The year of the Linux desktop I’m thinking of was like 2008. That was then it became perfectly usable on the desktop and I haven’t had to switch back since.

I don’t understand why anyone care’s what Linux’s “market share” is. It’s open source, no one makes money when someone installs Linux.

I dunno, I hate Trump as much as the next guy but it seems to me he meant “I’m going to fix all the country’s problems in one term so you won’t need to vote for me again”, not “I’m going to abolish voting”.

My first sound file was a supercut of Keiko O’Brien giving birth on Star Trek: The Next Generation, edited to make it sound like an orgasm 😆

Yeah it pisses me off the way people are like “tech bros ruined the internet”. No, users ruined it! There was no reason to stop self-hosting webpages, forums and IRC servers. Users switched to Facebook instead because they preferred it and didn’t care about the downsides. There’s an alternative to every website and app which respects privacy, serves no ads, and has no algorithm to farm your outrage. Users refuse to use them because they aren’t cool enough.

How does this argument not also apply to photography? A modern camera is a computer, you fiddle with the settings, press a button and it automatically makes a picture for you. People produce billions of shitty photographs a day which aren’t art, but that doesn’t mean someone working in photography as a medium can’t be an artist.

In my experience it’s only non-artists who make this argument, because in their heads they’re comparing AI to painting. But for visual artists there are tons of mediums and disciplines where you don’t physically make the marks yourself and it’s the concept and composition that’s important.

There was an exhibition of AI generated art at the big local gallery here last year and I expected artist friends to be against it, but they were just like “oh, that’s interesting”. They just see AI generation as another way of creating an image and whether a particular image is or isn’t art depends on the intention not the process.

Is this part of a series or something? I have no idea what any part of it means

All the answers you got show why this conversation goes badly. No one can come up with an actual problem that data collection causes, it’s all silly comparisons to giving people your credit card number or shitting in front of them.

For me, having my data collected is like having CCTV cameras in stores. Yeah, technically someone is filming everything I do. Yeah it would be bad if a private individual was filming me for nefarious reasons. But no one actually uses that data for anything bad, and it doesn’t actually cause any problems.

All that happens is I get more relevant ads.

It’s sad because they’re capable of so much!

https://youtu.be/QHqAVaQqQWQ?si=6TqwZFvGoJLkmSsU

Storror, a UK parkour collective. Amazingly talented, made an unbelievable documentary about doing parkour on the rooftops of Asia. I still watch every week but they’ve done parkour like once in the last 3 months. Everything else is

• We climbed this weird building
• Can we escape from this pit?
• We wrapped ourselves in bubble wrap
• Stuck in a hollow tree!!

Then there are “water challenges”, ie fairly easy jumps but you fall in a canal if you miss. One guy already had a career ending injury doing this and is now a camera man, another hurt himself badly and you can tell he’s lost patience with it.

Weird how it’s literally impossible to ever live without something no one had 100 years ago

This is the only reason why anyone wears any particular type of clothing. There is no style of clothing that it objectively makes sense to wear.

I wash my hands because I use my hands to manipulate objects, touch my face and prepare food. Perhaps you perform these tasks with your anus?

If I had a sphincter on my hand with shit inside it, which occasionally farted or shit came out, and washing it would never actually make it hygienic because it’s not a hermetic seal and bacteria from the shit inside would always be on it anyway, then yeah I’d just wipe it with paper. And use the other hand

Or you never used paper properly.

I think you’ll be disappointed with the bidet. Your original comment is correct, they are inconvenient and solve a non-problem.

It’s annoying waddling from the toilet to the bidet with a dirty ass. It takes time to wash. Then you use more paper to dry than you would have to just wipe. And you don’t feel cleaner afterwards because wiping is fine.

There’s no polite way to say it, some people like bidets because they make a big mess when they use the toilet. For them bidets are more convenient than paper. For the average person wiping is quicker and easier.

If wiping your ass is a three minute process involving mashing shit around, then you’re the sloppy shit person I’m talking about. I’d want a bidet if that happened to me too.

For me wiping is one to clean and one to polish. First sheet gets stained slightly brown (but no actual shit on it, because that’s in the toilet), second sheet comes away clean. It’s a five second process.

It’s a freestanding ceramic bidet plumbed in to hot and cold water, the kind everyone is saying is the best. Lived there up through my 20s. Waddling over to it to wash and then dry was an utter waste of time.

I still use both Lemmy and Reddit and I honestly think Lemmy is in a sweet spot where there are enough comments for a discussion but not enough to go off topic.

Reddit discussions are never about the OP, they’re always riffing on an off-topic joke that someone made in a reply to the already off-topic top comment.

Because they just aren’t very good.

Bidet people think bidets are incredible and come up with all these psychoanalytic reasons why people won’t use them, but that’s the reason.

I had one growing up and used it occasionally but always disliked it. They’re inconvenient and don’t make you noticeably cleaner than toilet paper.

IMHO they’re for germphobes and people who do really sloppy shits.

Oh for real, the people who self-selected to be in a community with a racist name don’t have a problem with the name? That’s really surprising, that must prove the name is fine then

Do you have any cases you can point out?

I can’t find it now either, but I’ve read about a German doctor convicted as a serial killer solely because she was present at the deaths of too many patients. In that case she was present at the death of every patient for like 3 months, which sounds like strong evidence against her. Until you think about it and realize that if she murdered them, that means no one died of natural causes for 3 months. Also in that case the number of deaths on the ward actually went up after she was arrested.

Similar but not to do with doctors, Sally Clarke was wrongly convicted of killing her children, purely because both of them had died of SIDS. The prosecution said SIDS is rare and so it happening twice was impossible. What’s worrying about that case is, everyone now says the miscarriage of justice was that the prosecutor incorrectly calculated the chances of two children dying of SIDS, when the actual fallacy was using the statistics as evidence at all. 1 in 73 million is the chance that one specific child will die of SIDS. The chance that any child will die of SIDS is 100%! 200 die in the UK every year! You can’t just go around arresting every parent on the basis that they were unlucky!

What’s really missing in everything I’ve seen is an actual statistical analysis. Everything I’ve seen is just “She was present at 20 deaths, when her colleagues were only present at 10”. Yeah, but how unlikely is that? How many nurses per year will be in exactly the same situation in the UK, or in the world? How unusual was the number of deaths in that hospital while there was supposedly a serial killer operating, versus a normal year?

Sure, the chances of her specifically being that unlucky are astronomical. But the chances that somebody out of the 9 billion people on earth will be that unlucky are pretty good.