Yup! I intentionally go shopping looking like absolute trash, because almost every time I go shopping, someone assumes I work there, and I’m way too nice and often end up helping them anyway.

I’ll wear sweats, an oversized hoodie, a backwards baseball cap, and earbuds, someone will still stop me and ask me a question obviously meant for a store employee.

It should, since even Deflocked identifies all ALPRs, not just Flock

While I think studies like this are bunk, I think it’s a mistake to assume that there is no real effect on cognitive health.

We know that using LLMs is addictive. I can’t imagine that long term use is going to be as benign as long term use of a calculator.

Almost everyone in the family and community in which I was raised believes that human-caused climate change is not real. They believe that all climate change is a wholly unavoidable phenomenon that is just part of the earth’s natural cycle.

You can imply that no one has actually been fooled by the oil industry’s propaganda all you want, but it’s both incorrect & unproductive to do so.

First of all, no, it isn’t. Like, textually isn’t.

Then explain the “Liberals” part of the meme.

The problem isn’t lack of housing, it’s using housing as commodities. If you can create a system that can build millions of shitty crumbling concrete gravestones, you’d better use fraction of this system’s power to make laws that prevent commodification of housing, so it becomes affordable, and this will be the better outcome.

I agree

The premise of the meme is that the problem of affordable housing could be very easily solved if the western world was willing to acknowledge that sometimes socialists have good ideas.

This would not necessarily solve the problem of affordable quality housing, but it would be a very effective step in the right direction.

No one said they were being used by choice. The very reason behind their original purpose was precisely because people didn’t have anywhere else to live, not because they thought people would genuinely choose to live there over a normal home.

The exact context in which the word “quality” was used, since you seem to have glossed over it was:

they were made with enough quality that they are still used today

No one said that these are high quality homes. They said that the caliber of build was strong enough to still be inhabitable 80ish years later.

When you discuss you and me that makes it obviously personal, so I’m not sure why the irony escapes you.

Yes, discussing my personal thoughts and feelings is personal, and criticizing your words is also personal, I agree. But I used the word “personal” to describe being offended. I was not offended, as the initial comment to which I was responding was a broad comment about the U.S. I have no reason to take offense at that.

when I clearly said voting and protesting would be the solution in a civilised society.

You did not say this in your initial comment, you said it in your response to my comment. My original criticism of your original comment stands. You did not speak of any solution until I criticized you for not being solution-oriented in your comment.

I agree 100%

Every new “feature” I see from Amazon makes me so glad I decided to wean myself off Amazon a couple years ago

https://lemmy.zip/comment/29299731

In my personal experience, especially in recent years, cashiers are often not even faster than self-checkout (though I’ve often experienced bagging pressure, lol). They’re either chatty extroverts who slow everything down because they’re socializing too much, or they’re new employees who don’t seem to know how to do their job yet (I assume this is prevalent due to high turnover, which is increasingly common).

“Butthurt” implies that I took your comment personally. I didn’t, because it wasn’t personal — it was a comment about the U.S., to which I feel no particular loyalty, and my issue with it is what pessimism like yours does when people express it out loud to strangers without offering solutions. Negativity akin to what you expressed has a paralyzing effect rather than a mobilizing effect.

Notice you answered my critique with a (poor) guess at the motivation behind my comment rather than a logical defense of your doomerism. Ad hominems only work on insecure people.

I really need people who say doomer shit like this to:

1. Reflect on whether their words encourage solution-oriented thinking, or doomer thinking

2. Learn emotional regulation

Considering I think Putin and his ilk can & should get absolutely bodied & the fact that you thought I was a fan of Xi, yeah, I’d say you’re making assumptions when you should be asking clarifying questions.

lol, no I don’t. Make fewer assumptions, ask more questions.

And I agree, Xi can fuck all the way off.

If you think I’m wrong, feel free to tell me why

I’m not talking about any country’s liberal party. I’m talking about neoliberals. In the U.S., they are often misidentified as being “the left”.

And regarding NATO, I am against it as a specific entity, but I think that some of its functions are important and should not be lost if it is ever dismantled.

Except liberals aren’t “the left”. Liberals are center or center-left at best. Liberals are funded by the same entities as the right is, yes, but this distinction is important, lol