While these are 14 year old models, it'd be really cool if companies at least got in the habit of designation at least one device as being LTS

That way consumers can choose if they want latest and greatest (but with a limited lifespan) or an LTS model that will last forever (but maybe has less fancy features and is much simpler, but functional)

If Google put out a Nest LTS that was lower MSRP, had very little features, and was very minimalist, but had a 30 year LTS gaurentee, I'd buy it.

I think the truck is setup you can buy and I stall your own.

Which I like cuz then I'm not tightly coupled to whatever shitty infotainment system the manufacturer baked in

Instead I can buy an aftermarket stereo if I desire, and pick out a good popular one that is well reviewed by enthusiasts.

Basically everyone has a bluetooth speaker and phone to go with it already.

I would much rather use that than am/fm radio tbh

That's sucks and all mate, dunno if it has anything to do with what I said though :x

My issue is the entire posted article appears to just be AI generated nothing-script.

It has headlines that have nothing to do with the content.

I also have started to notice gippity content has certain patterns it always follows, especially it's last few sentences seem to always be very "In summary..." style.

When I see content written like this so poorly I just assume now it's AI generated garbage.

How I Discovered My Smart TV Was Spying On Me

Proceeds to never explain how.

When I Noticed My Smart TV Was Spying on Me

Proceeds to never say when this happened...

Can we get an article that isn't vapor clickbait maybe?

This feels like the kind of thing that'll get shown to a jury at a trial 10 years from now, and yet family members will be like "no one saw it coming"

Wow, that sure is something else.

As if the informant has authority on the language for everyone?

You are being actively obtuse if someone informs you "lots of people are offended by this" and you just plug your ears and go "you don't speak for them"

It's common knowledge. If you refuse to go along with it, you are just bring an asshole abd you will struggle to form meaningful relationships.

People who refuse to just put in the 1% of effort needed to not be offensive are destined to lead a hollow existence, constantly plagued either short term relationships that keep ending early as people get to know who they are and then peace out, or, are also an asshole and they get to "enjoy" each other's company.

You aren't arguing in good faith here. If someone tells you something is offensive, it's nearly zero effort to just go "oh sorry" and just move on.

Only assholes sit and try and debate and argue about how they should be allowed to be an asshole.

You are allowed to be an asshole, it's not illegal, but it doesn't stop it from being asshole behavior.

Because taking a pill doesn't take 2 hours...?

Next question :)

Perhaps referring to a person by more generic, abstract terms indicates (bizarre) distance & detachment rather than anything inherently dehumanizing?

I think these two go hand in hand, when spoken by a human.

Because if I, a person, refer to your humanity in a detached way, it still is implying you are "distanced" from me (the person), contextually.

And typically this is assumed to be in a superiority form of way as a default, because we associate it with the way we all collectively tend to talk about objects.

That's why it only comes across as offensive when spoken by another human, because they shouldnt be speaking about a fellow specific human in a detached way... on account of them being a human too.

However, claiming an inherently disrespectful or dehumanizing meaning is contentious

Sure. The context when it isn't is if the person is so socially naive that they genuinely don't understand this and it's a honest mistake.

And, yes, I have met people like this. Usually either younger folks, or ELL.

If, however, you become informed of how this comes across and choose to keep doing it anyways now it is intentionally abrasive and will be taken offensively.

Any person who goes "yes I know this pisses people off, and I'm going to do it anyways, even though it's trivially easy to not to do the thing" is self centered and demonstrating anti social behaviors.

Aka, an asshole.

It doesn't require much thought, these are implicit rules you already should intuitively know if you have been participating in western culture for a few years.

You should be able to intuitively know that

"You are acting like an asshole"

Carries way different weight than

"You are an asshole"

Clarifiers are much "softer" than nouns, as they are subjective instead of objective

You hopefully got some basic lessons on Facts vs Opinions in early grade school, it's the same concept.

Fundamentally adjectives vs noun do indeed carry substantially different weight.

Which of these statements would you say will piss someone off more:

"You're a bitch" "You're being bitchy"

Anyone with common sense knows the former sentence carries way more weight in terms of a statement.

"Female Officer" is just not rude, because its merely a clarifier, to avoid confusion.

"Female" can be used that way to, but usually its not necessary when referring to people, it only makese sense when used to clarify animals as a whole.

"Female mammals have ovaries" for example makes sense, because it clarifies which mammals we are talking about.

But if you say "Female Humans" now you sound like an alien describing people, because you and I are humans, so we don't need to specify, it sounds "outer", like something someone other than a human would write.

The only time itd make sense to use that is when literally distinguishing Female Humans from Females of another type.

IE "Unlike Female Bugs, Female Humans don't lay eggs"

Then it goes back to making sense.

What about the term ladies…is that ‘socially acceptable’.

It is, yes.

"Female" is the term to refer to the sex of an animal, which does include humans but its usually the term you use when describing a... dog or cat or whatever.

People however prefer when you specifically use any of the multitude of human gender terms for us.

So Woman, Lady, Maam, Gals, Girls, Chicks, etc. These all still are what you call a person

Consider the inverse: When you refer to an animal with those terms, its an act of respect, you've humanized it. If you walk up to a cow and say "Hello maam" it's usually inherently signaling "I like/respect this animal to the degree Im using a human pronoun for it"

Or if you have a pet deg and you go "Lookit this distinguished gentleman" or "How are you today sir?", same diff, you humanized it via the pronoun, which is a way to signal love/affection/respect.

When you do the opposite and call a woman a female or a man a male, it's inherently disrespectful. You've effectively implied you classify them at the same tier as an animal in a laboratory. It dehumanizes.

If you think about all the classic insults for people, a lot of them just boil down to calling them an animal. "Pig" "Bitch" "Cow", "Sheep" etc, if you call people by these terms its usually considered at minimum sorta offensive, but often very offensive.

"Female" is the same, when you refer to a woman.

No most people will give you a very weird look if you refer to a man as a male in the pronoun sense.

"How are you doing, males?" would make you sound like a fuckin alien pretending to be a human lol.

Or, only time, use it as a noun in a clinical/scientific sense when you literally are distinguishing "people who were born with ovaries", IE "Females have higher estrogen levels" or something like that, when you are literally talking about the physical sex, and not gender.

"Female

<job title>

Like if I say "Female Officers suffer from above average sexual harassment" that statement isnt a big deal.

If I say "You are a beautiful female" to a woman though, it sounds disgusting.

I mean literally just compare these two basic statements.

"Go hand this package to that Female Officer over there" (This just distinguishes the Female Officer from the Male Officers probably standing near her)

vs

"Go hand this package to that Female over there" (this sounds like you are an alien visiting earth and talking to me)

This genuinely made me do an IRL spit take, holy shit.

Same, but they did set up a self hosted instance for us to use and, tbh, it works pretty good.

I think it's s good tool specifically for helping when you dunno what's going on, to help with brainstorming or exploring different solutions. Getting recommended names of tools, finding out "how do other people solve this", generating documentation, etc

But for very straightforward tasks where you already know what you are doing, it's not helpful, you already know what code you are going to write anyways.

Right tool for the right job.

I hold that liberal goes beyond that, starting to spend extra money and tax extra when the returns are no longer as good and instead it's less about literally saving money and more about quality of life

Fiscal conservative is "once the returns aren't as good, stop there"

Whereas liberal goes "nah even if the returns start to suck, it's better to further tax to even further help people purely for ethical reasons"

Liberal mindset is ethics > money

Fiscal conservative is money > ethics

Current "conservative" policy though is power > inflicting suffering > money > ethics

Which I respect and I'd love to get us towards, but tbh we gotta convince people to get past step 1 first of realizing spending money to actively hurt people, surprisingly, isn't a good fiscal policy (which somehow genuinely confuses so many people, it's crazy)

We are still at the stage where too many people think that spending money inflicting active harm is genuinely a good idea and a good use of taxpayer dollars

They think paying cops to go around kicking indigenous teens in the head is truly a solid Fiscal policy. Truly.

They think paying money to fund bombs being dropped on children is good Fiscal policy.

They think paying money to poison our water, destroy our ecosystems, and pollute the oceans is good Fiscal Policy

Getting past that part is step one

Literally just convincing these people to stop stabbing themselves is step 1.

Maybe later we can talk about convincing them to help others after we get them to stop hurting others...

Cool your jets kid, it was just a formatting issue >_>

Lemmy just annoyingly includes the next line in a quote as if its part of the quote

IE if I do this And then this is the next line

Note how “And then this is the next line” gets included in the quote, even though it looks like this on my screen

I have to do this

Instead

https://i.imgur.com/nGJgFSG.png