the most infuriating combination of address and search boxes

From a UX perspective, those are both ways to start a navigation to a new page, and it’s almost always clear from context which is intended (is the string formatted as a URL? Treat it as such. Otherwise, treat it as a search string). The only hiccup is when actually searching for strings that look like a URL (no whitespace, includes periods), but that happens rarely enough that I’m perfectly happy to manually go to a search engine for those cases. Otherwise, Cmd+L-“type my thoughts”-Enter works smoothly for me in both cases (on Firefox for personal laptop, or Chrome for work one).

What are the issues that you experience with this combined flow?

“A man crying about a chicken and a baby? I thought this was supposed to be a comedy!”

pay-once-cry-once situation

I’ve never heard this phrase, and I’m struggling to figure it out from context. Does it mean that you regret the purchase after finding out it’s not as good as you thought, but then don’t replace it with something better because you don’t want to spend more?

Every day this place becomes more like Reddit

Yes, the same EU. The fact that it’s considering some poor choices doesn’t detract from the fact that it’s actions thus far have been positive and deserve appreciation. Real Life doesn’t split people neatly into heroes and villains.

They’re not inherently insulting - there are ways to use those phrases appropriately, but they can be (and often are) used sarcastically, when the speaker had been clear in the first place.

Do a multitude of automated posts without comments and conversation really count as activity?

Yes, absolutely. Posts are activity just as much as comments - arguably even more so, since Lemmy is not immune to Reddit’s flaw of having a hundred comments saying essentially the same thing. Some subreddits have insightful comments that are worthwhile in-and-of themselves - but they are few and far between.

I very much appreciate the perspective, thank you!

Respectfully (truly - not the shitty Internet trolling version of it), it is very confusing to me that the right to bear arms would be a factor in this decision. My perception is that 2A rights are prized precisely because they offer protection against a government that is overstepping bounds or acting dishonestly/aggressively. In this hypothetical situation where you’re moving to a country where the government is acting in a way that you approve of so much that you want to immigrate there - why do you need a gun? Is it as a safety net in case the government changes, or as a symbolic exercise of a right that you value even without practical applications, or for some other reason?

Genuine question, I would love to understand this viewpoint (which is, to me, very foreign - I’ve never been under any illusion that my ownership of a gun would have any effect if the government seriously decided to do something to me)

This, gentlesir. Le this.

All but the last four were new to me, so thank you!

I would love to know more! Feel free to vent.

In my first couple months, I broke Amazon so that no-one in Europe could buy video for a few hours. On a Friday, right before going on a week’s vacation.

The way that the ensuing investigation and response was carried out - 100% blame-free, and focused on “how did these tools let him down? How can we make sure no-one ever makes that same mistake again?” - gave me a career-long interest in Software Resiliency and Incident Management.

Thank you for reminding me of my favourite Stewart Lee bit.

I think you’re thinking of JavaScript, not Python. The closest thing Python has to a ternary operator is foo if condition else bar.

Good work, 47. Now get to an exit.

Tell me more about these explicit sports!

Introduce them to the wonderful world of No Hello!

I hear you, but given that my “lunchtime” could be anywhere between 11:00 and 15:00 (and that’s not even allowing for timezones), that’s pretty impractical.

The Vegan Society says that “In dietary terms (Veganism) denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.”

Vegan.com says “The word vegan was originally defined as a diet free of meat, dairy products, and eggs. The term now also refers to any item, from shoes to shampoo, made without animal products.”

Both pages, and the Wikipedia article, do mention the ethical considerations, but all make it clear that that is distinct from dietary Veganism.

It’s all very well to say that there is a deeper philosophy and decision-making framework driving one’s choices than simply “meat bad” - and that’s a noble motivation! - but you appear to be in the minority in your claim that a vegan diet can still include animal products. Maybe vegan-inspired, maybe “ethically aligned with Veganism”, but not “a vegan diet”.

EDIT: to be clear - from everything I can tell, Veganism is a sensible, moral, responsible, ethical, frugal choice; most people could derive great benefits both to their health and their wallet from drastically reducing or entirely cutting out meat and animal products, as well as benefitting the world in general. It’s a noble choice, it’s one I fully support, and I’ve seriously cut down my own meat intake over the last couple years and have great admiration for people who cut it out entirely. I’m not arguing with you because I love meat or hate Veganism - I’m arguing with you because, by being a dipshit about definitions, you are undermining a worthwhile cause and making it look ridiculous to people sitting on the fence.