• 2 Posts
  • 1.26K Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: October 6th, 2023
  • Cocodapuf@lemmy.worldtoTechnology@lemmy.world•We're Not Innovating, We’re Just Forgetting SlowerEnglish
    5·
    2 days ago

    I do agree with that completely and I’d like to add to it with an additional point.

    When things break it sucks, but this does present you with an opportunity. If it’s already not working, there’s no harm in taking it apart and taking a look around. Maybe you’ll see something obviously at fault, maybe you won’t. But there’s literally no harm in trying to fix it, especially if otherwise you were planning to toss it out.

    And I really can’t tell you the number of times I’ve seen a device stop working, and apon closer inspection the entire problem was something very simple, like an old wire broke at the solder point, and with it disconnected, the power switch doesn’t work. When I was a kid and didn’t know how to solder, I would fix issues like that with some aluminum foil, and often it worked. Just start with a screwdriver, open things up, take a look around. We owe it to ourselves and to the planet to just give it a shot.

  • Cocodapuf@lemmy.worldtoAsk Lemmy@lemmy.world•Bots everywhere or am I losing it?
    2·
    4 days ago

    I mean, that’s a legitimate option.

    Honestly, it’s not Lemmy, it’s the whole Internet being overrun by bots. There is no safe haven and I haven’t heard a single feasible solution to the problem. But, at least in my experience, staying off the Internet works great. When I’m talking to someone face to face I practically never worry that they might be a bot.

    Also, having offline conversations tends to make me happier. So there’s another benefit. I know it sounds cliche or like I’m joking, but I’m really not.

  • Cocodapuf@lemmy.worldtoNot The Onion@lemmy.world•Trump suggests taking over New York City and WashingtonEnglish
    103·
    9 days ago

    Fuck the mods

    First off, to be clear, I don’t agree with this statement, I think it’s the wrong stance.

    But after that, I think this is a really an interesting point. [In general I understand a policy of not inciting violence] but if for instance, (purely hypothetically) the country were to fall into civil war (a crazy suggestion I know), wouldn’t this policy instantly seem inappropriate?

    I mean, encouraging people to join the war effort would be a matter of course, to quash that sentiment and silence those voices seems unethical.

    As we slip closer to that possible outcome, surely the time for seriously talking about violence would come before the first shot is fired, right? So where do you draw that line? At what point is a statement which incites violence “violating site rules” and at what point is it “legitimate discussion of impending hostilities”.

    And I for one, am very interested in how mods feel about this question.

    edit for clarity in brackets