the most infuriating combination of address and search boxes

From a UX perspective, those are both ways to start a navigation to a new page, and it’s almost always clear from context which is intended (is the string formatted as a URL? Treat it as such. Otherwise, treat it as a search string). The only hiccup is when actually searching for strings that look like a URL (no whitespace, includes periods), but that happens rarely enough that I’m perfectly happy to manually go to a search engine for those cases. Otherwise, Cmd+L-“type my thoughts”-Enter works smoothly for me in both cases (on Firefox for personal laptop, or Chrome for work one).

What are the issues that you experience with this combined flow?

Mastodon is to Twitter as Lemmy is to Reddit.

I, an American

Irony, you say?

https://www.theawl.com/2016/03/the-vast-bay-leaf-conspiracy/

Tikka Masala is an Indian-Inspired dish which was invented in the UK by people with Indian cultural heritage. That’s about as concise a description as you can get without running into difficulties of definition - there’s no consistent way of defining what “being a dish” means without running into contradictions.

In fact General Tso’s is the perfect counter-example: Multiple Chinese people have told me they enthusiastically disown General Tso’s Chicken and explicitly call it American food. So if we say “a dish belongs to a country if it’s invented there”, then Tikka Masala is British (which I agree “feels” wrong); but if we say “a dish belongs to a country if it was inspired by the cuisine of that country”, then General Tso’s is Chinese, which, apparently not!

And that’s without even considering the question of how far “back” you should go with inspiration - what if a dish was inspired by how the Indians used food they got from the Persians who traded it with the Chinese - is it Indian food or Chinese food? (Idk if that’s historically nonsense, but you get my point) Why is the most-recent ancestor more important than the environment of creation?

“A man crying about a chicken and a baby? I thought this was supposed to be a comedy!”

The Justice Of Kings by Richard Swan

He’s a friend of mine! This is the first time I’ve seen organic mention of the book - very cool!

pay-once-cry-once situation

I’ve never heard this phrase, and I’m struggling to figure it out from context. Does it mean that you regret the purchase after finding out it’s not as good as you thought, but then don’t replace it with something better because you don’t want to spend more?

Helps that Lemmy has orders of magnitude less content. After the third time refreshing with no new content, it gets much easier to put the phone down.

“they could just as easily present them in a way that wouldn’t be blocked” would be a more accurate way of phrasing it. Facebook is not the one blocking this content - rather, it’s detecting that it has been blocked (clientside)

I feel like you’re using “supercede” differently to the rest of us. You’re getting a hostile reaction because it sounded like you’re saying that EM is no longer at all useful because it has been obsoleted (superceded) by QM. Now you’re (correctly) saying that EM is still useful within its domain, but continuing to say that QM supercedes it. To me, at least, that’s a contradiction. QM extends EM, but does not supercede it. If EM were supercedes, there would be no situation in which it was useful.

“X depends on or is built up on Y” does not imply “X is Y”. Concepts, laws, techniques, etc. can depend or be higher-order expressions of QM without being QM. If you started asking a QM scientist about tensile strength or the Mohs scale they would (rightly) be confused.

Wel, I guess I’m rewatching that tonight…

(For the uninitiated: Thomas Middleditch and Ben Schwartz, aka “the guy from Silicon Valley and Jean-Ralphio from Parks & Rec”, did an improv series on Netflix - and it’s great)

Yes, the same EU. The fact that it’s considering some poor choices doesn’t detract from the fact that it’s actions thus far have been positive and deserve appreciation. Real Life doesn’t split people neatly into heroes and villains.

The Vegan Society says that “In dietary terms (Veganism) denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.”

Vegan.com says “The word vegan was originally defined as a diet free of meat, dairy products, and eggs. The term now also refers to any item, from shoes to shampoo, made without animal products.”

Both pages, and the Wikipedia article, do mention the ethical considerations, but all make it clear that that is distinct from dietary Veganism.

It’s all very well to say that there is a deeper philosophy and decision-making framework driving one’s choices than simply “meat bad” - and that’s a noble motivation! - but you appear to be in the minority in your claim that a vegan diet can still include animal products. Maybe vegan-inspired, maybe “ethically aligned with Veganism”, but not “a vegan diet”.

EDIT: to be clear - from everything I can tell, Veganism is a sensible, moral, responsible, ethical, frugal choice; most people could derive great benefits both to their health and their wallet from drastically reducing or entirely cutting out meat and animal products, as well as benefitting the world in general. It’s a noble choice, it’s one I fully support, and I’ve seriously cut down my own meat intake over the last couple years and have great admiration for people who cut it out entirely. I’m not arguing with you because I love meat or hate Veganism - I’m arguing with you because, by being a dipshit about definitions, you are undermining a worthwhile cause and making it look ridiculous to people sitting on the fence.

The mental gymnastics here are fascinating. It’s as if you thought “Veganism has good effects. Therefore, Veganism is good. Therefore, not-Veganism is bad. But people will be offended if we tell them that their well-intentioned-but-restricted choices are bad. So we should expand the definition of Veganism so that anything which is good, is Veganism.”

Congratulations! You made it a religion!

nobody I deal with in RL ever implied something among the lines of "refer to me as ".

Most likely because they’d never experienced someone referring to them by the wrong gender. You can be pretty sure that if someone started doing so, they’d have something to say about it.

Which is what the other commenter was trying to communicate to you. Gender is already a key component of most cis people’s personality - the way they think about themselves, the framework they use to make choices, and the way they want people to relate to them - but it’s not noticed as such, because it’s “normal”, so no-one comments on it and they don’t have to act to assert it.

They said unpopular opinions :P