Cared about:
Didn’t care about:
If you cover up the bottom part of the jaw, the face looks like a long-nosed rodent with a toothy overbite, just being very chill looking out the window.
Kinda cute actually.
But nice yawn too XD
Oh, absolutely. My line to the court was rather dramatised for effect :)
What you’d really argue is that since your penis size is not public knowledge, then no matter whether your actual penis is big or small, the writer’s description has no bearing on the ability of the public to recognise the person being defamed as clearly you. Therefore, the accuracy or inaccuracy of the size described in writing can be simply dismissed as immaterial, with no need to inspect your pants for the truth.
Not only those points, but there’s another obvious reason it couldn’t work, too.
For any libel case to be successful, the key premise is clearly to show “This person described in writing is obviously meant to be me”
Unless you are someone whose penis size is public knowledge, then describing it as big or small doesn’t contradict other identifying details because nobody knows how big it really is.
So you can safely say “I actually have an enormous penis, your honour, but the defendant, the writer, was likely unaware of this”
Yes, but the cost is different in relative terms.
Let’s imagine you buy a small car for $30,000 and your partner buys an SUV for $60,000. You drive them both for 200k miles, and then at that point they both have a big engine problem and need $10k of work each to fix.
At that point, spending $10k to keep the SUV going seems perhaps reasonable, because it is 1/6th of the SUVs price.
Spending 10k on the car is less reasonable because it’s a whole THIRD of the car’s purchase price! Makes much more sense to scrap it and put that money towards a brand-new car.
Therefore, people will be more likely to keep expensive vehicles for longer, scrap cheaper ones sooner, and this skews the data.
Of course, I’m not saying the vehicles in the chart are all just expensive and not reliable. Toyota Landcruser there at #1 is legendarily indestructible, for good reason. But there are other factors involved beyond pure reliability which will skew the stats.
His content is really good. A lot of his audience is still people from the old days who basically grew up watching ethoslab, and his style as a creator has changed a little too as he’s grown up with them.
He’s definitely still a youtuber whose uploads I look out for. Very comfortable content that makes me feel super chill.
There are lots of reasons why governments might desire to get rid of physical currency.
Crime - Physical money is the option of choice for criminals as it allows them to make off-record transactions so their activities are hard to trace
Tax - When otherwise legal business is conducted in cash, it’s possible for business income or employee pay to be undeclared or underreported, meaning the government is losing out on tax revenue. This is huge, and the gov really wants their slice of that cash.
Manufacturing and distribution - A minor point, but it is expensive to make physical currency, as well as to keep improving it to prevent forgeries and such. Getting rid of physical currency removes this problem.
I’m sure there are other reasons but those are what came to mind.
Despite these factors, any move to a fully cashless society is controversial, because not everyone is in a position where being fully digital is feasible. It has the worst effects on those who are already marginalised and disadvantaged in society, like the homeless, who may not even be able to open a bank account.
So I think it will be quite a long time until it might happen.
No, but his neighbours do.
Yes - by most definitions. It’s powered by user-generated content and is based on interaction between users through engagement with that content, which is voted and scored.
There is a difference which I personally feel makes reddit less harmful than other social media, however, which is the algorithm - or lack of it.
In most social media, the algorithm exists to continually serve people the exact content they engage with in a constant feed, which is IMO the most socially damaging part of social media because it creates endless doomscrolling, toxic echo chambers, promotion of sponsored content, and a whole raft of psychological problems in users.
The Lemmy homefeed is more organic, and scrolling through ‘all’ you see content genuinely from everywhere, in a less curated way based on upvotes, not individual algorithmic tailoring. And that’s maybe not as “engaging” but it’s far less damaging.
deleted by creator
I see the sculptor was flattering, and portayed him as in his younger and less chubby days.
Sure, I was there then. I was on Facebook right in the beginning, when you needed a university email address to even sign up.
So that’s true, but it’s also true to say that early Facebook wasn’t the same as modern Facebook. Early Facebook was - as the name suggested, a place to connect with friends, share pictures and plan events. You’d probably check it once a day to see what was happening, but that was it. And your home feed would be a direct and unfiltered view of what all your friends posted, in the order they posted it, without bias. And you could easily catch up on everything that had happened and then you were finished.
It’s the birth of the algorithm and infinitely scrollable tailored content feeds that really defines what social media has become.
This and mobile Internet have really gone hand-in-hand. The algorithm has made us want to be scrolling all the time, and mobile Internet has made it possible .
I agree.
OPs answer of saying that WiFi and phone Internet changed the world is correct, but it’s not specific enough or the full truth of the matter.
If we had the Internet and modern phones but the only sites that existed were those from 2002, we’d be living in a very different world.
Mobile Internet is the enabling technology, but if social media didn’t exist we’d probably leave our phones in our pockets most of the time.
Interestingly, British consumer rights guru Martin Lewis is currently running a crowdsourced data gathering exercise on this in the UK.
The purpose being to identify if companies are purposefully playing these sorts of message no matter their actual call volume. (Which we all know they are, but this will help prove it)
Subject: Job Application
From: pussyslayer420xxx@hotmail.com
I don’t think anyone would claim that literally going outside is gonna fix anyone’s life, or cure this broken-ass world we live in.
But the sentiment isn’t wrong.
It means: Take some time for yourself. Enjoy the small things. Exercise. Feel the sun on your face. Leave your phone in your pocket, and stop doomscrolling. See the world in your own terms, not the terms others want to force upon you.
It helps. You can’t change the whole world, but you can change yourself.
Seriously. Saw that in the cinema and couldn’t hear a word.
In part due to this, it has also become trendy and normalised to have bassy dialogue and lots of environmental noise, because that’s the expected “epic movie” feel.
So it’s almost become a self-fulfilling prophecy that movies will sound this way, regardless of the anticipated audio hardware.
Haha yeah.
Honestly though, while I’d certainly look through my photos when I was bored on the train (having no Internet on phones then of course) that was never the intent of how I expected those photos to be viewed.
I’d regularly transfer all the photos to my PC and that’s what I considered the “real” way to look at them, and email them from there to other people.