the same amount as alcohol consumers, smokers, people who see chiropractors etc.
Less than people in organised religion ( big cults ), actual cults and MLM schemes.
If all of the stoners you know are your definition of culty ( except you of course ), perhaps consider that it’s your choice in acquaintances rather than an entire demographic.
Can’t say i care either way, but i’d be interested in any studies you might have on the subject ( belief systems of stoners in general, not specifically the ones you know ofc, that would be unlikely )
To be clear, I smoke most nights… but god damn do I hate people who feel the need to defend weed against everything.
If that personal preference works for you, who am i to tell you you’re wrong.
It’s a drug, y’all. It’s not good for you.
Drug doesn’t automatically imply harm, but i think i know what you mean.
- Comment on My cat just came home smelling like weed. What should I do? 3 months ago:
So, two things unrelated to the actual topic being discussed.
I’ll pretend your choice of words isn’t low-key confrontational and dismissive like every other comment on this site
It’s entirely possible to be correct and do it in such a way that invites confrontation and dismissal.
If it seems like everyone apart from you is confrontational and dismissive, perhaps it’s time to consider additional perspectives on why that might be happening.
- Comment on gotdamn 4 months ago:
That “rape aside” is doing a lot of heavy lifitng there and conveniently sweeps away the need to actually address anything that isn’t the “had sex, your fault” narrative you seem to be espousing here.
Especially given that there is little to no effort being given to exemptions of any kind.
Nobody is denying that sex is how babies are (usually) made, i mean apart from the “this book is the literal truth” christians i suppose.
or you’re trolling, in which case, congratulations…i guess.
- Comment on Schools won't be allowed to teach children that they can change their gender ID, reports say 6 months ago:
Interesting, thank you for taking the time to write all of that up.
- Comment on Schools won't be allowed to teach children that they can change their gender ID, reports say 6 months ago:
Do you have any information on how easy the resumption of puberty is after that sort of delay?
It never occurred to me that this was possible and I’m interested in how it might work.
- Comment on Schools won't be allowed to teach children that they can change their gender ID, reports say 6 months ago:
Labels aside, the only thing that post contains is a personal opinion, a personal anecdote and then an unspecific reference to something that may or may not exist.
Calling that an argument is a very generous interpretation.
- Comment on Schools won't be allowed to teach children that they can change their gender ID, reports say 6 months ago:
The overview had no mention of a lack of support for “not transitioning” it’s certainly possible I’m missing it or it’s in the full report (which I’ll read when I get a few minutes).
One mention of the need for corresponding levels of support for de-transitioning and some mentions of increased support for other issues alongside the gender based ones.
It sounds like OP had a specific section/sections in mind, if this is indeed the report they were referencing I’d appreciate some indication to which part they were referencing specifically.
“The overview didn’t mention it, but its somewhere in this 232 page report” isn’t the most useful when trying to understand where someone is coming from.
- Comment on Schools won't be allowed to teach children that they can change their gender ID, reports say 6 months ago:
The UK has recently done research on the matter and realised that children were not getting the support required for not transitioning.
Citation?
- Comment on An invitation to agree 8 months ago:
Hyperbole doesn’t strengthen your already flimsy argument, but I suspect that wasn’t the intention so, you do you I suppose.
- Comment on Ubisoft Wants You To Be Comfortable Not Owning Your Games 10 months ago:
Cost per GiB is higher and long term reliability is lower in most scenarios.
The failure scenarios for spinning rust tends to work better with large storage arrays as well.
Not all absolutes, but enough of them are true on a common enough basis that spending the extra on SSD’s isn’t usually worth it.
If you want some real in depth explanations there’s probably a datahoarder community somewhere or reddit if you are so inclined.
- Comment on Ubisoft Wants You To Be Comfortable Not Owning Your Games 10 months ago:
The only “legal” thing you can do