European. Contrarian liberal. Insufferable green. History graduate. I never downvote opinions expressed in good faith and I do not engage with people who downvote mine (which may be why you got no reply). Low-effort comments with vulgarity or snark will also be politely ignored.
The fact is that in this case the term is not the object of consensus. It involves an aspect of intent, which is always somewhat unfalsifiable, and certainly so here. It Wikipedia’s job to describe that state of opinion, not to dictate what people must think.
While I generally agree (obviously), the critics are technically correct that there is a problem of (lacking) viewpoint diversity among WP editors. Which has led to some unfortunate cases which are easy to point to. For example, the dismissal of the lab-leak hypothesis as “conspiracism” during Covid. Or, very recently, the coverage of what’s going on in Gaza, and specifically the casual use of the G-word. That coverage is blatantly written from a biased perspective, as the WP founder himself has been (very rare event) complaining about. He understands that credibility is everything. It’s not enough to be “right”, you have to be trusted. Sometimes that means phrasing things in a more neutral way so as to accommodate good-faith objections. I really worry about this because it feels like many people do not understand it, or want to understand it.
OK but it wasn’t lazy, it was intentional (see post text). Personally I’m not comfortable promoting free-for-all sharing in the case of professional journalism, which is needed in democracy and comes at a cost. Especially since the source in question uses a metered paywall, i.e. it should be free for drive-by readers. Anyway, off-topic debate.
Good point. But then, if the project loses credibility, no amount of money will be enough to buy it back. Or to pay the editors who have fled. Credibility is priceless for a project with a mission as ambitious as establishing the truth. It’s a dangerous situation.
To be fair you went to the bike-lane capital of the world, where literally 40% of people go to work by bike. The rest of Europe (Netherlands excepted) lags somewhat. Don’t go to Athens if you’re nervous of cars.
As I recall, a major reason it didn’t take off was very simple: the new “Sunday” only came every 10 days instead of 7!
The best bit about it was definitely the evocative month names.
13! A prime number indivisible into anything. Ugh!
Easy. Preferences > Contrast control > Manage colors and set the background color to black or whatever.
You will never be whiteflashed again. Some websites will be ugly, a few will be unusable (you’ll have to unset it temporarily for them, or use a different profile). But many will be just as good as with Dark Reader.
In any case, this is literally the only way to banish whiteflash definitively. It also has no speed penalty because it’s native.
What a nightmare. Seriously, this inadvertently reads as a very effective health warning against even buying a bike in the first place. Unfortunately.
Personally I share OP’s anxiety. My solution is simple: Never leave the thing in a public place for more than about 10 minutes, even locked. The fact that it’s foldable helps.
In fact, the popularity of foldables surely has something to do with this whole conundrum.
Dogspreading? I assumed that this behavior was unnatural and due to obesity. But… apparently squirrels do it.
This is the kind of thing that’s gonna get vanilla e-bikes banned everywhere from bike lanes to trains. Very irritating trend.
Whatever this is, it’s not even slightly new, I’ve been using separate FF profiles for many years. And TFA literally says “Chrome was first”. No it wasn’t!
Excellente nouvelle.
I’m mortified :( It’s never been my goal to make others feel bad online. I had a quibble with the wording on a meme and clumsily worded my idea of “Our differences shouldn’t be minimized because they make us special” was seen as transphobia/TERF rhetoric.
Try not to take it personally. You waded into a subject which has become a sort of rationality-free zone. Perhaps more so even than Israel-Palestine, or immigration in Europe. On these topics there is almost nobody left who is interested in nuanced debate, it’s now only a question of identifying which “side” one’s interlocutor is on, and then unloading on them (or downvoting, or deleting, or blocking, or banning) as appropriate. You stumbled into sterile trench warfare, basically.
Soon after I joined Lemmy I was banned from a (somewhat serious) community for making the same mistake you made. I learned my lesson. With certain topics, genuine debate - open-minded, good faith discussion - is just not possible. I see it as a failure of Lemmy, yes, but mainly of the whole medium of text-based social media. It’s certainly not your fault.
Bon. Je viens de perdre encore 20 mins avec cette nouvelle carte.
You have no more knowledge of an individual’s intention than me or anybody else here. Go on and downvote away, it clearly makes you feel better. I’m done.
What’s most clear to me is that a lot of people want it to be one.
On the lab-leak theory, the current state of opinion among experts is somewhat different from a few years ago. You seem not to be aware of that. On the Gaza issue, I can hardly be bothered to get into it, it’s impossible to have a rational discussion about this subject (which I find deeply sad). Suffice to say that a lot of people disagree with your view (including me? I dunno - who cares?). The role of Wikipedia is to describe that discussion calmly, not to bark at readers that they’re wrong and should correct their wrongthink.