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?

I, an American

Irony, you say?

https://www.theawl.com/2016/03/the-vast-bay-leaf-conspiracy/

Tikka Masala is an Indian-Inspired dish which was invented in the UK by people with Indian cultural heritage. That’s about as concise a description as you can get without running into difficulties of definition - there’s no consistent way of defining what “being a dish” means without running into contradictions.

In fact General Tso’s is the perfect counter-example: Multiple Chinese people have told me they enthusiastically disown General Tso’s Chicken and explicitly call it American food. So if we say “a dish belongs to a country if it’s invented there”, then Tikka Masala is British (which I agree “feels” wrong); but if we say “a dish belongs to a country if it was inspired by the cuisine of that country”, then General Tso’s is Chinese, which, apparently not!

And that’s without even considering the question of how far “back” you should go with inspiration - what if a dish was inspired by how the Indians used food they got from the Persians who traded it with the Chinese - is it Indian food or Chinese food? (Idk if that’s historically nonsense, but you get my point) Why is the most-recent ancestor more important than the environment of creation?

“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?

I feel like you’re using “supercede” differently to the rest of us. You’re getting a hostile reaction because it sounded like you’re saying that EM is no longer at all useful because it has been obsoleted (superceded) by QM. Now you’re (correctly) saying that EM is still useful within its domain, but continuing to say that QM supercedes it. To me, at least, that’s a contradiction. QM extends EM, but does not supercede it. If EM were supercedes, there would be no situation in which it was useful.

“X depends on or is built up on Y” does not imply “X is Y”. Concepts, laws, techniques, etc. can depend or be higher-order expressions of QM without being QM. If you started asking a QM scientist about tensile strength or the Mohs scale they would (rightly) be confused.

With the jobmarket the way it is?

Historically awful? Don’t get me wrong, the advice is still solid, but this was a weird way to preface it - it’s the hardest time in my 10-year career to “just find a new job”.

Every day this place becomes more like Reddit

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)

TIL where the name of the Unsleeping City character came from…

My friend, that’s positively milquetoast in comparison to Stewart Lee.

Ah, a fellow VX Junkie?

“_Every person who has ever done in the past, has done it with and it had _” does not imply “_The only reason anyone could possibly ever do is with to achieve _”. That’s a valid reason to be cautious, but not a reason to make blanket statements about an entire category of thing.

EDIT: for Day1 DLC in particular, a totally valid and non-exploitative reason for it is “we had a release date that we absolutely had to hit (because of marketing, contracts, etc.), which necessitated calling a production halt well in-advance of the release date for QA and testing - but instead of moving on to the next project, developers worked on more stuff for the same game. If that was too complex or didn’t work out, we could drop it and no-one would complain; but if we’d kept developing it in the base game, and resulted in a slipped release date, there would be hell to pay”

When a company actually exists that utilizes your view of DLC, then it might be a valid criticism of the phrasing

No, that’s precisely the point I’m trying to make - “every example of X that has existed so far is Y” does not imply “by definition, X is provably and definitively always Y”.

You can claim that all DLC that has ever existed is predatory and exploitative (I suspect there are counter-examples; but, fine, whatever, not relevant to my point). You can say that, because of past performance, you are disinclined to trust future examples of DLC or give them the benefit of the doubt. That is all reasonable. But you can’t conclude “because all DLC so far has been bad, the concept of DLC as a whole is bad and can never be used well”.

As a super-simple example - here are some prime numbers: 5, 11, 37. Are all prime numbers odd? I can give you a bunch more examples if you want!

They smell bad?