Inverted controls are just better.
That this meme is low effort content and it’s spamming everywhere
Aren’t ask lemmy posts “low effort” in general as well in the sense that it’s just a question? My point isn’t that ask lemmy is bad, my point is just because it’s low effort doesn’t mean it’s bad.
It’s the first time I’ve seen it.
Can I borrow the rock you’ve been under?
I guess I just unsubscribe from communities where there are a lot of low-effort memes?
But seeing it here is fine, it’s started some discussion.
The real reason I posted it. There’s a decline in user engagement and posts after the peak some months ago (reddit API) .
Memes are low effort in general
Parents who purchase animal products care more about their “personal choice” than the world they’re leaving for their children. Bacon is more important to them than their own kids.
Copyright is far too long and should only last at most 20 years.
Actually, George Washington would agree with me if he was still alive. He and the other founding fathers created the notion of copyright, which was to last 14 years. Then big corporations changed the laws in their favor.
Hot extreme opinion: copyright shouldn’t exist, and authors should be covered by other means, particularly public funding based on usage numbers and donations.
The world got essentially all classical music, the painting on the ceiling of the Sistine chapel, etc. without the need for copyright. Shakespeare’s work wasn’t protected by copyrights either. So, it’s not like amazing works of art require copyright. They’ll happen regardless. It’s more about how artists are incentivized to create and who profits.
My opinion is this: if you can’t be bothered to use proper grammar and spelling and express yourself clearly, you should shut the fuck up.
If you‘re black, gay, immigrant or mentally ill, you should shut the fuck up /s
What you wrote is basically the same as the above text.
Making mistakes with spelling is not laziness. It is most likely a sign of either a neurological difference (dylexia, adhd) or plain stress. It could even be a stroke.
There’s unpopular opinions and being elitist. The former is cool, the latter is not.
health insurance != healthcare
health insurance profits only exist at the expense of human suffering.
but lets make sure everyone has insurance but not care
I thought this thread was for hot takes 😉
Is this your first time in an “unpopular opinion” thread? lol
health insurance isn’t really insurance either.
it’s like a health services subscription plan with a million convoluted rules.
Yeah, there shouldn’t be health insurance, just health care. Some things are uncertain like whether you get in a car accident, or whether a weather event causes damage to your house. Health problems are not uncertain. People will all have them. Just spend the money on training and hiring doctors and nurses to treat these issues in a large enough quantity that the care is sufficient.
Young people are people and deserving of rights, including but not limited to the vote. There is no stupid thing a young person could do with their vote that old people don’t already do and we don’t require them not to in order to keep their vote.
Hell yeah! People say that kids and teens don’t have enough life experience to make decisions, but also it’s really difficult to gain life experience when you’re constantly shielded from everything.
When I was mid 20s I thought young kids were too naive. I got older and saw how fucking stupid most adults are and think young kids are much smarter than their predecessors. They should absolutely have a voice in elections. 16 seems like a good age to me
They have a lot less lead poisoning today than those kids from 20th century past, too.
If you can legally work, you should be able to legally vote!
Yep. I’d say 12 is a good age to start, because most will be able to read and understand government.
12 year olds voting, Jesus Christ
Why not? Have you talked to a twelve year old recently?
I have and that’s exactly why. I have also been one.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter. Is a 12 year old actually worse in any way?
People are crazy when they promote closed-source AI (okay, okay, generative model) projects like ChatGPT, Bard etc.
This is literally one of the most important technologies of the future, and after all the times technology companies screwed them (us) up big time and monopolized the Internet, they go into the same trap again and again.
First they surrendered the free Internet, now they surrender the new frontiers.
Wake up, people. Go HuggingFace, advocate for free AI, and ideally - for a GPL one. We cannot afford for this part of our future to be taken away from us.
Abso-fucking-lutely. Time and time and time again proprietary technology fucks us over, this is no different.
I pointedly avoid ChatGPT for that reason. When the NovelAI leak happened, it was amazing, and the open ecosystem flourished in response. I just can’t believe they call themselves OpenAi.
Ah, that name was left from when they’ve been open-source, which us why I advocate for the emergence of GPL-licensed projects.
The open-source license for GPT model was very relaxed, which OpenAI took advantage of and, once it could afford their own programmer staff, closed the code with all the contributions all the programmers from all over the world have made.
It’s an extremely dick move, and it was repeated by Google, too.
deleted by creator
I don’t use the current AI, specifically because it isn’t open source. Could I audit the code of an open source AI? Certainly not; it’s way over my head. However there would be an opportunity for experts to examine the source and report their findings. Currently? Black box, so no thanks.
There are so many projects that could become possible through novel use of an open source AI (or whatever it should actually be called).
Judging by the seemingly exponential improvements and integration, opinions such as ours are a grain of sand in Death Valley.
To be completely fair, even open-source AIs are a little bit of a black box due to the way neural networks work - but I’d greatly appreciate if we at least knew the parameters on which it is trained.
It is absolutely possible to train all sorts of biases in a closed-source AI, and that’s what would be very hard in an open-source model. You can roughly set up outputs at whatever. In other ways, using open-source practically removes the malicious human factor (without removing positive impact)
Open-source models also can’t be restricted, paywalled or limited in any meaningful way, which is also vital.
What open-source AI projects are worth checking out?
For text, I’d go with HuggingChat based on open-source Llama model. Previously there was Open Assistant, but it got closed. For pictures, renowned Stable Diffusion is the way to go. For music - Stable Audio, respectively.
Please note that none of them are GPL-licensed, so while they are open-source, they can sadly get commercialized in some form in the future. Also, while models are free, in order to meaningfully use them you have to either go through their service (which may annoy with registration, or even take payment for premium features), or train the model yourself (which is unrealistic for a home user). So this is still far from perfect, but it’s miles ahead of trash options from the original comment.
99% (likely more even) of the people out there don’t have a clue what software is, or remotely how it works, what it does, and what open or closed software is, let alone why it’s important.
Most people are seriously ignorant about these topics, so obviously everyone runs with closed source.
All the open source gods are getting older, the eff founder has cancer… I don’t really see a next generation step up like the previous one and that one was already a miracle that it had gotten us this far. We’re screwed on the software front. Eh, humanity is screwed in so many ways anyway
It’s true that majority is unaware and doesn’t care, which is sad.
But we shouldn’t give up. There is plenty of youth going for freedom, and while we don’t yet have RMS of our generation, we will.
People overlook vegetarianism and semi-vegetarian lifestyles as an option too much and it is not helpful that real life examples of vegetarian cultures, get co-opted by Vegans purists as “Vegan cultures” in easily disproven claims- thus hurting the whole movement
I don’t eat meat or dairy, so i technically i’m a vegan, right? But i wouldn’t identify as a vegan. When someone cooks and says: oh i forgot that you are vegan, and i used butter, still eat it. When i’m at a bbq and there is a steak leftover, and no one eats it and it goes to the trash, i would eat it. I find the idea of factory meat absolutely repulsive therefore i don’t support it in any way. Once i talked to a vegan guy, and he was super weird so we didn’t have a lot to talk about. I told him something like: when i was a kid i was really into chicken wings, and now in hindsight, i don’t think chicken is actually good. And he said: oh, you are one of THOSE people. Meat eater are like pedophiles, once you fucked a kid, you’ll always be a childfucker.
Eh… Okay, i’ll just stand over there and make sure to never talk to you again
this is called flexitarianism and is totally valid in terms of not wasting food and cohabitating in society. unfortunately some vegetarians would bully a person like you since ideological purity is more important than not wasting food to them
*Some vegans
I’ve never seen a vegetarian bully someone for not being purist enough. Vegans however do it constantly and even harass vegetarians
perhaps
they are great conversations about why people are so annoyed by vegans and most of the time it’s not because vegans are harassing or pushing their agenda, it’s more a question of how we perceive ourself when comparing ourself to others.
it’s due to cognitive dissonance.
For me it is usually due to how incessantly preachy and judgemental some vegans are. I respect their choices and consistent choice of morality. But people tend to get annoyed when someone else feels the right to dictate their morality to them. See also: religious nuts.
I totally understand your point of view and think that your perception is valid. If you try to analyse why you find them preachy and judgemental it could be interesting.
For example would find them so annoying if you agree with them? Is it the discourse that annoys you or the person? Is it your belief system being challenged that annoys you or the facts that are being stated?
It’s always intersting to understand why we feel that way when we are challenged, and veganism is one of a few topic that can create what we called in psychology reactance, an interesting topic.
Veganism is really different than religion tho, cause it is totally backed by science (regarding food production, waste issue, C02 and sentientism) and a logic construct.
To be honest, I could see myself as a vegetarian. I can still eat eggs, have mayo, and most importantly, eat cheese. Also with vegans, they don’t just abstain from eating animals, they also abstain from consuming animal products, and using them in general meaning that not only are you giving up on eggs and cheese, but also leather boots and jackets etc. That’s too much. We are omnivores. Our ancestors survived on the scraps left by lions and other predators. Our only way to keep warm was leather skins. We could survive on berries and fungi, but we couldn’t keep warm with fire only. Anyways, I’m taking this a bit too far, but my point is, I’m supportive of vegetarians, but not of vegans.
I’ve never been closer to vegan than I am now. And I love meat and animal products and have long given up on the illusion of any ethical consumption in capitalism. It just turns out meat is way overpriced and you can make some tasty meals for cheap without meat and most animal products.
I’m a vegetarian just because it’s the cheapest option. Meat is absurd in prices while going fully vegan, where I live, isn’t feasible either.
So I live off a mostly vegetarian diet. It’s not even for ethical reasons. It’s literally a “I want to save money” motivation.
Yeah the only animal I’m tryna save is me. Shits insane rn.
It’s pretty nuts what they’re asking for meat. I don’t do the major shopping in the family but last time I went to get some ground beef… holy sweet baby cheez wiz. I could swear it the price had doubled since the last time I looked (which was probably pre covid).
There are so many great vegetarian recipes out there. Like, I mean, original things that were designed without meat in mind from the start not fake meat stuff like those vegetarian ribs I made one time. shudders
You absolutely can’t let perfect be the enemy of good.
I’ve had debates with vegans on something similar:
I’m not vegan, I’ll never be vegan. That’s a complete non-starter for me.What I have done is reduce my meat intake from 2/sometimes 3 meals a day to 1 meal per day - occasionally (less than once per month) two. Once Lab-grown meat is a viable alternative on cost/taste/texture, I’ll be all over that. I still won’t be vegan. Even if I reach a point where no animals are harmed from my diet.
I believe it is far easier to convince 1 Million people to do this than it would be to convert 100,000 people to full veganism. A Million people doing this would save Billions more animals per year than 100,000 vegan conversions and maybe even in itself convert a few of those people to full veganism along the way.
They’re never interested. It’s all or nothing. Black or white. Vegan or Animal killer. They usually have issues with lab grown meat, as well.
It’s as though they’re a member of an elite club and membership is more important than actually saving animals.
I mean, most vegans would still commend your effort to reduce animal product consumption.
But from a moral standpoint, simply eating less animal products really doesn’t have much value. Imagine using your argument for other moral dilemmas.
“Racism is wrong, so I reduced the amount of racial slurs I use to only 1/3”
“Rape is wrong, so I only rape on Mondays now” (in reference to meatless Mondays)I hate to be so militant about it, but you either think animal abuse is acceptable or you don’t.
Now, what I do think could be a moral standpoint, if you really want to still be able to eat meat, is to only eat “humane” meat. I put “humane” in quotes because even farmers with the best intentions are still killing animals young. I don’t personally believe any animal product can be humane, but even then I can recognize that any animal that was raised on a pasture and ate real food is more ethical to eat than one in a factory.
So if you genuinely only ate pasture raised beef and chicken (and you were sure about it), then I would say that is quite honorable.
But from a moral standpoint, simply eating less animal products really doesn’t have much value. Imagine using your argument for other moral dilemmas.
Ahh yeah about that: My reasons are not what you’re calling “moral”. We are naturally omnivores. We’ve been omnivorous since before we came down from the trees. Probably since before we left the water. I don’t have a problem eating meat. I think a vegan diet is unnatural for us, though I have no issues with anyone who chooses that lifestyle.
My reasons are from a sustainability/environmental position. Our present consumption levels already put a strain on the planet, and we sure couldn’t sustain it if everyone on the planet ate meat three meaty meals a day. This is another reason I’m all about that lab grown meat.
That pedos shouldn’t be subject to extra-legal punishments. Think being lynched and shit. I also don’t think they should be getting their own special cases in the law beyond those with a clear purpose of preventing reoffending.
Don’t get me wrong, I think they are pure scum.
But things we allow on the basis of the accused being a pedo or terrorist have a habit of spilling over and affecting the general population. A lot of bad laws have made it onto books by blaming these two groups, for example.
It’s possible to think both “these people deserve to have their fingernails removed” and “a just society cannot inflict cruel punishment”
A lot of bad laws have made it onto books by blaming these two groups, for example.
You can’t even classify or discuss pedophilia as a sexual disorder and not an intentional decision without sounding like a pedophile.
I think the worst thing we do is basically shut down non-harmful outs.
We attack therapists who don’t outright vilify non-offending pedos, without considering the fact that said pedos come to them because they don’t want to offend, don’t want to hurt.
If these people don’t have harmless outs, they will instead turn to harmful outs and covering up their crimes.
If these people don’t have harmless outs, they will instead turn to harmful outs and covering up their crimes.
Wasn’t it that studies show that in most child abuse cases the abuser is not a pedophile?
An egregious crime should have an egregious sentence but only in accordance with a fair due process. I also feel like far right groups are packing gunpowder in the barrel of the musket with hate for pedophilia (an easy thing for anyone to hate) and are planning to use it to invoke violence on people with fabricated evidence against them. It’s becoming a dangerous powder keg
Teachers should be paid 50% more. If you want good teachers to stay, you have to walk the walk, otherwise you’ll get a perpetual cycle of overwhelmed grads being bossed around by rusted-on bottom teer heads.
That is hardly an unpopular opinion.
If I can interject - I don’t think the OP is showing an unpopular opinion. The people they’re talking to aren’t mad. It looks to me like an opinion whose wisdom isn’t generally accepted - and there’s a difference.
Unpopular opinion: pedophilia is a mental disorder; child rape (including “statutory” rape) is an act of violence, cruelty, and power - or, in arguably the worst case, crimes of opportunity. Not all child rapists are pedophiles and not all pedophiles are child rapists. Pedophiles should be treated; child rapists should be imprisoned forever. (Those that are in the overlap can be treated in prison.)
This opinion is (I think) probably true, but if you go around talking about it, you will be unpopular.
Unaccepted opinion: well, there are a lot of them here, but this one - about teachers - could be tweaked into one: the only way we are going to see changes that would actually benefit our society and country, the things the news and politicians say are “luxury expenses” - aka health care, teachers’ salaries, rent and real estate regulation, etc - is with a general strike. The propaganda and gaslighting and victim blaming are so deeply entrenched that they have become the most profitable sectors of our economy.
This opinion is - again, in my opinion - probably true, and there are a lot of people who agree - but not enough. If the crowd in that picture represents a country of 350 million, then that one person represents maybe 0.5-1 million people? Which is way more than the supporters of a general strike.
Why did I say all that? Mostly because I’m bored - but I think it’s a neat distinction to make.
Air fryers are only popular because Americans have been using microwaves to cook for decades, which are possibly the worst cooking devices ever created.
If they had decent fan ovens during that time, they wouldn’t be anywhere near as popular
Conversely, air fryers are seen to be popular in the UK, because nobody will admit they fell for the advertising, and now only use them for chips
Not just chips my friend. Pies, sausages, chicken, salmon. Half the cooking time or an oven, better results and a fraction of the energy use.
The hype is real.
This. It’s great for steaks or cuts of chicken, even sandwich melts, but it uses less power and is faster than the oven. I tend to use my air fryer for a lot of dinners instead of opting for a much larger oven. The cooking tends to be much more even too, I don’t have to worry about raw spots as much as I did with my oven.
Nobody uses microwaves to do actual cooking, and it’s just a handy alternate heating method in your oven or toaster oven. Who cares?
Vegans oppose animal cruelty.
Vegetarians don’t, as the production of eggs, milk, etc is cruel.
Looks left at 90% of the human population causing untold suffering without giving 2 shits.
Looks right at the 5% that are actually bothering to do something.
“Yes, let’s shit on them”
Man I had to rephrase this a dozen times and I still don’t have a good way to communicate what I’m trying to say.
The goal of this kind of callout is to make vegetarians, people who already value animal welfare, aware that they may still be contributing towards animal cruelty. For example, I was a vegetarian for years and then got rocked by the realization that, “oh wait, vegans aren’t just crazies that I can blow off, it was me who was ignorant the whole time.”
So I anecdotally assume that a huge percentage of vegans are vegetarians who went from thinking “vegetarians and vegans are basically the same, besides vegans taking the idea too far” to “oh wait there’s a huge important difference between the two.” On vegan spaces, people often joke that “bullying worked on me lol” because the gentle approaches are easily ignored, but the really blunt “your actions don’t align with your stated ethics” is really difficult to brush off.
Onions taste gross and have no tangible benefit to cooking. Fight me.
This thread really has brought out some real crazies.
But you sir are, in fact, a demon among men.
Extreme leftists, A.K.A. “tankies” (i.e., apologists for Lenin, Stalin, Mao, the CCP, the DPRK, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Xi Jingping, etc.), are threats to a free, egalitarian, and open society, are just as violently authoritarian as their religious, corporatist, and fascist counterparts, and should be treated with the contempt, distrust, and ridicule they deserve.
They claim to speak and fight for the proletariat, promising a new utopia, never before seen, once their revolution executes the last “class-traitor”. In practice, once they’re finished with “seizing the means of production”, they’ll never relinquish control and become the new ruling class.
They’ll assume the mantle of an enlightened elite post-revolutionary administration to guide the proletariat to their promised utopia of “each according to their need, each according to their ability”. In practice, they’ll “need the most, because they’re obviously the most able” in reorganizing the economic and political structure of society. The utopia of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” will never exist, only the dictatorship of the “revolutionary party”. Repression and execution await those who question their claims and decisions. The former champions of labor will become champions of death.
They’re akin to the pigs in Animal Farm, the loudest voices in the revolution, but a bit “more equal” than everyone else after the farmer is done away with. Fortunately, the pigs, like the farmer, got their comeuppance in the end of the story.
Your liberty and self-determination are beset by many threats: the religious, the nihilists, the corporatists, the fascists, and the supposed collectivists. They all claim to be the true authoritative “voice of the people”.
Beware of their cults. Your life is worth more than their “cause” and/or “solution”. Understand what they really are; power over everything, forever, is what they seek. They want you either as a willing pawn or dead, just like all the other presumably benevolent dictators throughout history. Arm yourself with knowledge and clarity in perception. Train your mind and body. Fight and deny the peddlers of arbitrary authoritarianism as if your life depends on it - because it does.
E: Lots of butt-hurt invertebrate Molotov-sippy-cup-throwing wannabe-dictator tankie shit-heels out there, all tryna start the revolution tomorrow. Good luck, comrades.🖕🏽
this is the mainstream view on the far-left
We have different opinions on what the extreme or far left are, or perhaps where the “center” is.
i didnt voice any opinion on what the extreme or far left are, so i imagine you either didnt understand my comment or are being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian
I think I misunderstood you.
