We’ve done it. We’ve finally found the Olympic Gold Medalist for Mental Gymnastics.

Congratulations.

The real biggest thing you can do for the environment would be reducing the global human population.

Humans do not produce anything for the environment, the mere existence of humans automatically causes harm to the environment. Humans take from the environment but give nothing useful back. If humans were deleted from the Earth, the environment would not be negatively effected. Even the most “environmentally friendly” human still damages their local environment by being alive.

But you know, killing people is pretty illegal basically everywhere, and extremely unethical in many, many ways. Unethical Pro Tips I guess? Please nobody actually do this.

Don’t read or share an article just because it aligns with your world view.

My guy, this is actually impossible for the average Lemmy user. Unrealistic expectations, sheesh.

You should put in the title that this is only for Linux.

“We all did it and we are fine!”

Its not about addiction. Its about people that are affected by something not knowing or intentionally ignoring that they are. Is it possible that they have no effects? Sure, but the liklihood is very incredibly tiny.

I just used Gambling Addiction as an example because I thought it would be obvious and not go over people’s heads. I guess either I expected too much or my point is proven, or both.

I’ll be real, this has the same energy as:

“Gambling Addiction? I’ve been gambling for 20 years and I’m still not addicted.”

And while yes, a person could theoretically be a gambler for 20 years and not be addicted, the likelihood of that happening is very incredibly tiny.

I wouldn’t say fixed, because nothing can be done about lag from a wireless device. But it definitely can be lowered.

You would be very surprised at the lengths some people will go to in order to weaponize the way someone else votes on a comment or post online. People really couldn’t be any less petty.

I don’t know, I find people do all sorts of stuff with their networks all the time that has me scratching my head trying to figure out why they set it that way when I am eventually called to fix it.

This seems like a bad idea.

What sort of protections are in place against nefarious actors that gain access to this network? Do they do anything to isolate each connected device from each other so that two devices on the network cannot connect to each other, such as making use of subnets? Are users connections throttled, and if so, to what degree? Are certain websites blocked to prevent potential malicious actors from intercepting sensitive data more easily, such as bank sites?

I mean, the idea is a well intentioned one, but I can easily see this going very wrong very quickly.

Me: Expresses concern about potential cybersecurity issues with a free publicly joinable network

Lemmy: Furiously downvoting

Honestly, I am not sure what I was expecting, but it was clearly too much.

In my area, extremely common target for shoplifters. Like, if there isn’t at least 5 attempts of shoplifting at a Ross store in a few hours, it’s not a Ross store. They usually end up having to close up around here because the losses are so bad. We were down to just one, but it got turned into a TJ Maxx, which is basically the exact same thing.

They usually sell discount and cheap clothing, mostly. They ahve other stuff as well, but they mostly carry clothes.

This is also true for initialisms, which are acronyms in which each letter is pronounced individually.

“A NASA project” would not become “an NASA project” because nobody pronounces each individual letter of NASA, they just say it as one word.

“An FBI agent” would always be correct, and “a FBI agent” would always be incorrect, because FBI is never pronounced as a word, and each letter is pronounced individually.

Misreading the first word as “Diddy” was absolutely WILD for a moment, holy

If you are guilty of a crime, then certainly being truthful and cooperative with police can lead the Judge to be more lenient with sentencing than if you had been a problem. It also can directly lead to you being treated less roughly (or “normally”) by police, and less additional charges ontop of your existing charge. Obviously it depends on the severity of the crime, but it is not entirely a myth. Judges usually have within their discretion a range of time for sentencing, and I have seen multiple times where a Judge takes the Defendant’s cooperation and truthfulness into account, giving the lowest possible sentencing.

My personal opinion is to just be truthful and own your actions. Be accountable. If you broke the law you broke the law, you know? Yes, a lawyer can help lower your sentence, and its really never advisable to not speak to a lawyer, but its just my opinion of “If you cannot do the time, then do not do the crime.” Yes, sometimes following the law can be a hassle, and yes there are laws I think are stupid and I do not agree with. But they are still the laws of the land and if I want to live here, then I am obligated to follow the law to the best of my ability.

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVISE BY THE WAY

Be polite, be respectful. Kinda like bees. If you don’t mess with them, usually the bees aren’t going to mess with you. If you don’t give police a reason to interact with you, unless you were a witness to a crime or something they will usually leave you alone, where I live at least. I am over 30 and that is the only interaction with police I have ever had where I would consider myself as a suspect. Also, I feel obligated to mention that I am a Mexican American, and a legal citizen.

I had police called on me once. I was working for a homeowner while they were out of the country, and one of their neighbors called the police to report me being in the homeowners backyard.

I was watering their plants, by the way. But their neighbors might not have known or seen that since the backyard is behind the house and a fence.

Anyways, police showed up and took a few steps up the driveway to the side of the house where I was working and asked me if I was the homeowner. I politely said “No, I am not the homeowner.” The officer gave me a look, to which I elaborated “I work for the homeowner, they are currently on vacation in [country name], and they asked me to water their plants for them.” I was holding the water hose in my hand and the plants were wet on the side of the house he could see.

He was also polite, asked me for my ID which I presented, he took a picture of it on his phone and then took some notes. He asked me to hang out around the front of the home a bit because I think he may have been relaying information to dispatch, but then he came back and shook my hand and said “Thank you for being cooperative, I was on a call with the dispatch who told me the person who reported you said the homeowner was on vacation in [country name]. I don’t want to take any more of your time, but hope you have a nice day and I already let dispatch know if anyone else calls about it to let them know you work for the homeowner.” And that was that.

Be polite and respectful. Don’t lie or be untruthful. You might not like the police, but they are still humans, treat them like humans. Purposefully making their job harder will never, ever end well for you.

Every citizen can choose for themselves if they wish to remain silent, and if you choose to do so you must say specifically that you exercise your right to remain silent. If you have to speak to the police for whatever reason after you said you exercise your right to remain silent, you are legally obligated to say you will continue to exercise your right to remain silent if you choose to continue to do so.

Do you ever go back to a WikiPedia article after you read it to check if it has been updated? Yeah, didn’t think so. Most people don’t. Thats why there is danger in just believing everything on WikiPedia because its on there and its free. Its not a bad resource, but it isn’t always a good source either.

But obviously you and others have some weird fetish regarding WikiPedia, so I guess this is where the conversation stops. People here be making it out like I am saying WikiPedia is evil and that is definitely not what I am saying, but I suppose on Lemmy it doesn’t really matter. People believe whatever they want to regardless.

Yes it does. But not all of that information is always true. Wikipedia pages are vandalized all the time, people quote sources that are later revealed as made up or not credible, these are all things that happen everywhere, WikiPedia is not immune to this. That is why I said WikiPedia is not a “force for truth.” It can be correct, but can you guarantee that every time you go to WikiPedia, the information on any given page will always be 100% correct? This is all I meant.

Well as I said it, isn’t completely useless. I mean, sources aren’t always reputable. People make mistakes, people act in bad faith, things happen.

I was just saying that WikiPedia is not a “bastion of truth,” because it is very susceptible to wrong information. Sure, the information may be correct most of the time on popular high traffic pages, but on low traffic pages, or pages that used to be low traffic and suddenly became high traffic because of some topical issue, can you really be sure that you aren’t reading wrong or biased information? That is all I am bringing up. I think any person with a brain can realize this, but I wanted to be sure to mention it regardless, as many people seem to not meet that low specification.

Honestly. Could be any user on any platform, Lemmy not excluded.