• 0 Posts
  • 19 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 4th, 2023

help-circle






  • Mine is borderline unusable compared to my pixel 5.

    Is it summer and am I outdoors? Phone will shutdown due to overheating.

    Am I using Google maps and the phone is mounted in direct sunlight? It will throttle dark mode to manage overheating .

    Have I been using the phone throughout the day? It needs to be charged before I leave work.

    Honestly I’d say my p7p is the worst phone I’ve had in a long time, it’s hard to go back without considering how phones were for their time, but my instinct is that the last time I had a phone this comparably bad it was a Samsung Galaxy s3.


  • I’d trade my pixel 7 pro back for my old 5 in a heartbeat (were it not destroyed). Besides the better form factor and better android 11 UI on the pixel 5, which are admittedly subjective, the pixel 5 can do several things the pixel 7 pro cannot:

    • be used outdoors in summer (or in direct sunlight anytime),

    • get a through a full day without having to charge,

    • includes a better fingerprint sensor (more reliable, has capacitive gesture, doesn’t spit out blinding light, more ergonomic position),

    • includes a far better screen (curved edges with persistent glare are the literal worst - not to mention how breakable they are).

    • be placed on a surface without a case and without sliding around on some stupid frictionless and delicate glass back panel.


  • bigschnitz@lemmy.worldtoMildly Infuriating@lemmy.worldHow is woke a religion?
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    You can be atheist agnostic - you don’t actively participate in religion or worship but believe it is fundamentally unknowable if there is or is not a god, you can also be theistic agnostic (though this is rare in the modern lexicon) which would be where you do participate in religion (or religious practices) but still believe it to be unanswerable. To be gnostic is to believe it is knowable (and perhaps that one does know), it too can be either theist or atheist in nature.


  • bigschnitz@lemmy.worldtoMildly Infuriating@lemmy.worldHow is woke a religion?
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Atheist is literally “not theist” which would include nothing, none, agnostic (the belief that it’s impossible to determine the existence or absence of, in this context, God). It could even be argued that people who believe in God but do not participate in theistic practices (eg lapsed Catholics) are atheists. It does not require or even imply some position against religion.


  • Mid 30s Aussie living the the US. Yes I can drive a manual, yes I do drive a manual and yes I think it should be mandatory for 100% of learning drivers regardless of whether they plan to daily drive an automatic or manual when licensed.

    The quality of driving here is considerably worse here than what I’ve experienced in Australia or Europe and I’m convinced requiring people to drive in a machine that forces them to consider the next ~100m leads to higher quality, more mindful drivers.


  • The two differences you listed improve traffic flow and safety massively!

    Driver education is often more strict depending on country (I’m thinking Scandinavian countries and Germany), unsurprisingly this makes a big difference.

    Traveling faster is a bit of a moot point. If people drive faster and rate of incidents and road toll are lower, surely that proves that travel speed isn’t the problem in the US.

    But really, the drink driving culture in America is terrifying. The state of Texas has a similar population to Australia (where I’m from), 9,560 people died on the road in Q1 2022 in texas. Australia had just under 2000 FOR THE WHOLE YEAR! Both places have similar speed limits that are considerably slower than Europe, so I don’t think it would be honest to try and say the low speed limits cause deaths. My best guess would be that drink driving is enforced at 0.05 in Australia compared to 0.08 in Texas. On top of this, Texas only enforces if officers have a cause for lawful detainment, which is a high threshold to cross compared to random breath tests common where I’m from.


  • It’s incorrect to think of most road laws as being in place for safety, instead recognize that it’s largely a tax by another name. It is never safe to drive 20mph below prevailing traffic, regardless of what the sign on the side of the road instructs.

    To avoid fines, pay attention and try to avoid routes where there are often cops collecting a toll, especially during quieter times when you’re one of a smaller number of commuters (and more likely to be the sucker who gets pinged). If you’re white, congratulations, you’re way less likely to be the unlucky party who gets pinged.



  • The reason I asked was because I think there’s a fundamental disagreement between what it actually is that people disagree about.

    Your earlier post suggests that your stance on abortion is different than that of the mainstream conservative narrative. This seems normal, based on how every vote on that issue seems to be playing out, there is a disconnect between the ideology that conservative leaders are pushing and what their supporters actually think. The exact same situation is true with affirmation action on the left - voters consistently reject it regardless of party affiliation or self identified political leaning.

    I’d hear people identify CRT as being closely related to affirmative action, in that it’s an actual policy that gives out some advantage (or seeks to remove some other existing advantage, if you have a different perspective) vs being some purely academic case study more like what a other response to your response described.

    Where I’m going with this is that depending on what you’re describing when you say CRT, it’s very easily possible that your position of opposing it is consistent with a clear majority of people who identify as “left”. The disagreement isn’t about ideology, but about semantics that is being exploited by a political class to drive support.


  • Ultimately if people want to debate you, you’re not obligated to indulge them. It’s good for discourse to put out your opinion in the way that you have (eg respectfully and without throwing barbs at everyone).

    That said, some of your points are hard for me to follow.

    I don’t have a perfect knowledge of exactly what’s on the left and right so please forgive me if I put something in the wrong category.

    If you can’t articulate the difference, how is it that you came to identify as one? IMO “left vs right” is an intentionally vague and poorly defined concept to keep people angry and identifying with a brand, more than a coherent description of ideology.

    I understand that left vs right ideally shouldn’t exist. The same goes for political parties. They do exist so here’s some of my views from both sides.

    I don’t agree with critical race theory…

    I hear so much about this. What does it mean? Can you give a real world example where someone is trying to implement what you oppose?


  • Exponentially both ways though I would argue, often, the slower driver is more of a hazard to other drivers!

    If someone burns past in the left lane unless someone else does something wrong (like move lanes without looking first) or causes rapid traffic slowdown in the left lane either by merging poorly or being too aggressive on the brakes, they are more or less not a risk.

    If someone is driving too slow they are dangerous without anyone else making a mistake - if you or anyone behind you doesn’t have visibility (eg behind a truck, around a bend, glare from the sun etc) then there’s a hard braking event, which is always dangerous. The more slowly compared to prevailing traffic they go, the more attentive other drivers need to be, the more dangerous it becomes.


  • Socialism is defined by the elimination of the purely capitalist class, wherin workers own the means of production.

    That doesn’t necessarily mean that capital isn’t assigned for investment based upon market demand or that “EvEryoNe gEts pAId tHE SAmE” like others claim. Socialism in a modern economy can (and likely would be) market based, it just means that shareholders would be entirely made up of employees of a company (obviously this would lead to better conditions for workers, lower wages for executives and no dividend payments to people who aren’t working). Taking a more academic definition of capitalism, it’s entirely possible to be both socialist and capitalist. Few people are arguing against capitalism in entirety.


  • I would say that most “MAGA” or whatever equivalent regressive movement exists anywhere is not at all conservative (MAGA supporters attempted a coupe, which is radical, the opposite of conservative), that’s just branding. In much the same way as the people’s democratic republic of Korea is not democratic, “liberals” in the USA political landscape are usually leftists (typically with a lot of illiberal positions) etc.

    It isn’t that these people support capitalism (they are often ignorant of what capitalism even entails, the same way they think communism means anything they disagree with) it’s that they vaguely support existing power and class structures, though again, from what I’ve seen they can rarely coherently describe what they support and what they oppose, outside of a few tailor designed talking points like abortion or transgenderism.