pjhenry1216

You realize you are also being abusive with your terminology and spreading of really poor stereotypes? You’ve also been condescending. You also tried to say explicitly something was only about you while trying to use that to describe literally other people? You also then continued to say your definition is yours alone but then tried to use it as a way to convey meaning to a general audience?

Abusive language isn’t necessarily poor communication. There is nothing ironic there. It doesn’t fit the definition of the word at all.

You’ve been both offensive and poor at communicating though.

If I need to say it, yes, I am, and you’re a removedty person for even asking.

I’m done. And you’re terrible and should be ashamed.

feel free to identify yourself

removed that. No one should have to share their anything even remotely shared to their mental health for some sort of odd gatekeeping purposes.

I gave my opinion. You are a terrible communicator and using a condition in a way that is offensive and then trying to force people to put themselves when they may not want to. So removed that even more. That’s shameful behavior. If you want to be offensive and communicate poorly, so be it. That’s my opinion. And so be it. If you can justify forcing people to do things and if you can justify using derogatory statements to describe other people, which you literally did, that’s on you. We’re done here.

You literally just defeated your own argument. You just made the claim its your own personal definition and therefore would need to be described every single time you use it otherwise you would have a failure of communication.

Autism is different for everyone and that’s why it’s terrible to use it to describe the details of something.

And you aren’t describing your own experience. You are describing a government system. If you are admitting it’s extremely defined and only works in your head and not whoever you’re talking to, you will have a failure to communicate.

Edit: actually, that folks disagreed with you enough to comment is more a sign of that failure than any explanation I can provide. And you still provided it as a way to describe other autistics despite claiming otherwise.

This is a very poor understanding of autism. You’ve taken such a small sliver that this comparison is going to not only offend a lot of people but also confuse a lot of people. The given properties you’re invoking are such a small subset of autism and not even that widespread and hell, it ignores the core reasoning behind some. Brutal honesty is often tied with inability to be empathetic. You’re doing yourself a disservice using autism as your “model” here.

Looking into it, I can see some issues with the idea (I don’t understand how it wouldn’t fall pretty to the tragedy of the commons), plus I definitely don’t think Sanders would fit into there. I don’t see any of his proclaimed positions fitting into any definition of left-libertarian. Plus I don’t see how left-libertarian wouldn’t fall prey to the same problem we have with capitalism now, despite being an anti-capitalist notion. It’s strong sense of individual ownership of anything other than natural resources seems at odds with a lot of other socialist concepts. I will caveat all of this with saying I have a very limited understanding of left-libertarianism, but just reading any given definition just seems to give rise to very clear contradictions. I feel like either it is problematic or no one is really sharing good definitions of it.

Libertarian cannot work without socialism essentially. You cannot have a free market where the worker doesn’t own the means of production. Power will always pool to select individuals and those who have collected power have shown no remotely reliable track record to serve humanity’s best interest over their own. In fact, it’s regularly shown the exact opposite. Libertarianism is just an excuse to act against the good of society for your own benefit and removed anyone you step on along the way. I’ve never heard a defense of libertarianism that is actually good for society. It’s basically just dressing up the belief you can’t be forced to do good, so you can’t get in trouble if you do bad.

Generally it’s more about the interaction. If the user views it as interacting with the viewport, it tends to be inverted. If the user views the interaction as interacting with the scroll bar, it’s “natural”. Scroll wheel is the only odd one out. However it was introduced prior to mousepads supporting gestures. So it basically started as an extension of the scroll bar interaction, but as mousepads introduced the concept of interacting with the viewport, scroll wheels were given the option to respond either way based on user preference.

Sorry, I guess we just disagree on whether torture and killing is cruel. You think it’s not. I do. More people think so every year, so I’m just glad as humanity as a whole continues to advance and not stay within primitive ways of thinking. Moreover, the amount of land being dedicated to it is so vast, that eventually it’ll have to give simply because there are so much better ways to use the land. Regardless, something that’s bad for the environment now is bad for the environment always. That’s how that works. You haven’t provided any reasoning why it suddenly becomes isn’t. Your argument is still that you’re ok with harming the environment a little.

And things like racism, sexism, etc are all personal morals. Saying to keep it to yourself while you have your own is simply not an argument. It’s a value judgement on another living thing. I’m not here to hear all the debunked and poor logic though, so I’m not really interested in debate and won’t respond again. Not saying you can’t provide your response, its just I won’t care.

Wow. I immediately assume a lower IQ for anyone who uses that word.

Even if industry changed, no, meat production should still go away. It’s still bad. There’s no acceptable level of bad we should just ignore. This is discounting the entire ethical points of animal cruelty inherent in the system.

I didn’t say we should not fight for better regulation. I did say we shouldn’t give up doing our best. If you disagree with this, you’re just arguing you shouldn’t be held responsible for anything. With that attitude, why would you expect a company to not say the same especially if it’ll cost them so much more. You’re depicted exactly everything wrong with the industry.

Mitigating some substantial percentage of that population growth would be one way to better environmental conditions in 2050. It would also have more impact than virtually any other climate policy. (More on that later.)

From your own sources.

Edit: it’s kind of weird your source for “it’s a myth” is an article saying it’s not but that talking about it just leads a bunch of people to the wrong conclusions about the speaker due to poor past examples.

Overpopulation is a climate issue and I would argue the mindset of trying to promote owns legacy by having more than one, let alone more than two children is definitely something that needs to be addressed. The climate impact is real. You can’t just be like “I deserve to spread my seed as far as I can.”

Knowing the cost of something is important and having children does have an impact on everyone else.

I literally quoted you. You said it needs to be first. Do you know what that phrase means?

And this information is literally 6 years old even and the information itself is older than that. What gradual time to teach this do you want?

You sound like a company saying you can’t regulate now, give us time first.

You’re right, but it’s looking at individual action. Everyone giving up meat would obviously outweigh one person taking a flight. But everyone not taking flights would obviously make a tremendously bigger difference as well.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m vegan and proponent of veganism, but you can’t argue that everyone giving up meat is a fair comparison to one person giving up a flight.

We need to address that first before anything else

Why not both? Doing these other things does not prevent you from fighting for regulations etc. However, arguing they aren’t regulated yet so you don’t give a removed about what you do is absolutely worse.

The most bang for our buck? We’ve been arguing that companies should be regulated for decades. These other habits have been known to be an improvement for years already.

Don’t push off what you can already do today simply because companies still polute. That’s pointless and counter productive.

Aside from large cost investment ones (vehicle) or giving up a vehicle, none of these are really difficult.

Also if you actively decide to not have a child so you can fly 3 times a year, that’s still technically a better choice. Hell even if you don’t actively decide, it’s still better. The point is to try and do as well as you can. And then vote and fight to get regulations put in place on companies who are responsible for a hell of a lot more.

Suffering? What suffering?

Plus it’s literally labeled individual action.

Ah, well, I don’t think there’s any officially hosted versions on GitLab. I guess it depends on why they chose GitHub, but maybe some attempts can be made to have them migrate if given enough reason that they agree with. So any clones on those other sites would need to pull in from GitHub on their own accord. And unfortunately any MRs into them would need to be replicated on GitHub which I’m assuming is the reason you ask and therefore likely won’t be happy with the answer.

I know a big sticking point for many people is that all code on GitHub feeds into CoPilot.

I don’t understand how this would help anyone who’s still stuck on GitHub for whatever reason to be able to escape GitHub. GitHub likely won’t support this. I guess it depends on why someone is ‘forced’ to use GitHub still. I’ve seen different reasons mentioned.

Isn’t the official repo for Lemmy on GitHub?

Makes sense. Though I’ll note I find folks find help via methods of others asking for the same thing so a Kbin user could easily come across this post trying to find an answer to a similar problem. That being said, I don’t have a good suggestion for a workaround so leads me back to “makes sense.”