You must log in or register to comment.
Jeez, this thread is scary, I forget how many crazy opinions people can have.
Mine is probably that non-human animal lives matter, maybe not exactly in the same way that human lives do, but in a comparable and important way. I believe that murder is murder no matter the animal killed.
And also a maybe close second (not really an opinion but you could argue that I’m too dark about it) is that climate change is far past the point of no return and that in 50 years we are all going to live extremely hard lives (if we even survive) that right now would seem like an apocalypse type fantasy movie.
DUI laws are too strict. It shouldn’t be all or nothing at .08 BAC but more severe punishments for more severe inebriation. .08 is pretty low and people who drink regularly can function fine at that level.
People hate this one but… hey, it’s my most unpopular opinion.
Cognitive ability is a far better test. I used to be a raging alco, like real alco, not just daily drinker. The levels I functioned at would kill most people.
Of course I still have alcoholism, but I haven’t drank in 12+ years. While I don’t condone drinking and driving at all - in fact it makes no sense at all in this age of ride sharing - but if I were on a jury I could be swayed by a heavy drinker excuse. 🤷♂️
That’s one I used to hold until I went looking for studies on how smaller doses of alcohol impact a person’s driving ability. What I found was a linear, dose-dependent response with no real hard cutoffs. Driving is dangerous enough; there’s little benefit to making that worse by drinking beforehand.
I might be OK with a reduced penalty at .08, but I’d like to add a slap on the wrist at an even lower level.
deleted by creator
Does that mean the limit is like half a drink?
deleted by creator
That is an actual unpopular opinion. Fuck people who drink and drive, driving is dangerous enough as it is, and no one needs to drink alcohol ever
There are people with addictions who live in car centric places and need to drive. Should we stop those people from living a normal life because of a medical condition? Probably leading to it worsening = more drinking
I think it’s a more complicated issue than it seems at surface level and a real solution needs to be nuanced.
They chose to drink and then drive. Even if I buy that alcoholics should be allowed to be alcoholics, just purchasing the alcohol, then driving home and then drinking it is of course an option.
It’s a personal decision. Some of us enjoy the flavor and the social enhancements after having a few. I agree fuck people who drive really drunk but I don’t consider a few beers to be that. In fact, I know that a few beers doesn’t make me drunk or mess up my motor skills any. I’m significantly more dangerous when I am sleep deprived but that isn’t illegal. Heh.
Wow. .08 is ridiculously lax IMO. I agree punishments should scale by inebriation level but I never expected people to think .08 was too strict.
Mine are unpopular, but in the other direction.
I think your first DUI offense should be the last time you drive. Period. I feel like the fact it’s so lax is due to people knowing they won’t be severely punished.
Punishments are pretty severe… Night in jail, thousands in fines, possibility of losing your license… Justified when the person is actually inebriated but I don’t believe that is the case at .08… that’s a little buzz.
Not trying to change minds here though. I know it’s an unpopular opinion.
I don’t think a little buzz is ok either. Driving is dangerous at the best of times. Another reply somewhere in this thread already said it, but there’s no need to make it worse than it has to be.
People go to bars and friends’ houses and such and drink. It’s a part of life in western society. There is a massive difference in being slightly buzzed and being sloshed and I think the punishments should scale. Just as I’m not trying to change minds, mine won’t change either. This is my unpopular opinion as the thread requested.
Fair. This whole thread is unpopular opinions, so it’s kinda natural for most people to disagree with each other.
Thread participation achieved. I’m not even mad. (งツ)ว
It would be for the best if public transport were good enough everywhere that you wouldn’t have to drive a vehicle with alcohol in your system.
Yeah, agreed. Everybody likes to say “there’s no excuse when you can Uber!” but in a real world situation that requires an expensive ride home and then an expensive ride back to your car the next day while worrying if it’s okay in the parking lot. Not actually very practical when you’re just having a reasonable amount of drinks and not getting shit-faced. So I hang around where I’m at after my last beer until I know I’m safe and just hope I’m not slightly over that silly .08.
don’t believe that is the case at .08… that’s a little buzz.
And a little buzz is too much to drive with? Respectfully, that is just rearranging titanic deck chairs. Buzzed driving should be illegal too.
As a society, we have to draw the line somewhere. Personally I am happy the line for driving 2 tons of steel is BEFORE someone feels the affect of alcohol. Driving is dangerous enough as is, buzzed still slows reaction times.
Lines are fine. The punishments are too severe at this line though.
They used to be more lax, the current rules are more strict because it IS a problem and there are studies showing it to be. Hence the lower BAC limits.
OMG IM SO SHOCKED A BUNCH OF SUPER POPULAR OPINIONS ON LEMMY!!
It’s insane how many removed call lots of the ideas here “Eugenics”. Eugenics is about producing the best GENES possible, while a lot of the replies here say that bad parents should not be allowed to make kids. Nobody talked about stopping people who aren’t so “perfect” (biologically-wise) to make kids. Just not have more kids suffering by growing in abusive and broken households or been poor and have it very hard in life.
People are Lemmy are not much smarter that those on Reddit, it seems…
Jack black isn’t funny at all. He’s worse, incredibly fucking irritating and annoying and a try hard. He epitomizes mainstream US “comedy”; obvious, loud, overstating the delivery of jokes with overwrought physical humor. He and Horatio Sanz must have studied under the same Sithlord. Can’t stand him.
If you eat factory meat, you’re doing something morally wrong that can’t be justified.
And the vast majority of people who get defensive about that, deep down know what they are doing is morally dubious at best, but they can’t/won’t admit it, so they lash out at vegans/vegetarians instead.
Gaslighting
Gaslighting
That’s willful self-delusion.
Not just factory meat. If you are paying for another fellow creature to be tortured and murdered you are acting in an unjustifiable manner.
There’s something to be said about the ease of access and personal energy needed to deal with changing a diet that has been inherited by birth where the alternative is possibly much more expensive. I don’t blame individuals who eat cheap meat out of necessity just as I don’t blame people for not recycling since the responsibility of the exploitation and destruction of our planet lies entirely with the people who run the machine, not those who are forced under threat of violence to exist inside it.
Fair, however a balanced vegetarian diet is as cheap or cheaper than a cheap meat centric diet, and certainly healthier.
A can of beans is about a dollar, less depending on where you shop. Potatoes are a few dollars a bag, and for most people, a bag of large russets would last them several days if not a week. Same for leafy greens, frozen fruit and veggies, bags of rice, etc.
I agree that there can be other factors, but impoverished communities around the world for centuries have lived on staple foods like those.
I think some personal responsibility is necessary still. Sure the megacorps are the ones doing the most harm and push people to be more consumerist, but that doesn’t absolve people of all their personal autonomy, otherwise you justify all kinds of “just following orders” arguments.
We ought to still resist the corpos and try to live our lives in ways that are better for the world as a whole. Sure, me recycling cans and trying to buy local isn’t going to save the planet, but that doesn’t mean I should just throw litter around in the street and buy everything from Amazon and Walmart.
otherwise you justify all kinds of “just following orders” arguments.
I’m not sure I’d equate having your hand forced with following orders blindly. It’s nearly impossible to change individuals’ behaviors unless it’s due to systemic forces (minus the few who just want to be correct as long as it is visible). But if you’re more focused on individuals and their “responsibility” even though they had no input on the creation of this system, I’d only assume that you’re fine with this system and would rather shout at the brick wall of “individual responsibility”, then get frustrated when people end up hating vegetarians and vegans. I’m like 90% vegetarian nowadays because I can’t really afford meat anyways as well as it giving me headaches and foul moods, but I don’t think you’re being realistic in what you’re asking. Would the world be better with no factory farming? Absolutely yes. But we’re in this situation not because of people’s choices. We’re in this situation because the choice has been made for a lot of us. Some people are a single paycheck away from homelessness, so they likely don’t have the resources to learn how to cook, then ruin a bunch of food in the learning process, only to overspend, and be threatened with getting kicked out all for your own comfort. Go fight the people making this the reality we’re living in.
Guess what, most if not all veggies and vegans are also doing something morally dubious at best.
Factory farming, extensive farming, they’re all bad for the soil, bad for native wildlife, bad for native plants. The societal impacts of factory farming are also not small. In the end, the moral lines people draw are mostly at different places, neither is undoubtedly better than the other.
As it currently stands, the morally correct option for food production would probably be for a large amount of the population to starve. That, of course, is also not entirely morally correct.
Disclaimer: I am personally omnivorous. I have a son and many other relatives and friends who are or were vegetarians or vegans. I love a lot of veggie food and used to frequent vegan restaurants, so I have absolutely zero qualms with it.
I have personally tried to give up meat twice, once for 6 months and once for a year. On both cases my health suffered massively for it, and I went back to eating meat. I had a cousin who was, for many years, a hardcore vegetarian. She was also of the opinion that eating meat was wrong. A few years ago she reintroduced fish in her diet to overcome health issues after fighting them for years. Most symptoms subsided in a handful of months. I believe she now also eats beef, although infrequently and in small quantities.
I’m sorry to be that guy but reality is more complex than whatever moral line any one of us would like to draw. You’re not wrong but it would behoove you to acquire some nuance on your thoughts.
As it currently stands, the morally correct option for food production would probably be for a large amount of the population to starve. That, of course, is also not entirely morally correct.
Considering almost 1.5 billion adults in the world are overweight it wouldn’t be so bad to let some people starve.
Guess what, most if not all veggies and vegans are also doing something morally dubious at best. Factory farming, extensive farming, they’re all bad for the soil, bad for native wildlife, bad for native plants. The societal impacts of factory farming are also not small. In the end, the moral lines people draw are mostly at different places, neither is undoubtedly better than the other.
Animals needs to eat and drink too, the meat industry has the highest tool on the farming industry.
I have personally tried to give up meat twice, once for 6 months and once for a year. On both cases my health suffered massively for it, and I went back to eating meat. I had a cousin who was, for many years, a hardcore vegetarian. She was also of the opinion that eating meat was wrong. A few years ago she reintroduced fish in her diet to overcome health issues after fighting them for years. Most symptoms subsided in a handful of months. I believe she now also eats beef, although infrequently and in small quantities. I’m sorry to be that guy but reality is more complex than whatever moral line any one of us would like to draw. You’re not wrong but it would behoove you to acquire some nuance on your thoughts.
It sound like your diet was off, if you don’t eat animal products you need valid alternatives to complete and balance your diet. In cultures shaped around animal products it may not be automatic or easy to find alternatives. Our ancestors diet for example had less meat and more lentils, in countries were they consume less meat you are most likely to find popular dish with other proteins sources.
Considering almost 1.5 billion adults in the world are overweight it wouldn’t be so bad to let some people starve.
You are fucked in the head.
There are a lot of calories lost when eating meat, because the animals burn calories by staying alive. So eating meat is like eating 15x times more calories from veggies. So everything bad for the environment about vegetarian consumption is true for meat too but in worse.
And perfect is the enemy of good. Veggies aren’t perfect, but they’re far better than meat for the environment.
Some of those are useless calories, we can’t eat grass and on some lands where only grass grows so cows are a way of using that grass, but that’s not the majority.
most of what animals are fed are parts of plants people can’t or won’t eat, or grazed grass. in that way, we are conserving resources.
This is not true. The vast majority of farmed animals come from high intensity operations and the vast bulk of the food they eat is grown agriculturally. This is one of those happy little lies people repeat to themselves without verifying because it provides them with a shred of moral license. They don’t really care whether it’s true or not and finding out it is false won’t change their behaviour, it’s a totally facile argument.
the vast bulk of the food they eat is grown agriculturally.
sure, but I can’t eat cornstalks and I don’t want to eat soy cake, so feeding that to livestock is a conservation of resources.
Where are you getting your information?
The majority of all the plants that humans grow are fed to livestock. That’s just the fact of the matter. It’s not conserving anything, rather it’s incredibly wasteful. Human food crops could have been grown instead, on a fraction of the land.
And again, you don’t really give a shit. It wouldn’t change your behaviour to discover you are mistaken, it’s a disingenuous argument. It’s sophistry.
Human food crops could have been grown instead, on a fraction of the land.
human food crops are grown. soy is a great example. about 80% of soy is pressed for oil, and the byproduct is fed to livestock.
The majority of all the plants that humans grow are fed to livestock.
this is a lie
That’s exactly what I wrote
no, you said those calories are wasted.
Read more than the first sentence please
“Some of those are useless calories, we can’t eat grass and on some lands where only grass grows so cows are a way of using that grass, but that’s not the majority.”
most people don’t want to eat soy cake, or crop seconds, or spoilage. feeding that to livestock is a conservation of resources, not a waste.
Amazing how many plants rights advocates pop up every time someone mentions the cruelty and violence being endured by farm animals. And no other time.
It’s the only time where it’s relevant to the conversation, no? Why would you bring it up anywhere else?
Large amounts of the population starving is not the morally correct option. Eating meat is many times more inefficient for resources used than eating plants. The infrastructure needed to sustainably mass farm vegetables for the whole world would be far less resource intensive than our current omnivorous factory farming system.
Your personal anecdote, assuming it’s true is completely included in my original critique. I specified factory farmed meat as the problem. I am fine with sustainable hunting if that’s your only option, because it requires genuine effort by the hunter, and it provides a generally less painful death for the animal vs what they would experience out in nature from any other predator. Also, there are some people who have medical situations where eating zero meat does cause them some issues. That being said, it’s a very small percentage of the population, and I suspect many folks (not necessarily you) are lying or mistaken that their health suffered when they gave up meat. Most of the time, it’s because they simply weren’t eating a balanced diet.
Eating less meat is better than eating more meat. Something is better than nothing, it’s good to cut down on meat consumption, even if you aren’t cutting it out completely.
Nothing we do is perfect, even the most hardcore vegan has slapped a mosquito or patronized a business that uses fossil fuels, etc. But it’s about trying to be better. Trying to equate the harms of the meat industry to harms that vegetarians/vegans cause is like trying to equate Ted Bundy with a kid who cheated on their math homework. Sure both did something bad, but one of those bad things is far more severe.
And as my personal anecdote: I am not vegan, I’m vegetarian. I get attacked by more hardcore vegans for eating honey and eggs. I have cut down my consumption of both, I drink almost exclusively non-dairy milk, and I bike and use public transport when I am able. But I’m not perfect, not possible to be.
Guess what, most if not all veggies and vegans are also doing something morally dubious at best.
Care to elaborate? Like are you saying that there is something inherently wrong about veganism or are you saying that vegans are not perfect people and also commit bad acts?
If it’s the first, you need some serious evidence and explanations since scientifically it is established that veganism is healthier, better for the environment, produces more calories per land, water and energy usage, and of course, the animals get to live free of torture.
If it’s the second option, well yeah, no one is perfect. We should all do our best to improve, I wasn’t born a vegan but once I understood what I was doing I stopped it, and it was hard and I had some fallbacks, but eventually I got used to it and had no issues. This is not just about veganism, there are many things in my life that at somepoint I came to understand that they were wrong, and I changed myself to be better. People can do both good and bad things, but if they are aware of the bad stuff and choose to ignore it, that’s when they become bad people.
A simple example from my past is that when I was younger (kid to teen) I thought “nig&er” was just a word for a black person, it was only when a black person explained it to me that I understood the historical and cultural significance of it. Does the fact that I said nig&er made me a bad person? I don’t think so, but if I ignored what I had learned and continued? Yeah, I think that would have been bad.
The true unpopular opinion?
this just isn’t true.
I prefer rap music by white artists because it’s less likely to feature the N word.
Regular expressions are not that difficult and coders that refuse to learn them because they “look like line noise” are terrible at their jobs.
Easy enough to write. But reading and maintaining? That’s the hard part.
Not a coder. But knowing basic regex, makes my life so much easier. Even in things like excel.
Hell, you can even use regex to search your stash in Path of Exile 2.
I can write a basic regex independently, but as soon as capture groups or positive/negative lookahead or lookbehind start popping up I’m back to the docs every time.
Absolutely, the syntax is difficult to remember, but knowing about concepts like lookaheads etc. is already far beyond what “regex is line noise” coders will ever achieve.
And there’s always regex101.com to help develop and test your expressions!
Level 2 of these people: learn regex and try to parse something non-regular like XML or C++ templates with it.
Same people who did not pay attention and hated the “useless” formal languages lecture in university and who have no clue about proper data structures and algorithms for their problem, just hack together some half-working solution and ship it. Fix bugs with extra if statements instead of solving the real issue. Not writing unit tests.
Soo many people in software development who really should not be there.
Black liquorice tastes good
MIT and BSD software licenses might as well be renamed to “I love big daddy companies and trust them 100% uwu”
There is no reason no to choose GOL/AGPL/MPL 2.0 if you are writing open source code.
MIT and BSD just let companies es enrich themselves at societies expense.
Of course there are reasons. Maybe you are more concerned with your innovated algorithm being taken up for the benefit of humanity than you are about your ego project getting lots of pull requests.
Pull requests have nothing to do with any of this. Also algorithms can’t be copyrighted nor patterned in the first place so it would not matter.
You could implant an algorithm in a proprietary code base and some gal could reverse engineer it and publish it as GPL or MIT or whatever and all would be a-ok.
Pull requests have nothing to do with any of this.
Disagree. That’s exactly the thing you want to receive from these corporations.
So under GPL, they can use my algorithm, but not my code. So they run it through ChatGTP. What has been gained??
In terms of algorithms, nothing. But you were the one who mentioned algorithms. I am speaking of code in general. I do want for persons to contribute back to the community if they use community sourced code. I don’t think we can trust corporations to be altruistic.
This all being said in your earlier message you were implying it’s all about ego. I was just saying it is not about ego.
For me it’s all about community resources and societal enrichment.
That is a quite popular opinion judging by the votes. I think they function quite differently, and are useful for different things, which might be more unpopular.
BSD and MIT are more like “public domain” or “creative commons” licenses. Some people genuinely just don’t care and want literally anyone to use their work.
Libraries, languages, APIs, OS’s, etc… Work well because they have mass adoption. They have mass adoption (often) because people get the freedom to use them during their paid time. Companies are exploitative and evil, but often their dev and engineer employees aren’t.
Copy left licenses (GPL, AGPL, CERN-OHL-S to not forget about open source hardware) really shine for end products like hardware, applications, hosted software, games, etc… Where you want to preserve a “unique” end product against theft, exploitation, and commercialization, and really care about having not everyone be able to do whatever they want.
@mholiv yes. Literally the reason why I use MIT licenses in my software. It’s possible for real people (same as me) doing real work to use my software legally and I don’t care if they hide their patches from me. I don’t really care about them at all - I just supply software as it is.
Then why not LGPL or MPL 2.0? They could use your code as is too. I’ve worked in major tech companies and they are ok with these. They just don’t like GPL for obvious reasons.
Obviously too is that you have the right to choose how to license your code, but I don’t think it makes sense to use MIT when LGPL and MPL 2.0:
- Exist
- Are accepted by tech corps for internal use.
If you don’t believe me look at your corps license inclusion policy.
@mholiv tried to look at MPL 2.0. Too long, didn’t read, lol. Maybe later I’ll look at it closely.
I will say shortness is a major advantage of the MIT license. Easy to understand.
For the MPL 2.0 here is a good short reference.
https://www.tldrlegal.com/license/mozilla-public-license-2-0-mpl-2
Preach!
@[email protected] It’s common misconception that copyleft licences stop rich companies stealing open source.
I mean you can’t steal open source code if you tried. The code is too respectful of your freedoms. I don’t think anyone is arguing against you here.
@[email protected] So there’s no reason not to use non-copyleft licences like BSD or MIT.
If “theft” is your only concern yes. It’s a common misconception that copyleft licenses stops rich companies from stealing. It does not.
I am more concerned about societal enrichment vs corporate enrichment.
If you release some code under MIT that a company finds useful, they could take it, improve it a bit, and resell it back to the community. This enriches the company at the expense of the community. Without the original code the company could have never taken it as a basis to sell and the community that wrote the code gets nothing.
If you release that same code as AGPL the company can take it, improve it and sell it to the community. BUT the difference is that the community now benefits from those improvements too. Maybe more improvements happen. Maybe a second company takes those improvements and sells them too. The community would have all the improvements and would benefit from greater competition.
With copy left licenses. The community is enriched and companies are enriched.
With MIT style licenses. Companies are enriched at the expense of the community.
@[email protected] It looks you believe that magic letters G, P and L make company release their improvements to the public. Actually they do the same with MIT and GPL code: include it into closed source products and that is. Because there’s no way for you to check if there was GPL in closed source program.
But the GPL style licences bring licence compatibility issues while MIT style do not. (And that’s why Linux cannot include ZFS driver despite it’s being “GPL style” licenced)
Ask Cisco how they feel about it. There is a precedence of companies using copy left licensed software and the community benefiting from it.
If companies are just going to be blatantly criminal and violate software licenses they were going to do that anyways. I’m not sure how much experience you have working in or with mega corps but the ones I have worked with in the past HATE the idea of opening themselves up to being so blatantly liable.
When I worked in big tech we had a license scanner that checked the libraries we were using. Anything strongly copyleft would be flagged and we would be contacted by legal.
You might have experienced working with companies that act otherwise. I encourage you to call them out, maybe work with the FSF to get another Cisco style ruling.
Funny you mention ZFS though. It’s not the GPL that was the issue. It is CDDL that’s incompatible. GPL is generally comparable with foss licenses. MIT, MPL, Apache, BSD all are comparable. It’s just CDDL that’s incompatible with copyleft in general.
If you think the community will benefit more from MIT licensed software than copyleft I think you need to look harder at the modern corporate world. Corporations are not altruistic.
This being said I’m not sure there is much more to be said here. You’ve gone to saying I believe in magic and that there are corporate GPL conspiracies. I just don’t see the proof and I think there is not much more to be gained by such talk.
@[email protected] Going criminal is not a goal in itself. I think you know, corporations exist for profit. If violating a licence gains profit they’ll do it. You know companies doing open source? I know too. Why do they do it? Because of GPL? No, they do because they profit from it. (And they like how copyleft licences restrict others from benefiting).
You see problem with CDDL? Problem would be any other copyleft licence. No copyleft licence is compatible with GPL (except they include special exception), neither CDDL, nor GFDL (despite GNU in its name), nor any other. Funny you mention MIT, MPL, Apache and BSD in this list, because they’re all permissive that are compatible to both GPL and CDDL. It is not CDDL, but copyleft making these licences incompatible. I mentioned CDDL specifically because it is an iconic example how copyleft (allows a company to) hurt open source.
You’re speaking about “conspiracies”, and ask me for proofs. But what proofs do you need? That companies violate licences? There are known cases of open source licence litigations. Actually problem is deeper, not that companies violate licences, but that there’s no effective way to enforce such licences (without totalitarism).
What’s the main difference between those licenses?
Sure. Very briefly. These are all open source licenses which (roughly) means the source is freely viewable and changeable. But the specific differences are:
-
MIT/BSD - Anyone can take the code and do whatever they want, if they start with your code, improve it then make it proprietary there is nothing you can do.
-
GPL - If someone makes changes to your code and improves it they have to make it available for use by the community too IF and only if they distribute the binary.
-
AGPL - Like GPL except that even if they are running the code on their server and not sharing it they still have to give back improvements.
-
MPL 2.0 - Like GPL but limited to specific files. This is useful for things like statically linked code. I don’t often recommend this but it can be needed for static only code bases like rust. Proprietary software can link with this and not be covered by the copyleft share alike stuff.
-
LGPL - Like the GPL but for dynamically linked libraries. Proprietary software can link with this and not be covered by the copyleft share alike stuff.
-
SSPL - Like AGPL but technically even more intense. If you use SSPL you must open source all the tooling you use to manage that hosted SSPL license. Any tools to make sure the SSPL software is running well or to set it up must also be open sourced.
The OSI technically does not say the SSPL is “open source” but given that they recently admitted that they regret defining the AGPL as open source I think the OSI might be showing a bit of corporate bias.
Thank you. At glance it seems like the difference between CC0 and CC-SA in copyright with some additiona rules about what exactly count as “publishing” stuf. That was very helpful.
CC0 vs CC-SA is actually a really good (rough) analogy.
-
I managed and maintained a known open-source project. GPL license.
4 guys in SKorea submitted patches back as required, which their company claimed was corporate espionage – because they intended to violate the license?
Someone from the FSF took their case, but was unsuccessful. 4 guys went to prison because of them adhering to my license. Prison!
I’ve done BSD ever since. I can’t prevent companies from being right sociopaths, but I can keep well-meaning and honest people out of prison.
Wait, so because a few execs violated the GPL and threw their employees under the bus, we should abandon copyleft entirely? That’s like ditching locks just because burglars exist. Companies that want to exploit software will do so, BSD or not. The GPL didn’t land those four guys in prison; their higher-ups did. Giving up and saying “ok big corp I’ll just do what you want“ just makes it even easier for corporations to profit at societies expense.
we should abandon copyleft entirely?
You do what you need to do.
That really sucks, but it does seem like just giving this company the win. I imagine it didn’t break those guys out of jail either. Regardless, do you have an article or something on this subject? I’ve never heard of such a case but I’m interested!
Can’t do it without doxxing myself.
I don’t need validation of the facts. I’m just saying why I cannot go with an encumbered license for any new stuff. I can’t put others in that kind of risk.
Of course it’s your right to choose, but I’m not convinced that’s a good enough reason. The well-meaning and honest people can make their own judgements about their employer and decide whether or not to include GPL code. Even if you change your license there will still be GPL code out there and corporations don’t need any more handouts.
Milk should be poured before the cereal. I’ve always done this because pouring milk on top of the cereal gets the top wet and also kind of pushes the cereal down. I love crunchy cereal
ADHD is massively over diagnosed in the US. No shit stimulants make you concentrate better, that doesn’t mean you had ADHD. Concentration is like a muscle, you have to actively invest effort into making it better. It’s hard to concentrate and scrolling through posts and flicking through shorts is atrophying this ability. It’s like someone who doesn’t work out or eat well thinking they have a muscle development disorder, taking anabolic steroids, and since they gained muscle it confirms their suspicions that they had a disorder. Concentrating is difficult, it takes active effort, and you will hit walls when your brain is tired. It can be trained, however. This should be the focus and stimulants should be the absolute last option and only for people who truly meet the definition of disorder, i.e. it greatly impairs their relationships, work, or daily life.
I’m not saying it doesn’t exist at all, but I do think it’s way over diagnosed. Doctors want those high patient satisfaction scores, which is another issue in medicine in general.
Absolutely 100%
You’re right, but I think it’s also massively underdiagnosed in certain groups like women, immigrants from countries with shit views on mental health.
A lot of my opinion also hinges on that last D, disorder. For example, many people have autistic characteristics, but few have autistic spectrum disorder that severely impairs their normal functioning in life. Likewise with ADHD; just because you can’t concentrate well doesn’t mean you have a disorder. Pills shouldn’t be the first line response.
In general I see this as an issue with healthcare in general; few want to put in the hard work, everyone wants pills or injections. This is also seen in fat loss (GLP-1 drugs rather than a healthy diet and being active) or how the VA treats disabled servicemembers (pills first, skimp on the mental health treatment or physical therapy). I’m not sure where to place the crazy rise of testosterone replacement therapy but I also believe it fits in this general “drugs first” approach. We love our drugs.
The fact doctors rely heavily on patient satisfaction scores exacerbates the issue. Sometimes the best medicine is not at all what the patient wants to hear.
This is an overreaction. Drugs do fix problems and sometimes hard work just isn’t actually enough and if anything my experience has been mostly just humouring doctors until I get to the drugs and that actually fixing the issue I had.
No matter what I could try I simply cannot fix my ADHD, and concentration is really the least of my worries, but amphetamines fix it like magic, and the way I even found out I have ADHD is by getting amphetamines from DNMs long before getting them prescribed legitimately.
There are no “healthy habits” I could form when I’m literally unable to form habits without the background dopamine needed for executive function, which is something vyvanse provides for me. Similarly there was no amount of gender non-conformity or societal change that would have fixed my crippling gender dysphoria and I’m glad I just on blockers and HRT as a teen and later got surgery because that was just very literally the fix and I’m just fine now.
Similarly, We’re just now finding out that not only does exercise nor a “healthy” diet have a causal relationship with weight, but that some people are just genetically wired to be more hungry and we have meds that fix that and from then on the “hard work” becomes actually doable, and whaddaya know - being less hungry makes you eat less.
Just as you are saying doctors are incorrect for jumping to the conclusion of using drugs first, you are incorrect by jumping to the conclusion that the individual is to blame for their condition and that they should have to do some kind of work to get better, which is a touchstone of ‘Christian work ethic’ framework where bad/lazy people do bad/lazy things because they are lazy/bad.
I know it’s annoying to accept sometimes that miracle cures exist because it feels unsatisfying, but I think when it comes to skepticism of medicine it is best to be specific rather than draw broad conclusions from a preference for “holistic” vibes and a healthy distrust of capitalism and privatised medicine.
What I’m hearing here though is a greater critique of capitalism than anything. Medicine attempts to resolve situations with drugs first because it’s cheapest and keeps the lights on, and people can’t afford non-drug therapies because they’re poor and overworked. The VA skimps because it’s underfunded and America wants people to fight its imperial wars and then fucks them for doing so. Peoples’ hormones are disordered because of unprecedented levels of environmental pollutants.
I would not lay it on the patients. My wife is on GLP-1 but she begs my doctor to raise her thyroid supplement instead. Her tests come back as the bottom of normal and she has thinning hair, dry skin, constipation, and feels cold all the time. She does have other medical issues but I mean common lets use a little common sense and factor in symptoms along with the blood test. I firmly believe there is some sort of kickback scheme going like with the opiods because thyroid is super cheap.
I think the more likely reason it’s “over diagnosed” is because it’s a far more common type of brain than we previously recognized. The whole hunter vs gatherer theory. It’s really just that many people, and modern day stressors plus a better ADHD understanding are resulting in more positive diagnosis.
Your opinion is unpopular because it’s clear you don’t know what ADHD is. It’s not just “trouble concentrating”. It’s not even primarily that. It’s a slew of issues, physical, mental, and emotional.
I know the DSM isn’t perfect but inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity are the main criteria, and those are all issues that I believe stem from poor concentration or focus.
My opinion still remains the same; I think many have these traits but few have it to a level which is appropriately classified as a disorder. Stimulants are performance enhancing drugs for your brain and they have side effects. People hear from a friend or post online that it helped someone and go get evaluated - by a for profit industry that stands to make money by getting more patients. Pretty easy to cut someone a script and bill that CPT code.
I’m not saying this disorder doesn’t exist, or that some people have no option but medication. I do think it’s over diagnosed by an industry relying on patient satisfaction scores.
This is my unpopular opinion. I don’t believe taking a medication for life as the first line treatment is appropriate, especially when they’re directly affecting reward pathways. ADHD is just one of many areas in medicine I see this happening.
My maybe unpopular opinion is that it sucks that my meds, which are like my “glasses” correcting focus, motivation and emotional self-regulation, which are much safer than any antidepressants and at high dosage have about the same side effects as too much coffee, are being framed as dangerous stimulants and abused by idiots who snort them in their noses, and have to be so heavily regulated.
I got late diagnosed and since I got my meds I overcame my overthinking and anxiety issues, have no more of what I thought to be depressive episodes (caused by severe under stimulation and the burn-out of chronically forcing myself to do stuff against the strong child tantrum-like inner resistance with raw will power as you ADHD “expert” and all of my family suggested all of my life), and finally can feel and function like an adult and at the same time am much more zen and balanced.
Yes, having some symptoms does not qualify. Just as being sad sometimes does not qualify for depression. But every mental disorder is a matter of severity. You cannot feel how things feel to others. If a diagnosis and meds help a person, why would you not want them to get that help? It’s like saying that people who are short-sighted should just try harder and train their eyes and do not need glasses.
Yeah, a really surprising effect of finally getting diagnosed with ADHD and starting meds is that I’m actually able to emotionally regulate and self-soothe. A lifetime of depression and anxiety could have been managed so much more easily.
Also I find it odd that people say “ADHD is over diagnosed” but everyone I know that has an ADHD diagnosis had to FIGHT to even be screened for it. I think there’s definitely more self-diagnosis than there used to be and a decent amount of that is bullshit, but I don’t think it’s particularly easy to get an official ADHD diagnosis.
My psych got me on Buproprin and it’s amazing how much impact it’s had on my impulse control and depressive phases. Like, the feelings are still there, but I only have to say “no” to them once instead of every two minutes for days at a time.
Lemmy users project their toxicity towards Reddit. This place can be quite hostile if you don’t echo the ‘correct’ ideals.
Votes should be inversely weighted by age. The vote of someone who’s going to clock out before the next election even rolls around shouldn’t be worth the same as the vote of someone who’s going to have to live with the consequences for half a century or more.
Ooooh dark. I like.
Vote 1! @Sordid
But what about the reverse argument?
The elders know much more than the young generation, shouldn’t they have a larger say?
Voting age should be raised to at least 24, so that the frontal lobe is fully developed.
Not really my belief, but you’re opinion marginalized me, so I’m counter-proposing.
Then cap the voting age at 50 when cognitive decline of the frontal lobe really kicks in, if we are talking about fully developed brain function.
Neural plasticity has even declined once you are past your 20s. One of the reasons people find it much much harder to learn a new language past then, for example.
reasoning, memory, and speed of reasoning eaches a decline threshold when you are around 40.
My unpopular opinion is I guess that humans were never evolved to live as long as we do (and certainly not meant to labor as long) so everything in our brain gets very wonky. Empathy is also one of the things stunted with age. There is a reason the “grump old man” trope exists.
Perhaps there’s an IQ cutoff you’d favor as well? Perhaps a psychological exam? Surely the mentality handicapped shouldn’t vote, right?
You speak to me of empathy?
Or have the voting age be 18 years old to the average national life expectancy, although i really haven’t thought this through too much. I assume if such a situation were to exist, it would be much easier to cut Social Security and Medicare without losing the elderly vote, so that probably would backfire.
Linux will never come close to replacing Windows.
I’m sure people didn’t think Internet Explorer would be replaced either.
But if your product is dog shit log enough, people will move
It doesn’t even matter how good Linux is or how bad Windows gets, Linux is lacking the one thing that made Windows mainstream: Billions of dollars in marketing and brand recognition.
Linux is missing more than that. It, by nature, has no direction.
Right and Windows’ direction is so clear and not hype-driven at all
It has many directions, not none.
Same problem, different cause.
Did Firefox have billions in marketing when it overtook Internet Explorer?
The big difference being that most people don’t know or care to learn how to download their own OS. Installing a browser is quick and easy in comparison.
I’ve been out of the tech world a minute now so maybe its changed but last I knew no PCs came with Linux preinstalled and you can’t just get a Linux OS disk to use to install.
Fair, it’s not as easy as installing a new browser.
But it’s not difficult.
- Download Linux
- Flash it on a USB
- Change boot settings
- restart and follow install wizard
It’s real easy and there are many clear guides out there.
Boo! Hiss!
Windows will never come close to replacing Linux! There’s way more Linux out there than there is Windows.
Presumably you mean on the personal desktop. In which case I still disagree in the very long term. I think at some point Windows will be replaced by *nix based systems in the vein of OSX and Chrome OS.
Been hearing this for decades and it has not happened.
