“we need more resources” is bounded by the rate at which you can incorporate new teams members without absolutely destroying your productivity, or having a bunch of untrained fools running around breaking things (of course the later is standard at many places already, so I guess it doesn’t always matter).

The right answer is usually : “No”. Or at least “Prioritize”. Or “This is what we need to get it done” at which point they might start to get software takes time to make decently, and they don’t want software that doesn’t work decently in the first place.

We need a new paradigm for social media. And no, I’m not satisfied with Lemmy either (privacy issues).

My personal hate is the word “settler”, which invokes an image of somebody taking previously useless land and making it fit for human habitation, but apparently has been redefined within the borders of Palestine to mean “armed invader”.

North American Natives probably resent that sentence…

It is very rare for no humans to make use of land at all. Whenever someone “settles” it, they are taking it away from someone else. Usually force gets involved at some point, even for nomadic tribes. It’s why colonialism has a bad rep these days.

Never touched it? A website? What about updating frameworks for security issues?

The closest I got to this kind of job., is the closest I got to running away. I’m much happier elsewhere now.

This, to a point.

Other things help :

• Unit test to help catch regressions. If you are confident in your test catching a good portion of bugs from refactoring, at least you feel confident refactoring. Worst case, at least you ensured your code is testable. There is nothing worse than refactoring untestable code.
• Self-documenting code and when it fails to self-document, comments or refer to a wiki page.

Or just racist.

This stuff depends on context.

If it’s the first time someone is told this, sure. If someone is asking not to be constantly harassed for having done this once, then that person is right. Once they’ve been told once, it’s plenty if education is the goal. If the person knows to tell you not to tell them that, they’ve been told once. If someone is asking that the guy who leaked the nudes be acted against, then that person is right. If someone is excusing shitting behavior because the victim should have protected themselves better, they are blaming the victim, shame on them.

I think this depends on the crowd. Unfortunately, the intelligent crowd and the crowd with money and power is not exactly the same. Though hopefully there is overlap.

I think this points to a large problem in our society is how we train and pick our managers. Oh wait we don’t. They pick us.

Since you seem to be surprised people got offended or hurt, I will try to decode this interaction for you. Based on seeing essentially this discussion online over and over again.

I mean my take on this is the original post is essentially saying :

"Please be understanding of women turning you down in less than ideal ways (ie: Ghosting, etc.), they are afraid for their safety because they keep hearing stories of violence from men angry that women did not do what they wanted them to do. "

Then you essentially say :

“There are many good men too”. It’s also very easy to read into what you say “And we should be talking about how they don’t get talked about or remembered” even if you didn’t mean to say it that way

This is besides the point. It indicates that you either did not decode the original message right or lack empathy for the situation. I mean, it’s very likely the first, but the second is why people can get angry at a reaction like this. If you want to start a discussion on a different topic, why does it need to be in this thread?

What we haven’t even mentioned

There are a LOT of things we haven’t mentioned. I don’t understand why you feel the need to change the topic a second time in a thread asking for empathy.

Where I live we have this huge river around our city that provides most of the province with freshwater (along with all of the rivers that feed into it, but the population concentrates around that one big river)

That one big river is also a place for ships to go through, and an ecosystem (despite all of the disruption).

More water in use by all kinds of facilities still manages to lower the level of the river significantly, to the point where there have been worries raised about the ecosystem and where shipping capacity was reduced.

deleted by creator

No. People are tracking useable water supplies. If it gets out of that, we don’t care what happens to it.

We’re draining aquifers to give people and industry drinkable, useable water (no matter how we feel about that). The water “still existing” somewhere else is an entirely pedantic point, and a huge waste of everyone’s time.

Which distro?

You realize you only get told what to do by vegans because you hang out where they hang out. If you keep coming here and arguing with them, you probably are here because it serves your own needs somehow…

Exactly. Religions that survive and get promoted are the ones that can thrive in the society they are living in, and that generally requires fitting into the political world of that society.

Religions that criticize the powers that be either overthrow them then become complicit with the new leaders over time, or they get marginalized. Priests had to deal with kings, one way or another.

Arguments on purity bore me, one way or the other.

Less ecological impact is better than more ecological impact. Less suffering is better than more suffering. Cheaper food is better than more expensive food. Somewhat healthy diet is better than a diet Lancet is warning you about (ie: too much meat, especially red meat) Using less resources to feed more people is better than using more resources to feed fewer.

Every step from a modern western diet with way too much meat (the one Lancet warns about) to something more reasonable brings benefit basically in relation to how much meat you cut. You can argue that we can’t reach the absolute, but it strictly does not matter. If you try to reduce meat and succeed as much as you reasonably can, things improve. You don’t have to be a part of this, but surely you realize this is the case?

Oh wow, that is terrible and disapointing. Then again, when you think about it, it does mean the corrected graph gives us more hope.

I mean as far as feeding the data to AI, isn’t Lemmy worse? Any data on the fediverse is as good as public and would just get gobbled up by AI or adtech in an instant?