EnsignRedshirt [he/him]

I’ll be sincere here, the issue that this is clearly a forum for ADHD memes. People are here to have a chuckle and commiserate about shared experiences. Everyone here is aware that these aren’t good or useful behaviors.

It’s not about normalizing these behaviors, it’s about contextualizing them. If someone has been struggling with these things their whole life, there’s a good chance they’ve been told over and over again that they should try harder to not do these things, but without any compassion or accommodation or treatment. They’ve heard “oh, you should be able to control those things” from people who don’t have trouble with these things, and your comment is basically indistinguishable from that sentiment.

People know these are unhealthy behaviors, they know there are ways to work on them, and they are probably already doing that work. It’s unhelpful and tedious to point out that these are bad and you can work on them.

Next time you’re with your therapist, ask about controlling your impulse to be condescending.

Wow, I never thought of it that way. Maybe neurodivergent people are just lazy. Have you shared this fresh insight with the medical community? They’re going to want to hear this right away.

Having worked with lots of government departments (in Canada, but the principle is the same), basically all government “inefficiency” is caused by high accountability to the public. Governments have more guardrails on their activity than privately-controlled organizations, much more transparency, and much less discretion to jettison their obligations. Otherwise, government is just as efficient, or inefficient, as any other large institution. There’s no magic energy field that makes government somehow worse at everything just because it’s the government.

It’s also very funny to hear startup people talk about inefficiency as if startups don’t have a literal 98% failure rate. We would crucify our governments if they took risks like that, even though that’s apparently how you create value.

Regardless, it’s always been clear that these people are either too ignorant to understand, or too dishonest to admit, that their definition of inefficiency is just “things I don’t like.” It would be like if I pointed at the Pentagon budget and said that it represents $800B in government inefficiency. I do believe that money could be spent better elsewhere, but I’m not a child so I understand that it’s being spent more or less exactly how the decisionmakers want it spent.

Extremely jealous that someone got to use the word “Kafkaesque” correctly and in an appropriate context.

Researchers suspect that this is because screen time displaces sleep by taking up time when people would otherwise be resting.

So if we went back to the old way of doing it where we stayed up late sitting upright at the computer until we couldn’t physically stay awake any longer, that wouldn’t be considered disruptive? I’m just trying to be cozy for my late couple hours of browsing. I’m not going to be going to sleep earlier. This has nothing to do with bed. Bed is a saint. You leave bed out of this.

Yes

Sadly, Hank is exactly the type of person to do that. The details he shares about his lawn care show that he’s all about artificially tweaking variables and removing uncontrolled factors. This should be Bobby lecturing Hank about his industrialized and unsustainable landscaping practices.

This is why I drink on the bus. The bus driver keeps us all safe.

nations supplying weapons to Kyiv have the right to limit their use

What a pathetic statement. “We’re going to encourage Ukraine to start WW3 and then hand the responsibility to the individual states.”

No offense to the moon but I could go way further than that in 28 days.

This is the best answer. Billups is torn between his loyalty and affection for his home, and his desire to be a Starfleet engineer. His internal conflict is manifesting as his own insistence that these customs and traditions are binding, despite the fact that this is all very silly and no one seems to be taking it that seriously.

I didn’t mean it like that. I just meant that it’s accurate and something that continues to be a problem.

This isn’t new. Every job posting is always in a superposition of being real or not real until someone actually gets hired. Job postings are used as bait to get cheaper talent, as an implicit threat to existing employees that they might be replaced, as a way to gain negotiating leverage with internal candidates, etc. There are no rules about job postings, you can literally post any job with any salary and any requirements, of course they’re going to be abused by any number of bad actors.

The structure of Reddit’s content aggregation and curation leads to a regression to the mean. Things that are broadly agreed-upon, even if wrong, are amplified, and things that are controversial, even if correct, are attenuated. What floats to the top is whatever the hive mind agrees is least objectionable to the most people.

One solution that seems to work elsewhere is to disable downvoting. Downvoting makes it too easy to suppress controversial perspectives. Someone could put forward a thoughtful position on something, and if a few people don’t like the title and hit the downvote button, that post may be effectively buried. No rebuttal, no discourse, just “I don’t like this, make it go away.” Removing the downvote means if you don’t like something, you can either ignore it, or you can put effort into responding to it.

The “downvote to disagree” thing isn’t just an attitude problem, it’s a structural issue. No amount of asking people nicely to obey site etiquette will change the fact that the downvote button is a disagree button. If you don’t want a hive mind, you necessarily need to be able to allow for things you don’t like to be amplified.

Twitter is actually better for this than Reddit because it has the quote function. You can amplify something you don’t like as a way of getting other people to hate it with you. It’s not perfect, but there’s no way of having it both ways. “Reddiquette” was never a real thing, just a polite fiction that ignores the Eternal September world that we live in.

If you have the same structure as Reddit, you will recreate Reddit. Lemmy isn’t going to be different if all the incentives and interactive elements are the same.

If you think you’re struggling for enthusiasm now, just wait until you start watching it.

Memes are reposts! That’s their defining characteristic! They become memes by being reposted! If they didn’t get reposted, they would not be memes!

Internal politics is going to be responsible for some of it. This is an unexpected opportunity for individuals to advance their careers or agendas outside of the usual process, and some of them are going to take the opportunity. They might not even dislike the idea of Harris being the nominee, but they want to find a way to use their support to their advantage. The Democrats are hardly a monolith, they’re a broad coalition that barely holds together at the best of times, it’s not that weird that there would be conflict.

There’s also the issue that there hasn’t been any sort of democratic process to select a new nominee. Harris makes sense for a number of reasons, and the party does have the authority to nominate whomever they want, but they have to avoid making it look like the party insiders are just coronating a new nominee. It’s bad optics, if nothing else. This is also a pretty unprecedented situation, and it seems like no one knew it was going to happen for sure. It makes sense that there’s a conversation out in the open about who is going to be the nominee.

As a candidate, she’s not the best choice, but she’s an improvement over Biden. I doubt she would have won a genuinely competitive primary process. She’s probably in the best position to be the nominee at this moment, but there are no doubt plenty of people who feel that this could have been handled better and are going to make their opinions heard.

Making generalizations about people is a problem when the generalization is false or misleading, or is being used to make a false or misleading argument, which is often the case. If you’re wondering if a given generalization is problematic, odds are the answer is ‘yes’ otherwise you probably wouldn’t think of it as a generalization.

Bill Burr is a surprisingly thoughtful and principled guy with consistently good opinions. He’s a comedian, and he doesn’t have any theory underpinning his worldview, but I bet if you look at why he’s been criticized in the past it’s by liberals who are mad that he’s being critical of liberals. I’m not at all surprised that he lit up Bill Maher on his boomer-ass Israel-Palestine takes.