Primarily0617

if you aren't refusing to acknowledge they're ux problems, you're saying it's unhelpful to call them what they are, which is obviously nonsense

and again, sane defaults are ux

or i could argue that an issue 90% of people will run into is a higher priority than one 2% of people will run into

or i could argue than the risk of accidentally opening something you didn't want to is higher than the risk of losing unsaved work

the reason foss sucks when it comes to ux is this attitude of insisting that ux problems are somehow some "other" category of problem, rather than an engineering constraint that needs to be designed around like every other one

case in point, for some reason you're still refusing to acknowledge that they're both ux problems. and if you do, your original reply ceases to even make sense.

yet very different

which is why my first words to you were "it is and it isn't"

binning them into the same category is not helpful

both are caused by people in the foss space not paying enough attention to ux

increased attention to ux could solve both

personally i think categorising all work solely through the lens of severity is unhelpful

Single/double click behavior is a matter of preference.

And defaulting to the preference that most people prefer or are used to is a matter of UX.

Which is why I say they're both UX decisions.

it is and it isn't

they're both bad UX, which FOSS is generally pretty bad at, probably because there's not as much overlap between people who who are really into FOSS and people who are really into UX

linux-centric communities also tend to be plagued by elitism, which i expect stifles a lot of this kind of thing before proper conversations can take root

why is he waiting on you hand-and-foot if all you're doing is sipping a coffee?

that's not boobs that's boob

It takes a certain amount of energy for water to exist as water, a certain amount of energy for oxygen to exist as oxygen, and a certain amount of energy for hydrogen to exist as hydrogen

The amount of energy it takes for water to keep being water is less than the sum total of the energy it takes for oxygen and hydrogen to keep being themselves.

When you burn hydrogen, it combines with oxygen in the air and makes water. But that requires less energy to exist, so where does the excess energy go? It's released as heat.

To split water back into hydrogen and oxygen, you have to re-add that same amount of energy again.

Hydrogen as a fuel isn't so much a source of energy as a store of energy. A battery doesn't make energy. You charge it with energy so that you can retrieve that energy later. Similarly, a big power plant electrolyses a bunch of water and makes a bunch of hydrogen. Later, you can use that hydrogen in your car without having to be connected to the big power plant that made it.

this is all probably largely wrong and you should ignore it chemistry SUCKS

no, but lots of things about the employee-employer relationship are fucked up, but refusing to act around that information on principle is likely to affect your career somewhat

we all must toil under society—like it or not, even if the system is bad—while the current system remains in place

Honestly if you work for a large employer, I'd assume that

• they were always monitoring internal chats, just with more primitive keyword-based filters
• they have now upgraded to llm-based filters

it's next to the time ghost, to the right of 3 tuesdays ago

So we're actually at the point where you're throwing out nonsense, but I'm not allowed to tell you that it's nonsense because that's changing the topic? Are you a real person?

You just keep asserting that what I'm saying is inaccurate and not expounding. The best you've managed so far is "it was a bipartisan" effort, which is so irrelevant I just ignored it the first time you said it because I presumed you were confused. Wow, who knew that two political parties could both be to blame here? A real shocker. I'll get the news on the phone.

Is the problem here that you don't understand things like sarcasm or hyperbole? Do I believe that somebody's run the numbers and come up with a precise figure on how valuable a Palestinian life is? Obviously not, no, but that's okay because no normal person is going to intuit that I think that from my original comment. (For the avoidance of doubt, that line about getting the news on the phone in the paragraph above was also meant in jest)

I was genuinely going to make a joke last time about how maybe I shouldn't have said "kicking a puppy", because it might confuse you given that it's Palestinians being kicked here and not a literal canine juvenile. Then you unironically go and get yourself muddled on the verb "cheering". Congratulations.

Similarly, a normal person would understand that writing a puff piece article headline about how great somebody's past actions are while making no mention of the genocide they're currently funding is morally bankrupt at best.

Ultimately all we're left with is that you feel I was just a bit too spicy for your liking when calling out a genocide—a genocide you agree is happening, and that the democratic party is funding. Your sum-total contribution to the conversation thus far has been to play the role of tone police. Thanks for your service, I guess.

So no, I don't need to "watch my rhetoric" when calling out a genocide. Because it's a genocide. Maybe you could try some of that adult restraint you mentioned next time you feel the need to interject with something quite so wholly worthless. Thanks.