fewer*

>Arm good dogs with guns

>Bad dogs do not exist

>It’s consequently impossible for the guns to fall into the paws of bad dogs

It’s flawless.

I have, and there are. It’s just that on average, boomers tend to be shittier than silent, Gen X, Gen Y (millennials), Gen Z, and Gen α. More entitled, less self-aware, less empathetic, less willing to learn or at least accept new concepts, less humble, less informed, and more bigoted. Boomers are very, very lucky that they have a sizeable contingent of hippies to buoy their reputation.

Bro who downvoted you for this. 😭 This is just a basic, honest mistake with a correction and a very polite and immediate acknowledgement of the mistake.

That’s not what based means here. “Admirable; praiseworthy, especially if the thing that is considered “praiseworthy” is unpopular or controversial.”

This is thoroughly untrue. Joshua and the Promised Land is the greatest piece of media of our generation.

• You host a party where you invite all your friends.
• Everything is going well, people are having a good time, and then one random asshole you barely know starts making an ass out of themselves and talking bigoted shit, likely directed at groups your other guests are members of.
• You tell this person to fuck off and get out of your house, immediately solving the problem instead of 1) coddling them over their shitty beliefs, 2) dignifying their position by trying to reconcile, and 3) giving them time to invite their at-least-equally shitty friends, thereby making the other guests uncomfortable.

I’m sorry you don’t understand how this basic idea works.

Weird, I haven’t been experiencing any of this. Am I still at risk of running into this issue if I haven’t seen it so far? I don’t use this shit-ass OS, if that helps.

Reactionaries project their toxicity onto everything and everyone who doesn’t conform to their nonsense.

Oh, so Godot is even more based now? That’s cool to know. Toxic bigots don’t belong in any community; deplatform and shame the fuck out of them.

“So they’re going to get millions of dollars but the woman, the wife, this beautiful woman, I handed her the check—we handed her the check—and she said, ‘This is so nice, and I appreciate it, but I’d much rather have my husband.’ Now I know some of the women in this room wouldn’t say the same,” Trump reportedly said. “At least four couples here would have been thrilled, actually.”

I’m so glad my projected lifespan overlaps with an extended period where the boomer generation functionally no longer exists.

The fruitarians were right all along.

At least for right now it’s just a test on a 100-meter length of track, but this reeks of a startup trying to innovate its way out of NIMBYs not wanting to put solar panels where they actually belong without considering why nobody has put solar panels in the middle of a railroad track before (cough rocks, dust, wildlife, vibration, and vandalism cough).

PV Magazine is neat for reading about potential new innovations, but one thing I really dislike about it is that it basically just regurgitates what solar companies say about themselves in press releases in a way that’s completely uncritical. For instance:

Similarly, removal and installation tests will be carried out to demonstrate that the Sunways pilot installation is perfectly adapted to the constraints related to maintenance work and the operation of the line.

Oh shit, hey Beard. I didn’t expect to see you here either. For that matter I didn’t think anyone else surrounding the project used Lemmy. Cool to know I’m not alone.

Depending on what you have going on down there, you’ll either want to tuck your parts into your socks or your socks into your parts.

Oh hey, it’s cool to meet a fellow editor out in the wild, especially someone from another language. I will say for what it’s worth that I so far haven’t run into what I perceive as an anti-vegan bias on the English Wikipedia. Simultaneously, though, I often avoid editing articles specifically about veganism because I recognize I could get heated over what for me is a deeply held ethical belief, so I may just not be where it is if it does exist.

As someone who edits Wikipedia fairly prolifically and does have quite a lot of insight into how it works, I’m going to go up to bat for it here: Wikipedia operates on the premise that all information (some exceptions apply for information considered obvious like “2+2 = 4” or “Paris is in France” outside of an article on Paris) must be cited to a reliable source. This means that we can only say what the reliable sources have to say about a subject. As much as possible, we aren’t allowed to synthesize from existing material to form a conclusion not explicitly stated in a reliable source. Wikipedia aims to be a tertiary source that captures as best as possible what reliable secondary sources say, interspersing primary sources only as needed and especially as much as possible not personally weighing in. Lastly, we are to provide due weight to viewpoints based on how substantially they’re covered in reliable sources.*

It’s an unfortunate fact that presently, reliable news sources often tend to be biased against veganism. That’s pretty obvious from articles like this that overwhelmingly portray the animal agriculture industry as victimized by an extremist movement, giving only the bare minimum attention to the activists and intercutting their points with “buts”. When this is what Wikipedia has to work with, it really isn’t their fault. It’s a large part of why, for instance, Wikipedia’s article on Elon Musk used to fellate him to Mars and back; it was because reliable news sources absolutely constantly treated this man like a supergenius and consistently downplayed the awful things he would do.

If you’re able to cite specific articles, I can look into them and see if they fall short of Wikipedia’s standards, but ultimately, people need to change before secondary sources will, and secondary sources need to change before Wikipedia can. If you have any specific questions related to the project, I’d be happy to answer; I have pretty extensive experience with policies and guidelines at this point.

(* For instance, if we have an article about a video game that consistently got 7s and 8s from reviewers except for a sole outlier who gave it a 3, we can definitely highlight that 3 as a counterpoint, but we have to consider what proportion of the coverage we give to that review.)

“What we need is alpha males and alpha females who are going to rip out their own guts, eat ’em, and ask for seconds. Those are young men and women that are going to win wars.”

Hugely reassuring to me that this psychopath was a captain in the Navy.

The pamphlet referred to veganism in general, and one out of every 25 people in the UK is vegan. This would be like saying “Hey, better watch out if your coworker starts wearing a hijab”, or better yet “Coworker talking about being more environmentally friendly? Probably an eco-terrorist.”

It was completely ridiculous. If you’re offering what you think is their reason for doing this, then the actual information they put in the pamphlet doesn’t reflect that. If you’re attempting to justify this, you’re off the mark.