Yea but it’s inefficient. USB-A has a significantly lower transfer rate than USB-C so it’ll bottleneck

Objectively disgusting. How can one connector be so chunky while still being asymmetric?

a slave-master dynamic

please don’t use that term, every time i see it i immediately verge on orgasming. you’ve already made me ruin 2 undergarments today. i have a serious bdsm kink and this is not funny.

For a lot of English speakers, the “had” and “have” in contractions is completely omitted in certain contexts. It’s more prevalent in some dialects (I’m in the south US and it’s more common than not). Usually “had” is dropped more than “have”.

Also, English can drop the pronoun, article, and even copula for certain indicative statements. I think it’s specifically for observations, especially when the context is clear.

looking at someone’s bracelet “Cool bracelet.” [That’s a]

wakes up “sigh Gotta get up and go to work…” [I’ve]

“Ain’t no day for picking tomatoes like a Saturday.” [There]

“No war but class war!” [There’s]

“Forecast came in on the radio. Says there’s gonna be a hell of a lot of rain today.” [It said -> Says/Said]

“Can’t count the number of Brits I’ve killed. Guess I’m just allergic to beans on toast.” [I; I]

“House came tumblin’ down after the sinkhole opened up” [The]

“I’d” can be “I would”, mainly if used with a conditional or certain conjunctions/contrastive statements (if, but, however, unfortunately). Also when preceding “have” – e.g. “I’d have done that”. Because “I had have” doesn’t make sense, nor does “I had <present tense>” anything. “I’d” as in “I had” is followed by a past participle.

“I’d” is usually “I had” otherwise, forming the past perfect tense. But in “I’d better”, it’s a bit confusing because “had better” is used in a different sense – the “had” here comes from “have to” (as in “to be necessary to”) and can be treated as both a lexical verb and an auxiliary verb. “had better” is a bit of a leftover of more archaic constructions.

they’ll be fine. we won’t be though

Well for the most part if we want to have a less context-dependent measure, with some caveats – “left” is advocates of a socialist (or communist if you wish to separate them) economic system and social equality, and “right” is advocates of a capitalist or fascist economic system and social hierarchy. Around the center would be where social democrats/capitalists who want strong social safety are, or in other words people who want a mixed-economy/regulated capitalism and are for the most part socially progressive.

Also it’s hard to tell what you mean by “pure libs” but in most of the world that implies extremely free-market capitalist and pro-discrimination under the guise of “free speech” – very to the right. They’re usually called “libertarians” or “ancaps” in the US.

If by “pure lib” you mean a principled American “liberal” then there’s not really much to differentiate that from a social democrat – in practice America’s liberal politicians are either social democrats, or corrupt politicians who suck up to corporate money and stand in the way of social democrats – the latter definitely not being centrists. Same goes for “social liberals”.

Either way there is no chance that democratic socialists are as extremist as national conservatives. Democratic socialists are barely left of social democrats, so much so that social democrats label themselves democratic socialists all the time. The ideology is dependent upon reforming a fundamentally capitalistic system in an attempt to achieve socialism, while more lefty ideologies are focused on forcing the ruling/regressive capitalist class to comply (and some just outright skip to purging all the aristocracy who are anti-worker).

An accurate-ish description may be “socialist” and “syndicalist” vaguely can be anywhere on the left, so 5.5 to 10; “communist” and similar adjectives like “ararcho-communist” encompass 9 to 10; “anarchist” contains ideologies between center and fully left, so 5 to 10 (although most anarchist ideology is very far to the left, a lot of them are communists); “democratic socialist” is 5.5 to 7; “social democrat” is 4.5 to 5.5; the American “left” is mostly anywhere between 4 and 6.5 nowadays, although a decade ago it’d be more like 3 to 4.5, with actual social democrats being considered fringe or “extremists”. US “conservativism” (or “conservatism”, pick your poison on the spelling) is pretty much entirely “sounds kinda like fascism” to “fascism” at this point, so 1.5 to 2.5, with some politicians in the faction maybe squeaking it out to 3 or 3.5. Full-blown Nazis are 1. Libertarians/classical liberals are harder to classify in this sort of system, as in practice they’re usually as right-wing and reggressive as American conservatives, but their ideology is theoretically supposed to be more like a 3.5. Ancaps are just straight up 1 to 2.5 though, a complete lack of law applying to corporations & companies in general, being anti-government funding except when it’s military or police (except some of the farthest right of them believe even those should be completely private). They’re on par with fascist in terms of the scale from left to right.

Assuming decimals are out of the question, let’s just truncate everything higher than 5 and round up everything lower than 5.

Generally, the American public (or rather, the white majority) hovers at 3 to 4, with younger people being more like 4 to 7.

What’s fucked is most people think of prominent historical figures like Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela as at a similar position in a political spectrum as American liberals, when in reality they were literally full-blown revolutionary socialists/marxists and belonged to communist organizations. And figures like Gandhi and Orwell were openly reformist socialists. I mean it’s intentional rightwashing by the government to get rid of any and all semblance of left ideology from now-near-legendary people, and it’s not surprising at all, but it’s still fucked. This is the framework of thinking Americans have when they try to categorize ideologies on a left-to-right spectrum; the most leftist historical figures they know that aren’t Stalin or Mao or something are all rightwashed into oblivion, portrayed to be liberal in the American sense, which tricks people into believing the farthest left you can go before you cross the centrist line is Bill Clinton or something.

If we take “left or right” to “how far one acts to accelarate towards progressivism or regressivism”, though, then I could see your proposed comparison working decently, with the caveat being that democratic socialists wouldn’t be anywhere near communists in that regard either.

It stands for read the descending order sort, dummy

I’m gonna let you know right know, Lemmy isn’t the place for alt-right nutters who had disgusting enough views to get banned from Reddit of all places (a pretty conservative community in general) for being too right-wing. Lemmy is literally a gradient of full-on communists to centrists that at least agree we should have basic social welfare. Even the prominent conservatives here aren’t openly vehemently anti-lgbt and anti-social welfare like American conservatives usually are.

Lemmy isn’t exactly politically extremist, but even the relatively right-wing-friendly Lemmy instances (like world) look communist compared to Reddit

They don’t have to. In fact, it makes more sense for them to be out the quote, unless they’re part of the quote. Many writers use commas outside of the enclosement of the quotation marks. I do

The character is Miyako Hoshino, the protagonist of Wataten! An Angel Flew Down to Me (Watashi ni Tenshi ga Maiorita!), a yuri romcom about a college student falling in love with an elementary schooler, written by a guy

Yes, lesbian pedophile is a subgenre now, and it’s mediocre as fuck at best

You can get the same effect with Floorp. I mean it technically still has Pocket built in but it’s 1 click to completely disable rather than all the hoops you have to go through in normal Firefox.

Based and customizationpilled

is this what terry davis used

Web bloat in a nutshell and why we need to switch to things like Web Assembly more than ever. It’s not WASM, but I used Laminar which is a Scala.js library, and it’s the absolute pinnacle of (frontend) web development. Scala in general is just really great for idiomatic web code, its flexibility is unbeatable.

Another amazing alternative would be anything Rust. In fact I’ve used that much more than Scala for web. I’ve mainly used Leptos for full-stack and and Actix for backend, but I’ve seen Dioxus and Axum in good use and they both seem really great too.

Apparently Lemmy uses Leptos for its UI so… that’s a +1.

I am a Scala and Rust fan. I can corroborate what you said

The part about no semicolons/curly braces I like in Scala is that I can write a function and it’ll look virtually indistinguishable from a regular ol variable. Functions become much less of a ritual and integrate more nicely with the rest of the code. Other than that though, Rust definitely wins out because of the curly braces & semicolons. I use curly braces in most situations in Scala where I’d normally use them in Rust, and I would use semicolons everywhere in Scala if it weren’t considered unidiomatic. Whitespace-significant syntax is just really annoying to deal with. Using Python or even maybe F# makes me want to die because I keep accidentally missing an indent somewhere or indenting too much somewhere else or using the wrong kind of whitespace and the entire program implodes. At least Scala and Kotlin keep it sane

Also it’s just way harder to visually organize in whitespace based languages. You basically have to do a bunch of magic tricks to make the code look slightly different in a specific scenario than what the language wants you to. Rust allows you to actually visually organize your code easily while also having a strong style rules which you shouldn’t stray too far from (or else the compiler will yell at you).

Don’t talk to me and my Directed Hypergraph Databases again

Drug addiction is a disorder most often caused by some sort of pressure to do drugs. It’s almost never a path someone chooses to take just because. And, obviously, it takes extremely long and an extremely good set of circumstances to escape, you can’t just choose not to have a drug addiction suddenly. “Having a drug addiction some time in the past is his fault so it’s not dystopic that he can’t get basic healthcare” is an extremely ignorant take.

Should diabetes treatment not be accessible to all because a lot of diabetes is partially caused by lifestyle either? Or rather, is your argument that in a capitalist world – which can’t exist without an underclass and people too poor to afford many basic necessities – it’s fine that people who can’t afford healthcare just get fucked and rack up a bunch of debt from the hospital and (in the case of the US) can’t get treatment from doctors/specialists for anything that isn’t immediately life-threatening? It’s okay for there to be a class of humans “undeserving” of healthcare at all?

I just want to gauge the line for how much healthcare inaccessibility/insecurity there needs to be, or who can be excluded, for you to accept that it’s immoral and causes unnecessary human suffering and misery.

There’s no way them deducting pay out of your last paycheck is legal in any way. How hasn’t soneone sued the hell out of them?

Honestly I hate the fact that browsers’ default CSS exists. The person doing the frontend should have to specify their “default” CSS before the website even loads. I say this as both a user and a programmer, the same website shouldn’t look different or break on different browsers unintentionally due to the browser’s CSS, and I as a developer shouldn’t have to rely on reset sheets to try to patch that.

Everything would be better if it were swapped around, instead of picking out a reset sheet for a site you pick out a default style…

The world would also be better if browsers rendered pugjs/slim and scss/sass and those were the default rather than html and css but I digress…