Can confirm that Gandalf did not lie and the user in question does indeed have 0 posts and 1 comment
- Posts
- 1
- Comments
- 324
- Joined
- 1 yr. ago
- Posts
- 1
- Comments
- 324
- Joined
- 1 yr. ago
This makes me so glad that Lemmy exists. Not only is it a great Reddit alternative, but there are infinitely more real and reasonable people here.
Nobody knows everything and we've all been exposed to propaganda at some point. It's fantastic that there's a place online where we can hold civil discussions and nicely fact check each other.
I've been fact checked a few times and it was great. On reddit it would have just been insults or propaganda from the other side. Let's keep this going! ❤️
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
I don't know, man. Without watching any reviews or commentaries I could have listed numerous issues with the sequel trilogy right after watching the individual movies. Sure, there were some I missed that only added oil to the fire, but it was still extremely obvious that the movies are horrendous.
Some people, perhaps a good number, do in fact blindly follow influencers' opinions and hate what they hate. This, however, in no capacity affects the fact that those movies are pieces of garbage. Whether you've come to this conclusion yourself, or you learned about it from someone else, the simple fact remains.
There's also another point to consider. Movie reviews and analyses are very common. Name any movie and there's nearly a guarantee that there are at least a few people analyzing their details and posting the findings on YouTube or elsewhere. There's nothing wrong with watching those videos and having them affect your opinion on the movie.
Personally, I've watched many different reviews, critiques and analyses of various movies, including Star Wars. In many cases, my opinion of the movies was improved due to broader context, technical details such as how VFX were made, plot elements I might have missed or other valuable information that may or may not have been obvious to me when first watching. I think this is a perfectly natural phenomenon. You like something, so you dive deeper to learn more, leading to you liking it more or less in the process.
However, in the case of most recent Star Wars movies, there's usually no additional context or details to learn, other than "the director changed 8 times and none of those 8 people knew what they were doing". You wouldn't know that from watching the movie, and personally, I think it's perfectly acceptable to give extra criticism to the company, based on external information.
At the end of the day, it's another corporation ruining what people love and this sole fact is enough to feel angry and spread negative sentiment towards that company. They 100% deserve it. Just make sure to hate the company and not other fans.
Polyamorous in public. It's open and anyone can contribute.
Year of the Linux gooning
You write clean code and you get replaced in 2 months, because everyone can work on that code.
You write an unreadable mess that no raise will convince other employees to work on and suddenly your holiday requests don't get declined anymore.
Personally I tried using LLMs for reading error logs and summarizing what's going on. I can say that even with somewhat complex errors, they were almost always right and very helpful. So basically the general consensus of using them as assistants within a narrow scope.
Though it should also be noted that I only did this at work. While it seems to work well, I think I'd still limit such use in personal projects, since I want to keep learning more, and private projects are generally much more enjoyable to work on.
Another interesting use case I can highlight is using a chatbot as documentation when the actual documentation is horrible. However, this only works within the same ecosystem, so for instance Copilot with MS software. Microsoft definitely trained Copilot on its own stuff and it's often considerably more helpful than the docs.
He suggested that a stock trading ban could discourage people from running for office.
That's precisely the point. If you need 'encouragement' in the form of millions of dollars in personal gain in order to be a government official - you're not the right person for the job.
Assuming what you're saying about the harms of consuming pornography, is it the state's responsibility?
In general, yeah. It's quite literally what the government is supposed to be for. When there's a widespread problem affecting a lot of people, it's precisely the government's job to step in, regulate and solve it.
Is it a top priority? Do we trust conservatives to implement a solution in good faith?
These two I can agree with the answer being 'no'. The problem isn't that it's not an issue or that the government shouldn't interfere. The two main problems I can identify here are:
- The current American government (and most of the previous ones) cannot be trusted to handle this in good faith,
- There are several more pressing matters that should be addressed first.
And a bonus issue. There's currently no sufficient and reliable infrastructure to even implement restrictions on pornography, as we can plainly see from the results of recent attempts. But this ties in to the first problem. If they really wanted to solve the issue in any capacity, obviously they'd start by building the necessary digital infrastructure.
All in all, I think you brought up important points and I pretty much fully agree with you on them. However, to me it seems like they're not exactly relevant to the discussion. Or at least that's not what I was trying to address.
My main goal was to refute the previous guy's theses that pornography has no confirmed negative effects on people, especially the part about children, since it literally takes seconds to find dozens of studies on this topic. I didn't mean to speak about whether or not the government should do anything, let alone defend the current US efforts to regulate porn, if we can even call them that. In fact, one of the studies I quoted stated that the participants did not feel a government intervention is needed, which I felt was a crucial detail to highlight.
Lawmakers don't watch porn. They prefer to get it straight from the source, right at Little Saint James.
No offence to anyone, but this post strikes me as coming straight from a spokeperson for Aylo (formerly MindGeek). A mix of baseless claims and straight up misinformation, that happen to align with the company's business model.
You speak as if porn sites are analogous to social media and it's perfectly normal to record your experiences and post them online. Which it absolutely isn't, anywhere in the world. 'Expressing your sexuality' and porn are entirely separate and have very little to do with each other.
It is widely known and confirmed that pornographic content comes with a broad spectrum of negative effects, especially for children and adolescents. The latter really should be common sense in 2025. Watching porn isn't always bad and can be beneficial in some ways (as some sources below even highlight), but those cases represent a small minority.
Below are some quotes and just a few out of countless sources providing much more reliable information on the topic of pornography's effects. I strongly recommend reading at least some, because this comment is like ignoring decades of scientific literature and traveling in time back to the 1700s.
Prolonged exposure to pornography is known to lead to habituation, resulting in blunted processing of pleasurable stimuli and greater sensitivity to negative stimuli (21). Continuous use of pornography impairs emotional processing capacity and flattens affect, reducing emotional connection to real-life sexual experiences.
Source: Impact of pornography consumption on children and adolescents
Research shows that frequent porn use hijacks the brain’s reward system and changes the brain’s structure, much like addictive substances.
This means that prolonged pornography use can weaken natural pleasure responses and reinforce compulsive behavior.
A 2014 study found that heavy porn users showed significantly reduced activity in critical areas of the brain responsible for motivation and impulse control, suggesting long-term neurological rewiring.
Source: The Hidden Cost of Pornography: How It Shapes Your Brain and Behavior
Age of first exposure was significantly associated with reported need for longer stimulation and more sexual stimuli to reach orgasm when using pornography, decrease in sexual satisfaction, and quality of romantic relationship, neglect of basic needs and duties due to pornography use, and self-perceived addiction in both females and males. (...) In the opinion of most of the surveyed students, pornography may have adverse effects on human health, although access restrictions should not be implemented.
Additional sources:
- JumpRemoved
TIL: Young Men Ages 18–29 are Turning Right-Wing and Women of the Same Age Turning Left-Wing
Honestly, I dont want to marry someone with more partners than I can count on one hand... I dont think im crazy here?
I actually think this by itself is a reasonable take, though I'd say it also depends on the age. As a young (<25) guy, personally I would probably not date a girl with a 2-digit body count. Probably, because people are never that simple and you can't be sure who the other person is without getting to know them. For some people this may not make a difference, and for others it may be a positive. We all have our own preferences. If you're a low libido vanilla person, then you probably don't want a freaky partner who likes sex a lot.
Women are looking back and realizing "homemaker" was an enviable position, usually.
This is because most jobs suck, wages are low and people want to enjoy their hobbies to stop thinking about all the global issues. Most men I know don't see any issues with the idea of being stay-at-home husbands. It's not women-specific.
Why did that stop? Why is nearly every household a "dual-income" house? In a large part, it is because of the feminist movement.
Almost every single word in this part is incorrect. First of all, feminism isn't any more responsible for degrading quality of life than worker unions are. The ruling class simply decided they've had enough of ungrateful peasants fighting for more rights. Second, feminism has been dead for a while, so you can't really blame it for anything substantial. 90% of modern feminists are just reverse misogynists, while the remaining 10% rarely speak out. They aren't really considered 'feminists', but that's because people generally don't know what feminism is (or used to be?).
Now things, like rent, are WAY more expensive because they assume most house holds are dual income.
This is probably one of the last positions on the list of why rent is higher. There's practically zero connection here. In short, rent is astronomically high, because capitalism doesn't work. Not because women - also known as people - fought for more rights. Demanding basic rights is never a bad thing for anyone, regardless of additional unintended consequences.
What the hell? It looks insane. How have I not seen this before? Will need to check it out later. Thanks for sharing!
Now make Windows 7.
Gotta love how corporations are just resource burning machines.
- Have all employees commuting to the office.
- Organize meetings.
- Add transcription agents, because nobody's paying attention.
The result is the same or worse than just sending an email to people in their homes, but burns through 800x more resources.
Very interesting context. The article, and especially its headline, make it sound a little different.
Unfortunately, a lot of content is still exclusive to YouTube. Every now and then I try to look for the things I watch on Nebula or Odysee, but they're just not there. Only a handful of channels that mirror their content + some specials on Nebula.
We can always politely ask our favourite content creators to upload their stuff on other platforms, but the success rate is disappointing.
Corporation does well: brags about all the statistics Corporation does poorly: hides all the statistics and asks customers to trust it that it's doing well
Classic corporate transparency. When a filthy corpo says they're dedicated to something, they're usually dedicated to the opposite.
What if they're bots and we've all been fooled?