Why are these presented as different systems? The Alternative Vote is just another name for Instant Runoff Voting. And ranked choice voting is a name for a whole class of systems which includes IRV, as well as Single Transferable Vote and some others not linked here, but in practice someone who says "ranked choice voting" usually means IRV, and it's IRV that the video describes.
I definitely enjoyed it, but I tend to watch at >2x speed (thanks, Enhancer for Nebula!—Chrome link). It's a pretty systematic refutation of John Forester's anti-cycling infrastructure, pro-"vehicular cycling" book "Effective Cycling". And that book says a lot of dumb things that need to be refuted.
He does repeat himself a bit, but then, so does Forester.
A friendly reminder that cars are still highly destructive, whether powered by petrol, battery, or hydrogen, and whether driven by a human or automation. The only real environmentally, economically, and socially responsible solution is to drastically reduce the amount of trips made by car, by introducing road diets and modal filters, by having mixed-use medium or higher density zoning, by building high quality safe separated bike paths, and good quality, frequent, affordable public transport.
Also, keep your pets on your property. If there's no way to keep them from leaving your yard, keep them inside. It's better for them (they live longer on average, even if you control for the increased likelihood of getting run over) and for the environment.
I'm not sure what "piece linked" you're talking about, since none of the parent comments of this comment actually have a link in them.
This is the first time I've ever heard of FUTO, but I did read their statement about open source and it sounds pretty good to me. I actually think they're capitulating a little bit too much by deciding not to call it open source anymore. As far as I'm concerned, if the source is available and anyone can contribute, that's open source. I don't particularly care whether or not it's free for Google to incorporate it into their increasingly-enshitified products or not.
Creative Commons (an org to which FUTO says they have donated) doesn't like their licences being used for software, presumably for finicky technical legal reasons. But if you imagine the broad spirit of their licences applying to software, all the main CC licences would be open source in my opinion. All combinations of Attribution, Non-Commercial, Share Alike, and No Derivatives, as well as CC0 respect the important elements of open source.
Like I told the other user, I actually very frequently don't do true alt text, but instead write a transcription in the body of the post. I do it using the Lemmy spoiler syntax:
But one could also just write the transcription directly, especially if it's relatively short and unlikely to obstruct sighted users' experience too much.
It's unfortunate that some apps (including the official one, Jerboa) don't support the official "alt text" field, and they definitely should, but even the web's alt text field is rather limited to use for full transcriptions.
Personally I often use the body to add a transcription (not to different from what I put in my comment above), rather than use true "alt text". The main reason is that I often want to write more than the amount that feels appropriate for an alt text (including having paragraphs), but the visibility of it is an added advantage.
I don’t know if Lemmy has any plans to ever show alt text
It honestly shouldn't be that hard. Just use both alt and title text properties, the latter of which shows up on hover, and on mobile at the top of the OS's default long press menu.
But I do agree that the tools should be made to assist. Mastodon basically yells at users to add alt text. Pixelfed already does my suggestion of mirroring the alt text to the title text.
Yup, sounds great to me. I could see a world in which it becomes a bad thing because they try to enforce it by pulling a Google and blocking users from installing extensions that aren't through their official add-on store, but as it is, it's hard to see any reasonable criticism.
I honestly wouldn't have bothered commenting if not to reply to this, but since this was there, I'll add that there is something one could ask for: alt text/transcription, for the sake of accessibility for blind and visually impaired users. It's something I see a lot more on Lemmy than I ever did on Reddit, but we could still be a lot better at it. I always try to do it with my own image posts, and often on images in comments, but unfortunately a couple of the most prolific posters of text-based images rarely do it.
A Bluesky post from "Slippy", @damnslippy.slippy.me, with a profile picture of a woman with short, purple hair holding a knife:
Sincerely delighted to discover, 45 minutes into this nearly-wordless three-hour documentary about French monks who take vows of silence, that among the reasons they can talk is "to make sure the monastery cats know when it's mealtime by making little kitty-calling noises at them."
because I was sure it is. Since English isn’t my first language
To be fair, it's an exceptionally common mistake. Even native speakers get it wrong a lot of the time. I think it's because most people do think it's referencing something similar to a "savings account".
So, this actually provides an excellent example of a common misconception. It's daylight saving time, not daylight savings. Because it's not like a savings account for time, instead, it's the time for saving daylight. Daylight-saving time.
So a more accurate reversal might be "night-heavy losing time".
In summary, the scientific literature strongly argues against the switching between DST and Standard Time and even more so against adopting DST permanently.
The entire world of home IoT devices shouldn't need an Internet connection. They should be able to work entirely based off of local network requests or other local connections (e.g. Zigbee or Thread).
Make sure to take a five minute break after cooking this!