Chicagoan here, chiming in: I saw this guy like 4 times on my way to work this morning.

I’m not opposed to the idea but it doesn’t seem like the kind of thing you can just try one time. Isn’t there some kind of preparation phase to be able to handle …“stuff”?

Yeah, the Serenity Prayer context might help.

Grant me the serenity to accept the things I can’t change
The courage to change the things I can
And the wisdom to know the difference

You’re being downvoted because people people think you’re being obtuse, but, as a person that overuses logical thinking to a diagnosable degree, my suspicion is that you’re doing that. Also because your tone is kind of…not good.

The whole point of the Serenity Prayer (“accept the things I cannot change”) is that it includes “change the things I can” – so the things Davis is changing are things she CAN change, by definition.

But her point is that she is reframing what she believes she can and cannot change. Recategorizing, if you will.

She’s invoking the third part of the Serenity Prayer: the wisdom to know the difference. As we grow and learn, our wisdom increases, so the things that belong in the first two categories will shift.

Things that used to be things that can’t be changed are becoming things that she can.

To understand the quote, you just have to give it some space to breathe, and not be so logical about it.

Person doesn’t want to date person with OF

Person with OF doesn’t want to date person

It seems the universe is in harmony.

Yeah I’m kind of dumb like that. But honestly I don’t actually do it for them – I do it for noobs. Like, there’s a long way for that person to go before my input will be helpful – but there are young people who have heard those arguments and may not have a compelling response – so hopefully my post will help.

Why can’t they just flip burgers from the age of 16 till 65? What if they don’t mind the work, they have a full and fulfilling life outside of work, and their job is just what they do to make ends meet? Does that mean they deserve to live in debt and working 100 hours a week? Are you so ignorant that you don’t understand that, in any economic system, capitalism or otherwise, not everyone can move up?

It’s literally not possible. There have to be people flipping the burgers. That’s a fact of the system; there’s no way around that. And it’s ok – not perfect, but acceptable – as long as we treat those people with dignity and respect.

And that means paying them enough to survive – and thrive – on 40 hours a week. No one’s saying they should have enough money to buy megayachts – or even regular yachts. But they should be able to buy a shitty canoe – and still be able to pay all their bills, and not have to work more than 40 hours.

If you’re concerned about the possibility that, if they earn more, you’ll earn less, that’s just not true. There’s no scenario in the USA where a company is charging customers any less than the most they possibly can, and paying their workers any more than as little as possible. That’s literally the law. There is plenty of extra money that can be used to cover the needs of our poorest people – and to raise the salaries of more scarce labor who would otherwise turn to flipping burgers if burger-flipping salaries went up.

Literally every business that’s even a little successful has extra money. (“Extra money” is also known as profit.) There is no reason why one person should have to work more than 40 hours a week while another person has more money then they can possibly spend in a lifetime; it’s illogical and irrational, and cruel.

If everyone who flips burgers gets a “better job” are you going to stop having burgers?

The issue is that while there is work that needs to be done, then there will be a need to pay people to do it. If you’re a business owner and you have work that needs to be done, and you can’t afford to pay your employees enough for them to pay their bills and lube decent lives, and you can’t personally take the hit to your own income to cover the difference, then your business should fail.

Right now, the arrangement forces people to work more than 40 hours a week – which is illegal, but companies get away with it because they don’t work at the same company for the whole time. In fact, many people with multiple jobs don’t even have full time jobs – they have 3 part time jobs, all working them less than 40 hours a week, so they don’t have to give them the benefits they’re required to provide for full time employees.

(Personally, when I was young I had multiple places scheduling me for 39.5 hours a week. Now I’m a white collar FTE and I work 35 hours a week.)

So, next time you call someone who’s flipping burgers “lazy,” think about how lazy a person must be to work 100 hours a week. Is that what laziness looks like to you? How many hours a week do you have to work too not be considered not lazy?

Because, the thing is, you know they aren’t lacy. They’re working their fingers to the bone, and have much shittier and shorter lives than middle class people. Calling them lazy (or stupid or unlucky or whatever) is how you rationalize the fact that you’re unwilling to accept any inconvenience it might cause you to help them.

In this scenario – aka, the real world, the world we are in right now – they are working harder than the rest of us are, for less money.

Donkey Kong wishes! No, Dead Kennedys

Ok I should preface by saying I think ancap is dumb and having a slight disagreement with what you’ve said does not mean I’m not defending them. They’re asshats.

But: imo, anarchist thought escapes definition. There’s no such thing as anarchism (in the sense of an agreed-upon political philosophy), only anarchists.

Readers of Rene Girard might describe coersion (insofar as it’s a natural result of hegemony), as a sort of force of nature, like violence, that, if society doesn’t find a healthy way to express, will come out sideways, in ways that are anti-social.

Hmmm. What about anarchocapitalists that leave capitalist out of their descriptors and larp like they’re contemporary versions of the DK-listening, doc martens wearing, spiky hair having kids from the 1980s. And ancaps might be slightly better than the rich people at the top that use every advantage they’ve been given as a lever to suppress the success of everyone else. At least ancaps still have the potential to change.

I mean, if this is a package manager challenge then a distro is just a package manager

And in a lot of ways, it kind of is - now that most distros are using systemd and most distros have all the same stuff in the repos, a distro - in the sense of how different they feel to use - is basically just swapping package managers.

(Distro maintainers, don’t misunderstand! You folks do way more than just zip up a package manager! Your work is crazy hard and we appreciate you!)

So if a distro is more than just the package manager, what would that mean:

1. Default desktop env; obv a big one for Fedora since RH drives both Fedora and Gnome;
2. Community; another big one for Fedora since it has one and it’s a pretty great one
3. …? Idk this isn’t like an essay I had planned, I can’t think of anything else off the top of my head ;)

Point one, yes, OP has betrayed the spirit of Fedora because Gnome isn’t featured in the screenshot - but if we didn’t know better, there’s not actually much in the screenshot that can’t be done in Gnome

Point 2: any time you’re using a smaller-community WM or DE, yes, you’re going to have to reach beyond the distro’s community - but for a lot of stuff, you’re still in the Fedora community;

Point 2.5 - and, when posting screens to unixporn communities, the F is what matters; it’s representation, it’s demonstrating what’s possible, it’s showing that Fedora is a viable choice for new ricers that aren’t aware that you can rice any distro; and - maybe most important - it’s cool - OP is literally improving fedora’s reputation by posting something awesome that uses it

This isn’t a comment to argue, it’s meant as a discussion - what would make it more fedora-ish and less of a package manager challenge?

I’m not sure if this is what that person meant, but, usually it’s on the original development team to handle outreach and building the identity of the software - in Lemmy’s case, they have a bit of a not-great reputation… Even if they had the reach, that reputation hurts.

Having Mozilla - or any top tier foss-friendly company - kinda take the reins a bit would probably be good.

Still do. To be clear, I’m talking about the human species, not like moths or turtles or something. Smart phones are pretty common, actually.

Gin is closer to gif than gift?

It’s the children who are wrong, all three billion of them. The only ones who are right are me and my friends. We don’t have any justification or valid argument, we’re just right because we say we are.

That’s you. That’s what you sound like.

Also who said it’s a proper noun

Why? He has no linguistic expertise, and he didn’t have the perspective of the format’s popularity when he made that decree. And his decision was based on intentionally infringing on copyright. And it intentionally goes against the intuitive pronunciation. And the term “gif” now even refers to files that aren’t even .gif - it’s way past him.

This may sound harsh, and I want to acknowledge that he did something really awesome - but the Jif pronunciation will not survive once he, as a person, is forgotten. But the format will. It’s not his anymore.

Is that supposed to be an argument? That there are two ways to pronounce the letter g? I was actually already aware of that - even before I’d ever heard of gifs.

So your argument is actually that people who pronounce it with a hard G have just never heard anyone say it.

And we’re taking about dot-g-i-f, the format that is hugely shared as memes and as reactions in chats, a form so well known that it’s at Kleenex level of awareness - awareness that exceeds itself - ie, all other variants of this format (apng, animated webp, even webm) are called gifs.

And you’re saying that most people, which is, given the prevalence of gifs, probably most of our species at this point - most of the sentient life forms in our solar system are aware of this format’s name… But we’ve just never heard anyone say it. Except for a small, vocal minority - who exist mostly on the Internet and are deeply online. Those are the only people who have heard it said out loud.

And, in that impossible scenario, most of our species - who have, again, never heard it said it loud - billions of people - all, independently, came up with the same, supposedly incorrect, pronunciation.

That’s your argument? I feel like your case would be stronger without it.

It’s like intentionally taking a Principal Skinner stance - everyone else on earth is wrong. Except, at least Skinner was oblivious.

There’s simply no justification for the jif pronunciation. There’s an explanation - ie, because the creator of the format wanted to float his success on the back of a peanut butter brand. And it didn’t even work - no one calls it “jif” and yet it’s probably got better name recognition than the peanut butter. But - even as weak as that explanation is, an explanation is not a justification. A justified pronunciation - even if it’s different from the original pronunciation, is one people natively come up with, and yet is always the same.