No, it’s not you, the joke just doesn’t work.

So in other words, the documentary was so successful in decrying the rampant hyperconsumption that was accepted in its time, that such rampant is no longer considered acceptable or normal. And on that basis, you consider it to be facile, obvious… “problematic”?

No shit its conclusions were already obvious to educated people. They were never the target demographic. Literally nobody references Supersize Me as a “study”. It isn’t, and it hasn’t ever claimed to be. It’s a shock story to grab the attention of the least well-informed segment of the population. That you’re trying to call it out for not succeeding at being something it never claimed to be, and even more so for succeeding at the thing it did try to be, is not a problem with the documentary.

Whenver you come up with similarly hot takes, the comments always end up being filled with a you offering litany of obtuse bad reasoning.

Ah, sure, the youths these days are so violent, they’re always going about the place besieging castles and knocking down fortifications.

Being a proud maritime nation, sure we should be celebrating this by having each denomination of note show a different famous vessel?

£5 is Boaty McBoatface.

If someone damaged my property, I’d feel pretty aggrieved… and it still wouldn’t make them a terrorist. And the police wouldn’t do nothing, because damaging property is a crime. That property being a few planes doesn’t magically change the equation. Just like the government wouldn’t be doing nothing if they hadn’t designated PA as a terrorist organisation, because a whole raft of criminal charges would still apply.

Literally, and I want to stress this, literally nobody has suggested that PA should not face appropriate and proportionate consequences for their actions. And you knew that. You knew damed well that people have no problem with the government taking action, as long as that action is legal and democratically responsible. Yet you deliberately chose to dishonestly equate opposition to terrorist designation with support for them getting off scot free, even though that’s an obviously false and mendacious equivalence.

You are not very skilled at this dishonesty malarkey. Consider yourself called out.

I think that’s probably a fairly uncontroversial opinion. In the city-builder genre, Lethis: Path of Progress aimed to be the definitive city-building game of its time, hoping to match the peaks of Caesar and Pharaoh in the city-builder heyday. Instead, Lethis ended up being a huge flop, precisely because it slavishly copied the mechanics of Caesar without understanding that games as a whole have evolved since then.

Lethis lacked certain quality of life features that now feel obvious and baseline. What’s sad is that these features had already evolved towards the tail end of the city-builder heyday, in games such as Children of the Nile, and now feel glaringly obvious by their omission. Other city-builders that haven’t been so tied to the classics have seen more success (although there’s been no true breakout hits, sadly, no great renaissance in the genre).

I hate to have to point this out to you, but time limits in real life are also based on developer whims, and nobody here had a say in that. Giving yourself time to complete a task doesn’t change the end limit, it just changes when you start… which is also equally applicable in games. Your logic doesn’t really pan out when you think it through.

The inside of the cone is coated in chocolate to prevent it from getting soggy from all the melted icecream. It tends to pool at the bottom because that’s how gravity works.

There is no “random” plug of chocolate. It’s an inherent function of the product. No matter what the flavour of icecream is, the cone itself is inherently a chocolate product.

So yes, you are, in fact, knowingly purchasing chocolate products, as evidenced by the fact that you’re currently complaining about all the chocolate in these cones that you keep purchasing. If you hate chocolate that much, then maybe just don’t buy it?

This is entirely a problem of your own making. And people are correct in pointing out that your responses have been nothing but toxic.

I don’t follow any blogs particularly consistently/regularly, but the one that I find myself coming back to at intervals is Raymond Chen’s The Old New Thing. It’s got a pretty heavy programming focus, but also occasionally covers interesting little trivia from Windows history. I’m not a professional coder, and I no longer even do any coding as a hobby, so take it from me when I say that there’s content of interest to programmers and non-programmers alike.

References and phrases don’t make a culture. The words may change, but the culture here is absolutely the same as Reddit. Which is why it’s so damned cringe when you see someone on Lemmy offer a smug, self-satisfied criticism of some supposed inferiority in the Reddit userbase. That kind of smugness is peak Reddit-culture.

No. Everywhere uses the same terms, you just didn’t understand the question.

The result of addition is the sum. The sum is calculated by summation of inputs.

The result of multiplication is the product. The product is calculated by __________ of inputs.

OP’s question is: why can’t the blank be “production”, by analogy with “summation”?

“Summation” already means something else, and funnily enough words can have different meanings in different contexts without causing any confusion.

OP literally emphasised the distinction between process and result in their post, specifically so that this exact confusion would not occur, and yet still everyone is talking about the word for the result instead of the process.

A couple of guys couldn’t handle a few troll messages? Sorry, if we want an independent site, away from the hands of venture capitalists, you’re gonna have to tough it out and deal with a few nasty messages.

No they aren’t. Clearly they don’t have to, as they are in fact shutting the instance.

They’re providing a service, as volunteers, for free, and asking nothing in return. By definition they get to set the terms on which they do that, and it is astonishingly selfish for you to expect them to do so under conditions that are clearly untenable, and blame them for this outcome when they cannot continue.

No. If you want an independent site, away from the hands of venture capitalists, you should’ve stepped up and volunteered to admin when they needed help.

PCCs were a mistake. Never should we have let the ruling class impose a politicised police force upon us. It was inevitable that it would lead to ignorant nonsense like this.

Uh huh, because that’s what they were advocating for. Sure. I’m gonna do you the favour of assuming good faith, so I’m not sure if you just didn’t read the operative word “supposedly” in their comment, but if not: don’t be so naïve.

There are widely documented occasions on which smaller instances have been blacklisted based on entirely spurious and false accusations of “fascism”. All it takes is for one large enough instance to defederate, and others will follow based on their word alone. This results in the affected instance becoming non-viable, due to absence of any visibility amongst the wider fediverse. In one well-known case, an instance was branded as “fascist” and forced to shut down because the admin refused to take censorious actions that would have been illegal in their country.

That is the outcome you are advocating for when you suggest that such instances should be “iced out”. And that outcome is the “toxic community” that we should be most wary of, because it is insidious and cloaks itself in a guise of supposed good intentions.

And before you suggest that these are isolated incidents that don’t reflect the behaviours of communities at large: don’t forget that it was mere days ago that feddit.uk, a rather large instance, was defederated by another large instance based on entirely baseless and spurious claims of transphobia, prompting the instance admin to issue a “guidance” post that basically just reiterated the existing rules… and suddenly this was seen as ok, and not transphobic at all. Imagine if the admin had instead not issued this statement, and pointed out that the existing rules were already sufficient? The instance’s anti-transphobia stance has not changed, but I don’t doubt that other instances would have portrayed such a response as doubling down on transphobia and defederated. So even large instances are not immune!

Defederation should be a last resort for rogue instances that support actual problematic behaviours like fascism. It should never be considered an action of first resort based on any accusation of supposed fascism or communism. Which was OP’s point. Yet it never ceases to shock and amaze me at how openly and readily people are willing to suggest such a thing.

Literally nobody is suggesting that actual fascist instances should not be defederated. Nobody needs to debate what should be done about those, because the answer is obvious, and already widely implemented (i.e. defederate). So why even bring it up, as if it’s a valid rebuttal to OP’s point? It’s not, and it’s disappointing how so many discussions on this subject devolve to comments with an absolutist stance that has a feelgood vibe, without actually analysing it for cogency to the actual discussion at hand.

What an absurd comment. As if defederation were ever a suggestion? As if it were even possibility? I’m struggling to understand what point you were even trying to convey here.

Did the previous lack of transphobia-specific guidance somehow negate the fact that abuse and bigotry, including transphobic bigotry, was already against the rules and banworthy in this instance? Do we constantly having our finger hovering over the ‘defederate’ button, just in case an instance is not deemed ideologically pure enough?

Well apparently, yes! In spite of the fact that this guidance takes a very sensibly neutral tone, it is precisely that neutral tone (predating this specific guidance, but as a response to the same neutrality that it embodies) that has directly resulted in this instance being defederated by at least one major instance already.

That the fediverse supports defederation does not mean that it’s acceptable for everyone to bring it up at every opportunity, as if it should be the action of first response. Defederation is a last resort for rogue instances, and to bring it up outside of that context is dreadfully gauche.

I never cease to be baffled by the seemingly boundless glee with which Americans will repeat this myth that has no basis outside of Internet cope. Literally nobody born in the last 100 years would read “trump” to mean “fart”. The only meaning of “trump” to British people is the winning suit in a game of cards, or the concept of winning in general. There’s literally a collectible card game in Britain called “Top Trumps”, and let me tell you, it ain’t about huffing farts. Unlike your absurd comment.

And even if people did understand “trump” to mean “fart”, it’s still an astonishing feat of mental gymnastics to claim that “it makes no sense that you would elect someone called that”, because funnily enough, a person’s name is totally unrelated to their ability to do the job, and lots of people have funny-sounding names that go completely unremarked upon, because people understand that a name is just a name.

I absolutely hate the guy, and yet when I see people purporting to make fun of his name based on something that isn’t even true, rather than, y’know, attacking his actual policies and actions, it makes me despair at the pathetic state of American politics. Seriously, your country is going to the dogs, and the best thing you could think of to combat that is to baselessly make fun of a guy’s name?

There was certainly a ‘no-brain’ somewhere in her thought process, I’ll grant her that.

But a tomato isn’t even an actual fruit…

“Actual” refers to the ordinary “plain English” meaning. Under the “plain English” definition, i.e. non-technical, non-domain-specific, a tomato is a vegetable.

It’s a botanical fruit, but an actual vegetable.