Who’s “they”?

If it’s Urologists, like, those are the experts. If it’s someone on Twitter, they don’t matter. If it’s women as a whole… oh, boy. Dude. If it’s “the jews”, OH. BOY. DUDE. HOW EVEN?

Me: Can I have (small template parser)?

Stackoverflow: No, we have (small template parser) at home.

Small template parser at home: Full-stack web framework

How can it be that people don’t realize how badly faked this is and what position it is trying to sneak through?

I’ve been using Linux for more than a decade now as my daily driver.

Count me as ‘basic’ and ‘just starting’, because I quite like the colorful, clicky and nicely animated version, where I don’t have to remember anything and that works just as well.

And now out of my way, while I happily point, click and scroll to adjust my displays brightness, which is entirely possible through the terminal, but I’m not ridiculous or insecure enough for that.

I don’t get why you get so much downvotes, because it’s not as obvious as people make it out to be and there are plenty of adapters. So it’s a good question.

But yes. The 3.5mm jack had the thing companies say they are striving for: simplicity.

DACs are nice and everything but the phone can just decide to not connect properly. The DAC can decide it had enough of your phone. In either case you’d need to reconnect them. And that means unlocking your phone, because a secure phone will block streaming to ‘unknown’ USB-C devices, unless it’s unlocked during the negotiation phase. And if your connectors have become wonky for whatever reason: Well, no music for you.

And then there’s the issue where you have to have them at hand when you need them. In your car, on your person, while at work.

3.5mm is great because it actually “just works”. One of the few things that can claim such thing.

Linux users (sometimes):

sees an extremely user-friendly interface - so good that everyone and their grandma can use it perfectly right away without any explanation

“Ugh, why doesn’t this look more complicated?”

Edit: This was in response to someone commenting “Why does it look like toddler UI?”. The comment seems to be deleted now.

deleted by creator

Fair point, will do… at some point in the future.

Edit #1: You people are expecting way too much reasonability from someone using emojis to login.

Edit #2: Urgh! FINE. Have your sensible title that actually means something and betters everyones experience. angrily sips water >:(

We are sorry, your request could not be processed. 😊

As you know, at Corp.inc we believe that the most important thing there is, is human connection. ❤️ For this reason, every complaint must contain at least 2 happy emojis or 1 heart.

Please resubmit your concern accordingly. 😉

with love, Corp.inc - Issue Management

I don’t think anyone takes this seriously. It’s just fun to come up with the worst password policies.

Just imagine the error: “Sorry, your password could not be set. If you decide to include more than one animal, make sure they get along or include a zookeeper as well.”

Fucking brilliant.

The Interrogator: “You think you’re so funny… WHAT. IS. THE. PASSWORD!!!”

A guy, tied to a chair, bloodied and crying: “Amogus, it’s a drawing of the Amogus guy.”

The interrogator prepares another round of fists

deleted by creator

Edit #2: ICE is a type of train in germany. I mistook “ICE cars” as meaning trains and was wondering how flying is supposed to be more efficient than trains. Hence my confusion.

OG comment (invalid, see Edit #2): Where are these numbers coming from?

I cannot find any source for the 3-4l/passenger/km claim. I cannot find any source for the claim that planes are more efficient. Nothing comes even near this claim.

https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint

https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/rail-and-waterborne-transport

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566

Can you please provide a source?

Edit #1: I just want to add that my old combustion car (VW Up! / Seat Mii / Skoda Citigo) burned around 4.2l/100km. So I according to you, if I had another person with me, I’d beat both planes and trains with what stands uncontested as the most inefficient form of transport?

Stallman is like the friend you’ll never introduce to your family.

https://github.com/x89/Shreddit

Mind the caveats.

“What’s up with the wax by the slow cooker?”

“Well, I’ve read about 10 papers on high performance cycling and have concluded, that hot waxing my chain may save about half a watt.”

“When did you last ride it?”

“Also a good question, indeed.”

I’m too lazy to look up the numbers, but I think the premise of this argument is rather weak.

Money spend on social welfare, vastly improves poor people’s lives. When you spend it on corporate welfare, the money tends to go into the pockets of people who are already pretty comfortable.

This is a simplification of a multifaceted issue, but by and large I think this holds a lot more water than just comparing numbers.

Also: There was a pandemic in the time period given, so there might be some selection bias.