It’s the continuation of all the negative news about Musk and Tesla and MAGA. While it is uplifting to some that they have setbacks, I believe this doesn’t help people distract from this shitshow, which I reckon the community is all about.
Besides, people made miserable is not in the spirit of the place, either.
From community description:
This is a sanctuary for those seeking a break from the incessant negativity often found in today’s news cycle. From acts of everyday kindness to large-scale philanthropic efforts, from individual achievements to community triumphs, we bring you news that gives hope, fosters empathy, and strengthens the belief in humanity’s capacity for good.
Are you sure this one fits in? Why, of all the communities, choose this one specifically?
The goal of the Privacy Sandbox initiative is to develop new ways to strengthen online privacy while ensuring a sustainable, ad-supported internet.
Like, that’s all you need to know about what it ever was.
Also, the article is essentially a bunch of barely meaningful corporate blubber in an attempt to disguise the main message.
One point thirty two
Yes, it’s about to be released as well! Skywind is not extremely far behind, too!
Still insane to me that one woman literally saves the world of science from all this corruption
Only one way to find out! :D
For future reference: there are fields “URL” (the link) and “Thumbnail URL” (the picture). If you paste the image, the Thumbnail URL field disappears, and picture URL appears in URL field.
Cut it, and Thumbnail URL field appears again. Paste it into the Thumbnail URL field, and enter the link to whatever you want to be opened into the URL field again.
Voila - you have a link AND a custom picture. It’s weird, it shouldn’t work this way, but it works.
As a third party, I feel I have to contend this.
“Nobody owes you accepting you as equal” is also a form of dangerous elitism. Linux is built on the foundation of cooperation and mutual aid, and I don’t think it’s the right place to figure out who is more or less “valuable”.
Someone who lacks some of the technical know-how of Linux might be useful to the community as a Linux advocate, or as someone with good ideas on user-friendly design, or something else entirely that can still be useful.
Besides, if we ever hope for “the year of Linux desktop” to be a real thing, we have to be inviting. Yes, most PC users are not technical specialists. Yes, they will have dumb and silly questions. Yes, many of such quesrions have already been answered before, and yes, they could have searched better.
But such is life. Maybe we have time and will for this, but most people don’t. If we want for all our favorite programs and games to finally become Linux native, if we want to ensure Linux experience becomes smooth, if we don’t want to be seen as a community of red-eyed nerds, we need all those people in. And there’s no detriment to this greater than constant infighting and elitism, than forcing people to bury down the wikis instead of providing useful support, and so on. People will just…leave back for Windows, and that’s it. Poof, one less potential supporter in an uphill battle to make Linux mainstream.
Now, I know how frustrating it may be to answer same questions again and again, in your free time, getting nothing for it. I understand it. But we shouldn’t let frustration break the bonds that make it all work. If you don’t feel like answering that same question, just…don’t. That will be enough. Someone else will get them up to speed.
I have a long-term dream to build a fanless SSD-powered NAS
Self-hosted, silent, fast - what’s not to love, aside from steep price tag?
Not sure if it’s available in Lemmy. Devs and admins can probably say more
A good thing about Lemmy is that you can change instance/make your own and do and promote anything you like. That’s the fundamental difference.
You can be banned from a community, from instance, even. But not from Lemmy as a whole.
A fundamental shift may occur when more people of the same views start alternative communities where such pressures are absent.
That’s you, but it should be on the state level so that every parent is given everything to make parenthood go smooth.
People got used to comfort and are not willing to sacrifice their standards of living for having children, especially through a recession. Make them feel secure about their present and future - and birth rates will grow.
The open-source community is amazing
ListenBrainz is the most mature open-source solution. It may connect to your player of choice (kinda like last.fm) and save what you’ve listened to to give you recommendations later.
Nice!
I wish we had more of those small edutainment websites
In my eyes, being adequately supported means not having any financial difference between having vs not having children. If that would be the case, there wouldn’t be a financial incentive to not have them.
If we go above that (incentivise parenting even more), it’s just throwing money at the problem in hopes it will go away. If someone will only have kids if they’ll be rewarded on top of having extra expenses covered, they are basically parenting for money and this won’t end well.
As per taking advantage of the social system - the more people overclaim something, the better the regulations become. There could be a certain ceiling on the types of support that could be taken at the same time, for example. As per unemployed folks living on subsidies - unless they have a valid reason they can’t work (and there are those), they should get mandatory public employment if they stay in the unemployed status for a while - one that would respect their disabilities and limitations, if there are any, of course.
Not only is it gross, it’s also enough to jail you since you technically store and distribute these materials.
Laws didn’t really update for the Fediverse.
I fail to see advantages over the expansion of direct support for families with kids.
If such families would be adequately supported, parents wouldn’t be so financially disadvantaged and this would automatically resolve the issue of assets as well.
Paying it as part of pensions on the condition of children working in the home country makes people’s finances directly reliant on the actions of independent actors (their adult children) and punishes people who, for example, cannot have children in the first place due to medical reasons, lack of a partner, etc. It also doesn’t bring financial support when it’s needed the most.
And relying on asset accumulation and personal investments as a source of pension funding is quite odd to me to begin with, as salaries don’t always reflect the good done for society (for example, public sector work is often paid more poorly, despite bringing maximum value for the state), and also because personal investments cannot be done with the same precision, competence and risk management as the funds do (and even if you invest in funds, they take a cut). I believe asset accumulation should be minimized in favor of public support nets (including decent pensions and good living conditions for everyone).
Both options available