• OBJECTION!@lemmy.mlEnglish
    4·
    21 hours ago

    Tfw you’re about to say the perfect thing that’ll totally own them and make everyone reading along realize what a charlatan the other side is, but you get a “comment chain too deep” error.

      • saltesc@lemmy.worldEnglish
        481·
        2 days ago

        I’m not sure what prompted that, but if you’re upset about something, I’m open to discussing it. If this is just for fun, well, that’s an interesting way to start a conversation. People have different ways of expressing themselves, and if this is yours, I’ll take it in stride. There are plenty of ways to engage, though, and this one doesn’t seem particularly productive.

        If your goal was to offend me, you’ll have to try harder. Words only carry as much weight as we allow them to, and I don’t take things like this personally. The internet is full of knee-jerk reactions, insults, and flippant remarks, but they rarely have the impact people think they do. If anything, they often reveal more about the person saying them than the one they’re directed at.

        On the other hand, if you’re actually frustrated, I’d rather address the issue than trade insults. Clarity gets you further than hostility. If something I said or did rubbed you the wrong way, let’s talk about it. I can take criticism just fine, but I prefer it to be constructive. Insults are easy; meaningful discussion takes effort.

        If this is meant as a joke, I’ll assume you have a sharp sense of humour. I can roll with that, but let’s keep it entertaining rather than just crude. A well-placed bit of sarcasm or wit can be fun, but straight-up profanity doesn’t have much creativity to it. If you’re going for an edgy, rebellious vibe, at least make it interesting.

        Communication is a two-way street. If you’ve got something on your mind, I’d rather hear it directly than through aggression. I can engage with sharp remarks, humour, or even heated debate, but random hostility is just noise. If you’ve got a point, make it. If you don’t, this isn’t much of a conversation, is it?

        There’s a certain efficiency to rudeness, but it rarely accomplishes much. A bit more substance would make for a better exchange. If you’re trying to push buttons, I’d ask why that’s the approach you’ve chosen. If it’s frustration, let’s unpack it. If it’s just for the sake of being rude, then that’s a bit uninspired.

        Regardless, I’m still here. If you want an actual conversation, I’m happy to engage. If not, well, that’s your call. But life’s short—why waste time on empty words when you could say something that actually matters?

        Yeah, I just copy+paste LLM responses and see how far I can go with it. Minimal effort; many triggers. It’s the age of apathetic trolling. Best they waste their time on whatever the hell was said in the paragraphs above—I certainly didn’t read it—than continue elsewhere being some shithead to someone.

        • hOrni@lemmy.worldEnglish
          36·
          2 days ago

          The main reasons given by people to explain why they hang their toilet paper a given way are ease of grabbing and habit.[8]

          The over position reduces the risk of accidentally brushing the wall or cabinet with one’s knuckles, potentially transferring grime and germs;[9] makes it easier to visually locate and to grasp the loose end;[10] gives the option to fold over the last sheet to show that the room has been cleaned;[11] and is generally the intended direction of viewing for the manufacturer’s branding, so patterned toilet paper looks better this way.[12]

          The under position provides a more tidy appearance, in that the loose end can be more hidden from view;[13][14] reduces the risk of a toddler or a house pet such as a cat unrolling the toilet paper when batting at the roll;[15] and in a recreational vehicle may reduce unrolling during driving.[16]

          Partisans have claimed that each method makes it easier to tear the toilet paper on a perforated sheet boundary.[17]

          The over position is shown in illustrations with the first patents for a free-hanging toilet-roll holders, issued in 1891.[18]

          Various toilet paper dispensers are available which avoid the question of over or under orientation; for example, single sheet dispensers, jumbo roll dispensers in which the toilet roll is perpendicular to the wall, and twin roll dispensers.[19] Swivelling toilet paper dispensers have been developed which allow the paper to be unrolled in either direction.[20][21

          And go fuck Yourself You magnificent fuck.

        • ByteJunk@lemmy.worldEnglish
          10·
          2 days ago

          Not gonna lie, I was expecting this to end with The Undertaker throwing Mankind off Hell In A Cell.

        • susEnglish
          131·
          2 days ago

          The annual labour of every nation is the fund which originally supplies it with all the necessaries and conveniences of life which it annually consumes, and which consist always either in the immediate produce of that labour, or in what is purchased with that produce from other nations.

          According therefore as this produce, or what is purchased with it, bears a greater or smaller proportion to the number of those who are to consume it, the nation will be better or worse supplied with all the necessaries and conveniences for which it has occasion.

          But this proportion must in every nation be regulated by two different circumstances; first, by the skill, dexterity, and judgment with which its labour is generally applied; and, secondly, by the proportion between the number of those who are employed in useful labour, and that of those who are not so employed. Whatever be the soil, climate, or extent of territory of any particular nation, the abundance or scantiness of its annual supply must, in that particular situation, depend upon those two circumstances.

          The abundance or scantiness of this supply, too, seems to depend more upon the former of those two circumstances than upon the latter. Among the savage nations of hunters and fishers, every individual who is able to work, is more or less employed in useful labour, and endeavours to provide, as well as he can, the necessaries and conveniences of life, for himself, or such of his family or tribe as are either too old, or too young, or too infirm to go a hunting and fishing. Such nations, however, are so miserably poor that, from mere want, they are frequently reduced, or, at least, think themselves reduced, to the necessity sometimes of directly destroying, and sometimes of abandoning their infants, their old people, and those afflicted with lingering diseases, to perish with hunger, or to be devoured by wild beasts. Among civilised and thriving nations, on the contrary, though a great number of people do not labour at all, many of whom consume the produce of ten times, frequently of a hundred times more labour than the greater part of those who work; yet the produce of the whole labour of the society is so great that all are often abundantly supplied, and a workman, even of the lowest and poorest order, if he is frugal and industrious, may enjoy a greater share of the necessaries and conveniences of life than it is possible for any savage to acquire.

          The causes of this improvement, in the productive powers of labour, and the order, according to which its produce is naturally distributed among the different ranks and conditions of men in the society, make the subject of the first book of this Inquiry.

          Whatever be the actual state of the skill, dexterity, and judgment with which labour is applied in any nation, the abundance or scantiness of its annual supply must depend, during the continuance of that state, upon the proportion between the number of those who are annually employed in useful labour, and that of those who are not so employed. The number of useful and productive labourers, it will hereafter appear, is everywhere in proportion to the quantity of capital stock which is employed in setting them to work, and to the particular way in which it is so employed. The second book, therefore, treats of the nature of capital stock, of the manner in which it is gradually accumulated, and of the different quantities of labour which it puts into motion, according to the different ways in which it is employed.

          Nations tolerably well advanced as to skill, dexterity, and judgment, in the application of labour, have followed very different plans in the general conduct or direction of it; those plans have not all been equally favourable to the greatness of its produce. The policy of some nations has given extraordinary encouragement to the industry of the country; that of others to the industry of towns. Scarce any nation has dealt equally and impartially with every sort of industry. Since the downfall of the Roman empire, the policy of Europe has been more favourable to arts, manufactures, and commerce, the industry of towns, than to agriculture, the industry of the country. The circumstances which seem to have introduced and established this policy are explained in the third book.

          Though those different plans were, perhaps, first introduced by the private interests and prejudices of particular orders of men, without any regard to, or foresight of, their consequences upon the general welfare of the society; yet they have given occasion to very different theories of political economy; of which some magnify the importance of that industry which is carried on in towns, others of that which is carried on in the country. Those theories have had a considerable influence, not only upon the opinions of men of learning, but upon the public conduct of princes and sovereign states. I have endeavoured, in the fourth book, to explain, as fully and distinctly as I can, those different theories, and the principal effects which they have produced in different ages and nations.

          To explain in what has consisted the revenue of the great body of the people, or what has been the nature of those funds which, in different ages and nations, have supplied their annual consumption, is the object of these four first books. The fifth and last book treats of the revenue of the sovereign, or commonwealth. In this book I have endeavoured to show, first, what are the necessary expenses of the sovereign, or commonwealth; which of those expenses ought to be defrayed by the general contribution of the whole society; and which of them by that of some particular part only, or of some particular members of it: secondly, what are the different methods in which the whole society may be made to contribute towards defraying the expenses incumbent on the whole society, and what are the principal advantages and inconveniences of each of those methods: and, thirdly and lastly, what are the reasons and causes which have induced almost all modern governments to mortgage some part of this revenue, or to contract debts, and what have been the effects of those debts upon the real wealth, the annual produce of the land and labour of the society.

          • FauxLiving@lemmy.worldEnglish
            3·
            2 days ago

            Well, Prince, so Genoa and Lucca are now just family estates of the Buonapartes. But I warn you, if you don’t tell me that this means war, if you still try to defend the infamies and horrors perpetrated by that Antichrist—I really believe he is Antichrist—I will have nothing more to do with you and you are no longer my friend, no longer my ‘faithful slave,’ as you call yourself! But how do you do? I see I have frightened you—sit down and tell me all the news.

      • ComradeSharkfucker@lemmy.mlEnglish
        13·
        2 days ago

        Most of the arguments here are political but the participants are usually different from reddit. On lemmy you get communists arguing with liberals or anarchists or other communists more than you get libertarians, conservatives, or fascists making fools of themselves. Usually it doesn’t move past snark though

        • starman2112@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          4·
          2 days ago

          I’ve been told to kill myself a few times on this platform, but the moderators and administrators tend to remove those comments pretty quickly. I’ve had entire arguments that I only knew about because of the mod log

      • pumpkinseedoil@mander.xyzEnglish
        10·
        2 days ago

        It’s like reddit in the olden days. Becoming mainstream isn’t necessarily positive (but still inform as many people as possible about the fediverse, we’re far from becoming mainstream and if it happened we’d witness decentralised open source software becoming mainstream which is unbelievably good)

  • Varyk@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    3812·
    2 days ago

    the inventor of gifs clearly stated it was pronounced “jif” like the peanut butter.

    “jif” is therefore more accurate.

      • BussyCat@lemmy.worldEnglish
        92·
        2 days ago

        No, but I would acknowledge that the bridge was designed for jumping off of it

        • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.caEnglish
          14·
          2 days ago

          Similarly, we can recognise that the gif creator intended for it to be said jif, and also not use that pronunciation because it’s dumb, and we hate it.

          See? It works both ways.

          • BussyCat@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            1 day ago

            If a person intentionally mispronounced your name because they thought it was dumb would you consider it rude?

            • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.caEnglish
              21·
              24 hours ago

              No? Because I don’t give a shit?

              A name is just a label. A sound or set of symbols in an order that inspires the concept of that thing in someone else. In the case of someone’s name, mispronouncing my name either has one of two consequences: 1. I don’t hear it. My ear is keen on people saying my name (the way it’s normally said), so if your pronunciation is too far off from how my name is normally said, my ear may not “hear” it, thinking you’re taking to someone else and I will more or less ignore that you’ve “said my name”… OR, when you address me with the wrong pronunciation, I will recognise that the sounds you’ve chosen to use for me, while not typically the sounds associated with the concept of my self, are indeed referring to the same thing.

              I comprehend what you mean, and that’s the important bit. The letters/sounds used are secondary to the point effectively being understood.

              I’ve been called by all kinds of names, plenty that sound like mine, there’s a very common name that starts with a J that sounds like mine that I’ve gotten a lot, and I’ve even been called by completely different names, and I generally could not give less of a shit about it. Unless the speaker is a friend, or someone I care enough about to value their opinion, then why would I care?

      • Carrot@lemmy.todayEnglish
        83·
        2 days ago

        This argument makes no sense to me because the rule that every letter of an acronym has to sound like it does in the start of it’s word doesn’t apply to other acronyms that people commonly use.

        Laser - Light amplification by stimulated emition of radiation. Note that it is commonly pronounced lazer, but the word isn’t pronounced ztimulated.

        YOLO - You only live once. Note that “once” starts with a “w” sound, but YOLO ends in a ō sound.

        SIM (as in SIM card) - subscriber identification module. Note that identification starts with the “eye” sound, but we don’t pronounce it sīm.

        I could go on, but I think I’ve made my point

        • fakeman_pretendname@feddit.ukEnglish
          5·
          2 days ago

          Only the first letter should match, then the rest of it is pronounced like a word, in whatever pronunciation sounds coolest.

          Also, all abbreviations should be pronounced like words, that’s why we have those new Internet abbreviation words like “loll”, “lemow”, “roffle”, “roff-lemow” “wutf” etc.

          “I need to charge my phone, do you have an usba to usbsy cable?”.

      • Varyk@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        3·
        2 days ago

        I always like to see this argument, that somehow mispronouncing the word “graphics” means people should mispronounce other words.

        it has an “I can’t see you, so you can’t see me” vibe.

      • Varyk@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        3·
        2 days ago

        HAHA, oh man, good find. That is a very funny little essay.

        I’ve always said “ping”, didn’t know there was a debate there as well.

        Thanks.

          • Varyk@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            2·
            2 days ago

            haha, I’m always curious about the people who use the phrase “touch grass”.

            I never use it, and I’m outside all the time, so my intuition is that people who use the phrase actually stay inside a lot.

            what do you think?

    • DragonOracleIX@lemmy.mlEnglish
      5·
      2 days ago

      I pronounce it both ways. Sometimes I will even use one pronunciation over the other because it angers the person I am speaking with.