Pretty much. English borrowed it from Latin because it's posh. And Latin borrowed it from Greek because it's posh. But at the end of the day it's in the same spirit as "the ABC", or Latin "abecedarius".
My hypothesis: Lemmy has an older userbase, and in general older people feel less of a need to express their emotions. They're busier discussing the topic than highlighting their attitude towards it.
Perhaps cultural reinforcement plays a role, too. As emoticons and emojis are less used, they feel more out of place, so people who'd use them elsewhere avoid them here.
That doesn't surprise me.
Linux users are biased towards higher technical expertise, and they have a different mindset - most of the software that we use is the result of collaborative projects, and we're often encouraged to help the devs out. And while the collaborative situation might not be true for game development, the mindset leaks out.
Like, what the hell did I do to deserve that? I don’t know why I let it even bother me because of how obviously immature he is being.
Odds are that you did nothing. He's clearly an emotional vulture, he probably does it towards everyone around him.
I don't recommend framing it as immaturity, as it might give you the false hope that he'll "grow up" and get better over time. Perhaps he gets better, but odds are that he won't.
Some people might say "let it go", or "vengeance is never good, it kills the soul and poisons it". I'm almost 40 and I got something to say about this pacifist discourse:
Screw this masochistic shit. When you turn the other face you are not saying "I'm better than him"; you're saying "he's right in treating me as trash, as I am trash". You want to ruin his life and make him regret existing.
So, here's what I'd do:
- Document every single time that he contacts you, including the contents. Record calls, save e-mails, take screenshots.
- He's likely doing this with other people too, contact them. Former friends and any ex-SO are a good start. Ideally they should do the same as you (document it) and you should act in unison. Do not let him notice that you're acting together though, be as stealthy as possible.
I couldn’t take it anymore, so I blocked him on everything I could think of. [...] This quote was a part of what he commented on my Instagram picture of one of my tools yesterday:
That's actually great for you. It means that he kept contacting you after showed clear desire to not be contacted further. Depending on the local laws this gives you grounds for legal action.
And since the guy is a fucking idiot flaunting the fact that he's an engineer, you might also contact his business. Be polite towards them, but highlight the fact that one of their employees is harassing you. Even if he doesn't get fired, it'll put him in a poor position later on.
He deserves to be put in his place. I don’t know if that’s possible though without me becoming just as petty as he is.
The difference between "being petty" and "standing your ground" is why. You are in a position to screw him up without being petty.
You'll also want to ruin the psychological "kick" that he gets from harassing you. Ignoring him on the surface (while documenting it) is a good approach, because he'll feel unsatisfied but he'll try a bit harder.
Also shield yourself psychologically. Remember - you are not the problem, he is the problem.
Vengeance is not a dish to be served cold. You warm it in the blood of your enemies.
There's a bunch of weird ones in Portuguese.
- "Caroço de manga não é sabonete" Do you think that mango seed is soap? = "this is an absurd proposal/situation/etc."
- "Pobre só sobe na vida quando o barraco explode" Poor people only ascend on life when the [shit]shack explodes. = "don't expect social ascension"
- "Enquanto vem com o milho, já comi a polenta." While you're bringing the corn, I already ate the polenta. = "I've already handled this, you're too late."
- "um polaco de cada colônia" a Pole from each settlement = a bunch of randomly picked people or items. I don't think that people use this too much outside Paraná.
- "farinha do mesmo saco" flour from the same bag = extremely similar in some aspects that matter (and usually negative ones)
- "comer o pão que o diabo amassou" to eat the bread kneaded by the devil = to go through rough times
- "Vai chupar prego até virar tachinha!" Go suck an [iron] nail until it becomes a thumbtack! = somewhat polite way to tell someone to fuck off
- "Vai ver se estou na esquina." *Go check if I'm around the corner." = also a way to tell people to fuck off
- "anta quadrada" squared tapir = "anta" tapir is used to call someone stupid, so anta quadrada is stupid to the power of two.
- "anta cúbica" cubed tapir = because some people do some really, really stupid shit.
- "mais louco que o Requião de pedalinho" crazier than Requião on a paddle boat = Requião is a politician here in Paraná known for his crazy antics. The phrase highlights that something is completely fucking crazy. Clearly local.
- "teu cu" your arse[hole] = definitively, clearly, and blatantly "no".
Lying about events that allegedly happened while we were engaged, and expecting me to actually believe her. Specially when she switched who did what.
For example. "I even cooked at late night for you!" - err... no. She only cooked for me a handful of times, all of them afternoon snacks. (I'm not a big fan of afternoon eating but I appreciated the gesture.) I was cooking for her fairly often, including preparing a "fake" barreado (kind of stew) at 3AM.
Or claiming that a common friend (a woman) openly mocked her while we were drinking with friends, and I did nothing. I was there and I remember what friend said - a single sentence, roughly "hello and bye for both of you!", since that friend was leaving as we were arriving on the bar. Even if she wanted to mock my then girlfriend, she wouldn't have the time to do so.
What makes those funny is not the fact that she was lying, but that they're such idiotic lies that you can smell the bullshit from a kilometre of distance.
I think on Rome fairly often, but it's usually more often on the republic.
about how the Republic fell and became a totalitarian state.
I was thinking about this literally yesterday, on the nature of Octavian betraying the Republic, and how the Iulii and the Claudii simply kept themselves on power through the whole process. (Both gentes were already powerful in Republican times.) Or how some of the Claudii called themselves "Clodius" instead of "Claudius" for the sake of populism. ("See? I'm from the people! I even speak like a pleb!")
Really the api change did this?
Kind of. It wasn't just the change itself, but also how it was done.
Reddit showed complete lack of care about its own userbase (specially blind people and moderators) and that it's an extremely scummy company, even for company standards. It could've pulled the unreasonable API prices to kill off 3PA but it would need smarter people in charge of the decision than the ones who did it.
Calling Mussolini a "great leader" isn't just immoral. It's also clearly incorrect for any reasonable definition of a great leader: he was in the losing side of a big war, if he won his ally would've backstabbed him, he failed to suppress internal resistance, the resistance got rid of him, his regime effectively died with him, with Italy becoming a democratic republic, the country was poorer due to the war... all that fascist babble about unity, expansion, order? He failed at it, hard.
On-topic: I believe that the main solution proposed by the article is unviable, as those large "language" models have a hard time sorting out deontic statements (opinion, advice, etc.) from epistemic statements. (Some people have it too, I'm aware.) At most they'd phrase opinions as if they were epistemic statements.
And the self-contradiction won't go away, at least not for LLMs. They don't model any sort of conceptualisation. They're also damn shitty at taking context into account, creating more contradictions out of nowhere because of that.
Note that a fallacy is a reasoning flaw; sometimes the goal might be to trick you, indeed. But sometimes it's just a brainfart... or you might be dealing with something worse, like sheer irrationality. That said:
- look for the conclusion. What is the point that the writer is delivering? (Note: you might find multiple conclusions. That's OK.)
- look at what's being used to support that conclusion. What is the core argument?
- look for the arguments used to feed premises into the core argument. Which are they?
Then try to formalise the arguments that you found into "premise 1, premise 2, conclusion" in your head or in a text editor. Are the premises solid? Do you actually agree with them? And do they actually lead into the conclusion? If something smells fishy, you probably got a fallacy.
Get used to at least a few "big" types of fallacies. There are lists across the internet, do read a few of them; you don't need to memorise names, just to understand what is wrong with that fallacious reasoning. This pic has a few of them, I think that it's good reference material, specially at the start:
In special I've noticed that a few types of fallacy are really common on the internet:
- genetic fallacy - claiming that an argument is true or false because of its origin. Includes ad hominem, appeal to nature, appeal to authority, ad populum, etc.
- red herring - bringing irrelevant shit up as if it supported the conclusion, when it doesn't matter. In special, I see appeal to emotion (claiming that something is false/true because it makes you feel really bad/good) all the time.
- oversimplification - disregarding key details that either stain the premises or show that they don't necessarily lead to conclusion. False dichotomy ("if X is true, Y is false" in situations where both can be true or false) is a specially common type of oversimplification.
- strawman - distortion of an opposing argument into a way that is easier to beat. Again, notice that "intention" doesn't matter; only that the opposing argument isn't being addressed.
- moving goalposts - when you counter an argument, the person plops another in its place, without acknowledging that it's a new argument. Often relies heavily on ad hoc (making stuff up on the spot to shield an argument)
- four terms - exploiting multiple meanings associated with the same word to create an argument like "A is B¹, B² is C, thus A is C".
There are also some "markers" that smell fallacy for me from a distance. You should not trust them (as they might be present where there's no fallacy, or they might be absent even when the associated fallacy pops up); however, if you find those you should look for the associated fallacy:
- "As a" at the start of a text - genetic fallacy, specially appeal to authority
- "Trust me" - red herring, specially appeal to emotion (once you contradict the argument there's a good chance that the other will create drama because you didn't blindly trust them, so the whole thing boils down to "accept this as true otherwise you'll hear my meltdown").
- "I don't understand" followed by a counter-argument - strawman. Specially common in Reddit.
- "Actually" - red herring through trivia that is completely irrelevant in the context.
From Reddit's PoV I don't think that there is a mass emigration; it's just that the most engaged sectors of the community left, so the 99% left don't give a damn about it. Over time I predict that it'll be a slow drain, not a mass exodus.
However from Lemmy/Kbin's PoV there is a mass immigration. And the users are disproportionally active; for example a comm with 3k subscribers getting 1k upvotes in a post, stuff like this.
1990? Oh I remember it. In Brazil they wouldn't be listing the year though, but the month - hyperinflation was raging on, back then. (I remember the 100 cruzeiro coins. They were cute.)
Anyway. The number doesn't match any pair of prices:
And one detail that they didn't mention is that +100%~200% between the 90s and the 20s is not a big deal, but +60% in a single year is a big fucking deal. That smells artificial as fuck, reinforcing what people have been saying here about not being inflation but price gouging.