@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

agamemnonymous

@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

agamemnonymous,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

Those bumps are very cucumber

agamemnonymous,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

Okay, dunno why you brought it up then.

agamemnonymous,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

Strange, most slicer varieties have at least some bumps, though not as pronounced as most picking varieties. Maybe you’re used to Persians?

agamemnonymous,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

Try to regularly imagine yourself on your death bed, looking back on life. I find that inspires the optimal blend. You don’t want to look back on a life of mindless work, or of fruitless sloth. If old-you would look back happily on a decision, it’s probably the right one.

agamemnonymous,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

Clap the whole bag between your hands and rub them together like a scheming villain

agamemnonymous,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

The wife and I will do dumplings every once in a while, but it’s definitely not worth the trouble unless we do a couple hundred at once.

A divorced couple divides their Beanie Baby collection in court, 1999 (lemmy.world)

Full caption: Nov 5, 1999, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA: Attorney Frank Totti looks over papers while his client Frances Mountain sorts out Beanie Babies with her ex-husband Harold Mountain in Judge Gerald Hardcastle’s Family Courtroom in Las Vegas November 5. The couple, who were divorced four months ago, were ordered to divide up...

agamemnonymous,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

I wonder if this principle could be applied to voting districts.

agamemnonymous,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

Mhmm, among my reasons

agamemnonymous,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

Who are you, Peter Glazebrook?

agamemnonymous,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

Certainly, at the very least, would be able to detect sarcasm. If by chance you came across it.

The irony.

Unless you think that statement is overly reductive, simplifying a nuanced subject to a flippant, self-indulgent remark that accomplishes nothing but ego-stroking

agamemnonymous,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

I feel like a broken record:

Yes, obviously, people are allowed to make their own choices. Not using the flashiest new toys and services is allowed. Acknowledging that fact is not useful. You telling people what they should and shouldn’t do is not going to have a societal effect.

If you would like to propose some regulatory or incentive policy to nudge people toward simpler technologies, then that is a useful conversation. But just stating your opinion? Old man yells at cloud.

agamemnonymous,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

I’m not saying that your opinion shouldn’t exist, but some restraint would be advantageous.

Unless you think that statement is overly reductive, simplifying a nuanced subject to a flippant, self-indulgent remark that accomplishes nothing but ego-stroking

Some opinions provide valuable hypotheses which can promote thoughtful discussion regardless of their validity, like “A value-added tax would benefit the working class”. Some opinions are hollow and useless, and serve only to make the commenter feel smugly clever for stating the obvious, like “Israelis and Palestinians should just get along”.

Endless promotion of the latter is probably one of the most unnecessary uses of the Internet, muttering to oneself alone at home is a sufficient technology for that purpose.

agamemnonymous, (edited )
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

Who does Tim’s father represent? What does him throwing the tin cans in the trash represent? How does this analogy represent the topic we’re discussing?

If the tin cans are old but sufficient technology, then the proper analogy would see Tim and Susie discarding the tin cans themselves voluntarily because the walkie talkies do what they do but better. Maybe there are drawbacks too, but Tim and Susie made their choice. Maybe Jack and Jill down the street like the intimacy of tin cans better and decide not to get walkie talkies, that is also their choice.

Maybe the window ritual is socially beneficial, but who enforces that, and how? Does Jack’s mom get walkie talkies banned? Now what about all the emergency responders who used walkie talkies to save lives? Just banned for children? Who decides who qualifies as a child, and what about the children in the country who’s houses are too far apart for tin cans?

I’m not saying there are no benefits to simpler options, and obviously every person has the freedom to use the simplest technologies they wish, but we’re having a conversation about society not individual choice . I’m saying that there’s no practical way to incentivize or force them at a societal scale. Unless you can think of one which isn’t just Big Brother censoring the Internet, in which case I’m all ears.

agamemnonymous,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

That’s on me, I’m also having an extremely similar conversation with someone else specifically about that

What you did say was:

I’m not saying there should be no internet. I am only saying maybe some restraint would be advantageous for everyone.

So what I meant to say In my last comment was:

What does any of that have to do with the restraint with regards to the Internet?

agamemnonymous, (edited )
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

If it’s not an analogy then… yes, the world continues spinning if kids talk with tin cans? I don’t see what any of this has to do with the topic of the societal effects of widespread use of algorithm-driven social media platforms. restraint with regards to the Internet?

Edit: got this conversation confused with a similar one. My bad

agamemnonymous, (edited )
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

Okay, sure? That was always allowed. Again, “People should behave differently than they do” without any proposed method of bringing about whatever “differently” is, is just impotent platitude. That’s why I keep reiterating “incentivize or force”. Without one of those two pressures, people will continue to make individual decisions about their behavior, including which things they choose to do on the Internet, like they have been doing the whole time. Some will choose to do things on the Internet which can be done sufficiently other ways, others will choose to use simpler technologies.

When you start talking about how restraint would be advantageous, without any concept of how to incentivize or force said restraint, you’re just becoming old-man-yells-at-cloud.jpg.

agamemnonymous,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

So then you agree?

agamemnonymous, (edited )
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

V.34 is the one burned into my memory. I hear plenty of BIPs but nothing I would consider a BWONG

agamemnonymous,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

When the phone inside his ribcage rings it’s not for me

agamemnonymous,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

I don’t know what I’m missing with Event Horizon. I’d heard it repeatedly recommended, so decided to watch it with the wife who’s much more into horror. Neither of us really enjoyed it. The effects were cool, but the writing was kinda so over the place and it just didn’t really leave an impact.

agamemnonymous,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

Obviously not universal, but generally parental strictness/harshness/unfairness is them trying to spare their children undue suffering from mistakes similar to those the parents themselves made in their youth.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • localhost
  • All magazines
    •
    Loading…
    Loading the web debug toolbar…
    Attempt #