. The race of a voice actor doesn’t matter
. It is possible to wear yoga pants because there comfy
. You don’t need to shower everyday
. It is possible to crossdress/be gender non-conforming without being trans
. Monty Python is very overrated
Both employer related:
- no biometrics
- birthday not for sale
- ISO 8601 (e.g., 2025-05-23) are the only correct date formats.
- We should stop using time zones and daylight saving.
We should stop using time zones
Check this out. I’m a business with at least one office in every US state. You want to know when my New York office opens so you can come by. Instead of seeing “Offices are open 9 AM to 5 PM” You now need to check every office… by state… by city? Time zones would be helpful even if we all used GMT, so that you could easily determine which time zone a business is in to set a reasonable time to be open.
DST can fuck off though.
That’s a pretty specific use though. A case like this only makes sense because we all somehow decided 9AM - 5PM is a standard business time, when society could benefit from having different business/services open at different times.
That was an example of a situation where time zones make sense. Any time it is important where the sun is in the sky, the time that it occurs will differ depending on where you are in the world. When is lunch break? When do backups run? When can you see the eclipse? If we weren’t in an interconnected world, it wouldn’t matter much but we need some convention to communicate information that is dependent on where the sun is, as that very often dictates human activity.
It seems like a universal time makes sense but I can’t think of a way to get around the fact that activity will vary according to timezones anyway.
Stop using timezones? So every day would actually be two weekdays because at some random point in time it would switch date during the day. Let’s meet next Monday wouldn’t even specify a single day anymore in most countries. And there is no real benefit to stop using timezones, just downsides. Yes you’d know which time it is anywhere but you still wouldn’t know of they are awake or not and have to either look it up or remember it - the same you have to do now.
No. Let’s go for the craziest option. Continuous time zones! Your clock changes a bit every mile east or west you go.
As a British person I agree with your second point. Everyone should use Greenwich Mean Time which is obviously the correct time. Even if it means that noon is in the middle of the night for some people.
I want the most anti-British option. I know! We’re going to do away with clocks entirely. We wake up when we wake up. We work when we work. We forget counting the days. Forget the calendar entirely. Live forever in an eternal now.
We should stop using time zones…
The way they are and divide them in half so that the western side of the current time zone gets the same-ish amount of light as the eastern side of the time zone
… and daylight saving
By springing ahead permanently, right? Right‽
What about RFC 3339? It’s technically different.
Good point! We should only use date formats that are allowed by both standards! https://ijmacd.github.io/rfc3339-iso8601/
ISO dates, 100%.
Time zones…I could see arguing to rework them, but abolish them? How would that even work?
We could use UTC.
You can use UTC, right now. Nothing’s stopping you.
Typically people propose switching everything to UTC.
The read this doesn’t work is because humans are still bound by a diurnal cycle and you won’t have everyone wake up at 0800, since for some people that’s the time in the middle of when the sun sets and rises.
So you still need to communicate to people across space where the sun is or will be for you at a time in the future, or otherwise relate where in your wake cycle you’ll be.
Tied to this is legal jurisdictions. Within a legal jurisdiction it’s important for regulatory events to be synchronized. For things like bank hours, school hours, government office hours, things like “no loud noises when people tend to be sleeping”, “teenagers old enough to have a job aren’t allowed to work late on school nights”, and what specifically constitutes “after hours or weekend labor” for the purposes of overtime and labor regulation you need your definition to be consistent across the jurisdiction. Depending on where you are in relation to Greenwich a typical workday can start at 1900 Friday night/morning, and extend until 0300 Saturday morning/afternoon. Your “weekend” would start when you woke up around 1800 Saturday evening/morning.Right now we solve this problem by deciding on a consistent set of numbers for where the sun is across some area that inevitably lines up with legal jurisdiction. Then we use a lookup table to translate our conception of where the sun is to where it is elsewhere.
Without timezones you instead need to use the same type of lookup table to find the position of the sun at the time and place of interest, and then try to infer what the situation would be.
We have UTC now, and people inevitably already use it where it makes sense. It’s just usually easier to have many clocks that follow similar rules than it is to have one clock that’s interpreted many different ways.
You should use your blinker when turning into a parking space
And you should back in.
I never understood the benefit of this. You need to go backwards at some point regardless.
Simple: Visibility and speed. You look at a parking spot, and if it’s empty, it’s definitely empty. It’s virtually guaranteed to stay that way as you back in, so you don’t need to monitor what’s in it. No cars, cyclists, pedestrians, emergency vehicles, et cetera, are going to enter the parking stall as you back in. That’s not true of a street or lane when you back out into it. It’s often difficult to even see traffic coming, as backup cameras don’t have the wide-angle coverage, and there’s always the possibility that you didn’t see somebody.
As a result of both of those factors, with practice, backing in can be done in seconds, and pulling out is a breeze. Pulling in forward is a breeze, but for most people, backing out is a slower, more nerve-wracking maneuver. (At least that’s my assumption from watching how long it takes.) On the other hand, the people who just YOLO it back out into traffic are psychopaths.
What about the grocery store? How do you load your groceries into the trunk when you’re backed in? How do you even get the cart back there? All logic breaks down at the grocery store.
Want to really make a power move in life? Go through your grocery store clockwise, like a psychopath. Just to show you won’t let the system control you!
All logic breaks down at the grocery store.
One of life’s profound truths!
That makes a lot of sense actually.
It’s safer to drive forward out of a space when you have a clear view of your surroundings, though.
Backing out of a space when surrounded by large vehicles on either side is basically done blind, where you have to trust that people or other cars aren’t suddenly going to be right behind you.
Dampening is making things wet. Damping is reducing oscillations in something.
Every time I hear or read people using them interchangeably is infuriating.
Thanks for this actually, I didn’t know
I am happy for not having seen this mistake.
Dampening is making things -wet- …
moist, or slightly wet.
The meaning of this word stops short of “drenching/dousing something”.One might even say that dampening is making things damp!
Finally someone who understands. I see this mistake everywhere made even by supposedly intelligent people.
Intelligence and knowledge are two different things. People can be ignorant about a topic and still be intelligent.
Similarly, something being deprecated & something being depreciated.
Not shower every day depends very much on the situation.
In summer there are certain coworkers who most fuckingly definitely should shower every day unless I’m allowed more wfh.
You should have to get a special license to drive something as big as a modern pickup truck.
And you should have to have a justifiable reason to buy and own one.
And there should be restrictions on where they can be driven.
Basically most people shouldn’t have pickup trucks.
Come to India. Seems like your dreamland.
I‘d love to move to India again. I just don’t know how I could get a job there. I don’t have any fancy degrees.
Id love a pickup…but it would be impractical, expensive to buy and run, the back space is basically useless cause even if you do put a cover on, the locks are crap. So I won’t be getting a pick up truck. Plus, where I live, it would go missing.
Love how the bed of the truck is basically the same size (if not smaller) as well so really you can’t use the excuse of needing the bigger truck for hauling stuff.
The only reason Americans started buying pick up trucks on mass is because of Tarifs put on Japanese car manufacturers in the 1970s and pick up trucks had no taxes on them suddenly became one of the cheapest and more affordable cars in the United States. Rick Wolf explained this somewhere I can’t remember where exactly.
There were also reduced fuel economy requirements for trucks and off-road vehicles, which contributed to the rise of SUVs.
I would go further. Most cars don’t belong in places where people live. They injure and kill people on the regular, the noise pollution causes mental and physical health problems, the light pollution disrupts sleep, the particulate pollution causes cardiovascular disease and dementia, as well as damaging ecosystems, driving adds to obesity and issues related to a sedentary lifestyle, the physical space they take leads to sprawl and ecosystem destruction, and the sprawl also bankrupts cities and towns. As well, driving in traffic just plain sucks as an activity, and makes people angry and miserable.
Oh yeah. Cars are bad on like every metric.
Socially they isolate people. You don’t interact with anyone when you’re driving except to get angry. The micro interactions you have on the train matter. Seeing people that aren’t just like you, also annoyed that the train is delayed, or just having a nice time with their kids, matters. More than makes up for when other people are annoying.
Economically they hurt. It’s much harder to just pop into an interesting looking shop when you’re cruising along at 40mph. All the space dedicated to parking could be used for other stuff- housing, commerce, communal space, whatever.
They make spaces less safe. Other than the direct impact (no pun intended) of people getting hit by cars, or crashing into stuff, a space that has steady foot traffic is generally safer. If everyone was in their car instead, you’d probably be alone on foot with no one to help if something happened.
They’re bad for the environment. Air pollution, micro plastics, whatever.
Drunk driving is way more dangerous than drunk “riding the train”.
The more non-car options are built out, the better it will be for people who need to drive for whatever reason.
Cars culture is trash and if we ever escape from it, it’s going to take years.
Going to disagree with your second point. In the UK at least, there’s a lot of friendly “no, after you” type activity. If the road narrows due to an overhead railway bridge or parked cars etc. generally speaking one or both will pull over, flash their lights to signal the other one can go first, and get a friendly wave of thanks when they pass. Letting people in at junctions isn’t uncommon either, though tends to be more the exception than the rule.
There is anger too of course, but usually only aimed at people who aren’t following the rules of the road, have done something stupid/dangerous, or are hesitating for far too long.
Its even worse in SEA. Some countries like Nam have these small dick pick-up driving shitheads but what they don’t have is America’s huge roads and streets.
Summer is a crappy season, fall is superior.
Pineapple on pizza is an abomination and an affront to hoomanity.
- Modern flip phones (e.g. Samsung Fold) are stupid and gimmicky industrial design failures.
- Humans are not good by nature. They are taught to be good but even babies cry and get angry without anyone teaching them.
- The Cat in The Hat movie with Mike Myers was not as bad as critics claim and actually had good undertones patched together with modern humor that is more profound in recent times than when it was originally released. It was actually ahead of its time.
- Apple/MacOS isn’t actually a better platform and is only designed to give the impression that it is simpler even though people still have to learn how to use it.
- Adult services should be legal in all countries and the workers involved should get paid with benefits/protections just like everybody else. This is assuming capitalism cannot be removed from the picture.
- VTubers shouldn’t be showing their actual bodies. It defeats the purpose of using the moniker in the first place.
- Education should be free without any debt involved. There is legitimately no good reason why education and knowledge should be pay-walled.
- Euthanasia should be legal where the person no longer wishes to subject themselves to failing health is granted control over their body. Forcing such people to keep living is selfish and pertains cruel and unusual.
- Hollywood should not be idolized and is actually part of the problem with things being f’d up rn. There is no good reason why actors or any kind of artist should be making all that money while the rest of society gets by with the scraps we toss around while the rich get richer. The same goes for any kind of celebrity, really. I don’t even leave out sports people in this.
This took me twice as long to finish because every other point I ended up with something political. So this is pretty much the least triggering or offensive I can make my list. Good grief.
I’m gonna have to ask what you define as good because I don’t think having emotions is bad, even if you’re a baby
That’s a good point. Let me rephrase then: I believe all humans are selfish by nature and so inherently are more easily prone to acting out even if it affects others negatively (intentionally). As in, there’s probably a reason why the baby is crying sometimes or there’s a reason the baby gets angry. Humans have to be taught to tame their demons because without empathy, everything would be an eye for an eye. By default, I don’t think humans have it in them to see right from wrong unless they’re taught either directly or indirectly. Something something nature and nurture something something. My 2 cents.
I’d say that mortality for humans is a social trait, because it’s something that benefits a small tribe social species. Stealing is “wrong” because it’s bad for small group survival, while “sharing” is good because it helps it. My that measure, humans are also inherently good because they engage in pro social behavior on an instinctual level.
The issue I think comes up with other survival traits that end in antisocial behavior. Tribalism is good for survival against other competing small social groups, but terrible when you’re trying to expand social cohesion.
Do you also think animals are inherently evil because they act in accordance with their own self oriented survival?
To your last point: By that logic you could argue that no one should be able to get compensated for their skills in an open marketplace. The actors and athletes get paid a lot because someone is willing to pay that money, and they are willing because only a miniscule part of humankind has exceptional skills/talent. Most people are average in every way.
Putting resources into things simply because someone is willing to pay money for it is a huge problem in our world. Once we put a dent in poverty and other existential crises, then let’s consider paying people millions and billions for simply entertaining people with skills and talent. Entertainment, arts and culture are certainly important, but their industrialization and overemphasis under capitalism comes at a very real cost, both to their art and entertainment itself, and to the rest of society.
Here’s a related hill: I am for the abolition of the professional sports industry. Focus on local competitions, actual participation and sports that encourage socially-useful skills, like the Firemen’s Olympics and its modern siblings.
By that logic you could argue that no one should be able to get compensated for their skills in an open marketplace.
That doesn’t seem to track, to me. Maybe it would be better if the huge amounts of money generated by films were shared more equitably among the cast and crew?
The actors and athletes get paid a lot because someone is willing to pay that money, and they are willing because only a miniscule part of humankind has exceptional skills/talent. Most people are average in every way.
This assumes that these people are indeed genuinely exceptional, in some sort of superhuman way. Do you think the selection process for actors and athletes is both extensive and foolproof enough that you can guarantee that all and only the best and most talented people in the world get recognition? I know for sure that, for example, there are plenty of amazing musicians out there that haven’t even crossed the radar of any music agencies. Surely the same is true of actors and athletes. No, the majority of actors working today are the result of nepotism and a narrow focus on what counts as talent - are the camera workers not talented? The people making the sets? The costume designers? Etc etc.
The actors and athletes get paid a lot because someone is willing to pay that money, and they are willing because only a miniscule part of humankind has exceptional skills/talent.
I see. So you are saying that every CEO is paid what they are worth?
By definition yes. Their worth is determined by negotiation between the company and the employee.
And there are no other external factors that could possibly influence their compensation besides their objective “worth” to the hiring organization?
Misuse of their there and they’re.
You/your/you’re wrong. Other mistakes take precedence.
It’s too much to remember
How so? They are 3 different words with 3 different meanings.
“their” is about possession “there” is a place “they’re” is “they are”
- Laptops should be thick and durable with good keyboards (like old Thinkpads)
- MacOS isn’t as bad as people here say, its still a Unix-based OS and that alone makes it superior to Windows
- Arch Linux is severely overrated
- Debian Linux is extremely underrated
- Alpine Linux is great on low end laptops
- Fedora Linux is the best distro for newcomers
- Rust belongs in the Linux kernel
- GPL > MIT/BSD
- Tiling > stacked
- AI sucks
Data is pronounced data and not data.
Being vegan is a moral base line.
Soft serve is not ice cream
Most ice cream isn’t ice cream anymore. It is frozen dairy product or sometimes not even dairy, sometimes it’s just frozen dessert product.
So what is ice cream then?
My three operating system hills:
- Windows peaked with 2000 (design-wise) and XP (functionality-wise)
- macOS’ separation of the application vs window concepts — i.e. an app has exactly one menu bar and dock icon, and is expected to be able to stay open without any windows (without needing nonsense like tray icons) — is much better than anything else and it sucks nobody is copying it
- Flatpak and everything related is atrocious architecture-wise in every single way and it’s a massive condemnation of Linux (desktop)’s compatibility state that it actually solves a real problem
I declare war on this hill!
- Peak windows was Windows 7 in both design and Function. It was pinnacle User Experience of a traditional OS before Microsoft started chasing fads, (Touchscreens in Windows 8, Cloud integration in Windows 10, and now AI bullshit in Windows 11)
- No opinion on macOS. My only complaint is that its not linux.
- Instead of Flatpak I would replace that with AppImages. At least with Flatpak I get some semblance of the SW Integrating with my DE and a semblance of a package manager. AppImages I feel like are like rolling the dice on how much effort the dev put into it.
No opinion on macOS. My only complaint is that its not linux.
Peak MacOS was 10.4. Before they started compromising on desktop UX to make it more familiar to mobile users. You could put a folder in the dock, right click it and navigate the file hierarchy right there in the context menus. Same for dragging files into a subfolder there.
I’m partially very sad but also kinda glad that I never got to use 10.4 or other previous versions (first one I used was Ventura). The more I hear about it, the more it sounds like I would have absolutely loved it and would be incredibly mad right now at the changes they made since.
I might give you Windows 7 on functionality, it has been forever since I used either. But definitely not design. 2000 has a UI that is consistent throughout, clear, and professional. It’s a masterclass in UI usability engineering. Plus it’s also heavily customizable if you want to do so. A lot of that was lost with Vista and some with XP.
AppImages are precompiled archives with extra steps. Meh. No, some of my problems with Flatpak are:
- it conflates app sandboxing with app distribution
- it mandates using bespoke APIs to work in sandbox mode instead of the established APIs (to the point where I’ve heard “we can’t implement X, it needs to work in Flatpak”)
- these APIs are often very Flatpak-focused but regardless become the standard for non-Flatpak because there is no existing alternative
- it ships its own builds of code that should be part of the system (for example, UI toolkits which would otherwise load global plugins, breaking stuff such as IME or themes)
Some of that (and why it’s necessary in the first place) is due to Linux’s incredible fragmentation and lack of an extensive backwards-compatible system API (such as macOS’s Cocoa), which causes a lot of other problems everywhere – but a lot of it is also self-inflicted. In fact, the massive focus on Flatpak and looking like that is the direction the Linux desktop is going was partly what drove me to try out a Mac.
AppImages I feel like are like rolling the dice on how much effort the dev put into it.I like AppImages, because I only have to put as much effort into it as the receiver needs me to.
