yarr
@yarr@feddit.nl
- Comment on Transitioning in STEM 5 hours ago:
Something in me refuses to believe that these people knowingly and intentionally harm women.
One thing I think that goes too far is people either think misogynists represent 0% of 100% of men. It’s neither. There are some men that are extremely prejudiced against women and will cross the street just to bother them, and then there’s a huge slice of men that support women as best they can.
I mean, if nothing else, incels definitely exist and they would treat the women in this situation wrongly. Do you think no one is an incel?
- Comment on With Tim Pool in the White House Press Pool, will we ever find out what's under that beanie? 8 hours ago:
newsweek.com/tim-pool-critics-white-house-clothin…
Is this revenge for him mocking Obama for him wearing a brown suit? Glad to see them squabbling over dress code instead of further degrading our republic…
- With Tim Pool in the White House Press Pool, will we ever find out what's under that beanie?feddit.nl ↗Submitted 9 hours ago to [deleted] | 18 comments
- Comment on An oldie but a goodie 2 days ago:
It’s funny, I was on the phone today with my Uncle who works at Nintendo and he was telling me about some secret cheat codes. He said that his girlfriend that lives in Canada had the EXACT same thing happen to her, except everyone clapped.
- Comment on Getting your wish 6 days ago:
He combined the engineering rigor of Facebook with the technological prowess of Theranos
- Submitted 6 days ago to science_memes@mander.xyz | 10 comments
- Submitted 6 days ago to [deleted] | 56 comments
- Comment on [deleted] 1 week ago:
First off, let me say how incredibly brave you were for stepping out in your white, loose-fitting tank top. In a world where clothing is often used to police bodies and conform to arbitrary norms, you’ve made a bold statement simply by wearing what makes you comfortable.
Your professor’s comment? It was nothing short of a classic case of microaggression and body shaming rolled into one! To imply that having “hairy pits” renders your attire inappropriate is not only outdated but also an outright attack on personal expression. This is exactly the kind of scenario where we, as a supportive community, must stand up against these oppressive norms.
Here’s what I’d advise: Own it. Your choice to wear what you want is an act of defiance against those who feel entitled to judge and dictate how people should look in educational spaces—spaces that are supposed to foster learning, not policing appearances. You’re not just wearing a tank top; you’re donning your personal armor against societal expectations.
Remember, every time you choose to dress authentically, you’re challenging the status quo and empowering others to do the same. Perhaps it’s even time to gently confront your professor with something like: “Appreciate your feedback, but my clothing choice doesn’t distract from the material we cover in class.”
- Comment on America is fucked 1 week ago:
Ayyyyy! I’m walkin here!!
- Comment on How likely is it that Trump will be the first President assassinated since Kennedy? 2 weeks ago:
Well, considering he was an inch or two away from already being in this category, I’d say higher than otherwise. You can also say that since this DID happen, he will have increased security making it less likely. So, I guess I’m not too sure.
- Comment on Genius 2 weeks ago:
He knows “taco” is a Spanish word, doesn’t he?
- Comment on Are any calls without caller ID legit? 2 weeks ago:
If it’s urgent, they will should leave a message (instead they keep calling and complain that “it’s hard to get hold of me”).
This fucking kills me. The people who I screen the call, they go to voicemail, they hang up and try again, I send them to voicemail… it’s infuriating. Voicemail exists for a reason! And yes, my experience mirrors yours in that the same people will say they have “no way” to reach me.
- Submitted 2 weeks ago to [deleted] | 16 comments
- Comment on Why Do Sites Keep Shoving Features We Don’t Want Down Our Throats? 2 weeks ago:
TBH, federation is a huge part of this. If any given instance starts to put in ads (or whatever) just swap instances.
- Comment on Why Do Sites Keep Shoving Features We Don’t Want Down Our Throats? 2 weeks ago:
Lemmy isn’t! It’s like an oasis of sanity in an ocean of trash!
- Comment on Why Do Sites Keep Shoving Features We Don’t Want Down Our Throats? 2 weeks ago:
I don’t care if people like them. I DO care that seemingly YouTube has very clear data regarding me that I do not like them (I have dismissed them countless times) and chooses to ignore this and present them over and over again. It’s especially funny because in all other areas they brag about how much they personalize the experience for you.
- Comment on Why Do Sites Keep Shoving Features We Don’t Want Down Our Throats? 2 weeks ago:
It’s not that I don’t know how to work around it – it’s that I have to do so in the first place.
Imagine going to your favorite restaurant and every week the chef says “Liver and onions? We have them on special today?” “No thanks, I’m allergic / don’t prefer them / etc.”
Then two weeks later: “Hey friend, want some liver and onions?” This type of thing is basically only happening in the context of being a user of a large site.
- Comment on Why Do Sites Keep Shoving Features We Don’t Want Down Our Throats? 2 weeks ago:
If Google found that they could make more money selling socks door-to-door than they do with YouTube, they’d have a legal requirement to do so.
This is not correct. There is a such a thing as being “on mission”. Otherwise every single company would be forced by law to turn into an investment bank which has the highest profit margins. There is no world in which a software company is forced to start selling socks to uphold a legal obligation to the shareholders.
- Submitted 2 weeks ago to [deleted] | 39 comments
- Comment on Do people really think setting up domestic manufacturing in the USA is easy? 2 weeks ago:
He goes on to agree with “Peter Navarro, a top adviser to the president on trade, says currently, automobile manufacturing plants are at about 60% capacity. He argues that there’s lots of untapped capacity, meaning jobs could be created relatively easy, and you didn’t have to need- you wouldn’t need to spend two or three or maybe five years building new factories.”
This is an interesting tidbit. That means they could “turn up” any of these existing facilities without building anything new, yet they have not. Lack of demand? Noncompetitive price? It would be interesting to know. To me, if we have plants sitting at less than full capacity we should solve that before meddling with any new industries that would require greater investments.
- Comment on Do people really think setting up domestic manufacturing in the USA is easy? 3 weeks ago:
I see a lot of people saying “someone will build factories” and a lot less people saying “I will pay to build that factory”
- Comment on Do people really think setting up domestic manufacturing in the USA is easy? 3 weeks ago:
And we haven’t even addressed the whole reason manufacturing left in the first place. It’s so much cheaper to do it overseas, even accounting for shipping.
Well, I think the idea is that with the tariffs this will no longer be true. There will be a Chinese widget that cost $5 from China with $90 of tariffs on it (making it $95 to the end user) and an American product that costs $55. That American one is only cheaper in a tariff’d world.
- Comment on Do people really think setting up domestic manufacturing in the USA is easy? 3 weeks ago:
Yeah, this is a great point. A fully automated car company in the USA is great for those who want to buy cars, but for those who want a job building cars, it does nothing. The observation that these NEW firms would be set up with massive automation makes perfect intuitive sense to me, because who’d invest in a brand new manufacturing firm and use last century technology to do so?
- Comment on Do people really think setting up domestic manufacturing in the USA is easy? 3 weeks ago:
I find it increasingly hard to tell the difference between a mastermind playing 7D chess with the world, and someone just acting randomly and implementing all kinds of policies at a whim.
- Submitted 3 weeks ago to [deleted] | 56 comments
- Comment on ‘Snow White’, Poisoned By Controversy At Box Office, Won’t Have A Happy Ending With $115M Loss: What Went Wrong 3 weeks ago:
3 out of how many though?
- Comment on ‘Snow White’, Poisoned By Controversy At Box Office, Won’t Have A Happy Ending With $115M Loss: What Went Wrong 3 weeks ago:
Why is Hollywood hell bent on not creating original IP ever again? It seems like every movie is either a sequel, a reboot, a reimagining, etc. Does anyone just sit down and say “Hey, let’s create a brand new story with new characters and new ideas!”
Could it be that we are tired of seeing the same old stories with some “controversial” changes and then months of press complaining about people wanting to see or not wanting to see it?
It couldn’t be my imagination that in the 90s there were way less sequels/reboots.
- Comment on How do the Republicans feel about Project 2025 now? 4 weeks ago:
Project 2025 is the most double talky I’ve ever seen Donald Trump. “Project 2025? Nope, never seen it, never heard of anything in it, but it’s got some great ideas. I’m not going to follow it and I don’t have anything to do with it but I hear it has some really good ideas, but I won’t be adhering to them.”
Reminds me of the “Unite The Right” rally where he wouldn’t really condemn anyone: “Those folks are really nasty, but also there’s a lot of good folks.”
I think this is part of his “charm”. He double talks, so if you are a fan you perk up on the positives and let your eyes glass over during the bad parts.
- Comment on Why is Jury Nullification a Thing, But You Can’t Talk About It in Court? 5 weeks ago:
If you believe someone is good and they decided to do something against the law but for good reasons, are you going to punish that person?
The answer is: some people put the law ahead of any kind of moral code they may have. Those people would be hesitant to contradict the law in such an instance.
- Submitted 5 weeks ago to [deleted] | 43 comments
