The ancient romans actually didn't have gendered bathrooms. Or separate stalls. Just everything hanging out together, watching each other piss and shit. And then they'd all wipe their butts with a common sponge on a stick.

But then that was before Big Toilet Paper.

The problem then is that by responding, you're engaging with it which typically helps it spread in the algorithms*. Ideally there should be multiple downvote options - maybe separate it out as "misinformation" vs "bad opinion" or something. Removing downvotes and banning users who disagree is the typical cult strategy (recall the classic cult sub, r/thedonald, was notorious for this). If you're worried about downvotes being used to silence people, maybe another way to mitigate that would be a "sort by downvoted" option so that being downvoted a lot could actually put you at the top of at least that feed.

*On Lemmy, notice the following:

Active (default): Calculates a rank based on the score and time of the latest comment, with decay over time

Do you think vote sould be private ? Public ? And why ?

Public. Lots of downvotes is information that could indicate that the commenter is lying, or just saying something unpopular. But either way, it's information. Before youtube started hiding downvotes, it was easy to tell that a video had a misleading title based on downvotes. Now clickbait dominates the platform.

Are you sastified with the current voting system ? And why ?

No. I agree that the slashdot method with more than just upvote/downvote is better. In a perfect world I imagine we could have every emoji be a reaction option, and then you could sort by putting an emoji in a bar at the top. In reality I imagine this would be a challenge from a backend perspective, but maybe like the top 5 or 10 emoji reactions could be an option for selection.

What other interesting software/website that tried something different do you know ?

I'll do the opposite and say - please do not remove downvotes like Twitter/Bluesky/mastodon etc. Downvotes are super important. People need to be able to boo, the only place people aren't allowed to boo are in church or at cult rallies. And that's why those platforms are especially bad for misinformation, hyperbole, and overall depravity.

What way do you imagine to highlight content and improve search, discoverability ?

Remove all as a forced/default option on the main page. Back in the day before reddit had r/all, communities were much more diverse and niche, and this helped separate communities flourish in their own way. When r/all was added, the content started to resemble twitter, if not just becoming screenshots of twitter, on just about every sub. This actually improves discoverability because it would force users to branch out and look at subs instead of just looking at what's on all.

For me WFH has helped me have a community. The office was never a real community, and the fact that we all worked together got in the way of being actual friends. Instead with the added time from WFH I was able to prioritize my social life and go to more events and meet people I actually have stuff in common with. Additionally my in-office job forced me to live in a dead suburb, WFH allowed me to move to a city with a lot more social opportunities.

Of course probably not everyone prioritized that. The office might be good for some people, but for people like me who don't necessarily socialize at the office very easily WFH is much better for community.

Has anyone else made a successful pivot from software engineering to another field?

No, but I've done the complete opposite.

I’ve sent out 400+ applications

First rule of doing anything: if you hear grinding, you're doing something wrong and need to rethink your approach.

I've found it to be much easier to get my foot in the door with the help of a recruiter. There's a ton of them on linkedin, all you really need to do is start looking for jobs and they'll appear in your messages. Interact with them, even if it's just to say you're not interested - I think somehow this helps you show up in whatever algo linkedin uses. I've only very rarely gotten anywhere with applications. Recruiters help because they usually already have a relationship with the hiring manager.

Emphasis on usually, because you need to only work with recruiters that actually have that relationship. First clue is that they are physically located near the employer, and if they're actually an internal recruiter, all the better.

Second thing I'm guessing you're doing wrong is your resume. Remember that anyone filtering out through resumes is probably not a technical person and is just looking for keywords. So make sure every technology you've worked with is mentioned by its official name on your resume.

E.g.:

worked for 1.5 years at a major financial firm building data pipelines, working with financial datasets, and using technologies like Python, SQL, and AWS

Then make sure your resume includes "Python", "SQL", and "AWS", as well as the specific SQL you're using and the names of the specific AWS services, and whatever other cool keywords you can throw in about the financial systems you were working on. Even basic things like Git should be mentioned, because you never know when a HR person might have that on a list of qualifications.

I can say I've been looking at switching jobs within tech and I've been getting plenty of interest from recruiters. Now I do have a lot more experience, but I don't think that's the only factor as I'm also looking at more high-level jobs. The difference in approach is probably the key.

The correct response is to consider what the correct way to synthesize the positions is, and go with that. There's nothing wrong with adapting your position to handle possible inconsistencies. The goal is not to win but to be the most correct.

Typically, the assumption is that this is an argument that transgender is invalid. Perhaps there's another way of looking at it. Perhaps a way people aren't ready for, which is why your opponent went in that direction.

Alternatively, it can be pointed out that this is changing the topic, because it technically is.

Someone could make an app that detects a slam and hangs up the phone, then also sell a padded slam-receiver to replicate the experience. Or just use a pillow.

Edit: Found one. Unfortunately it no longer seems to be installable, probably because Google keeps fucking over independent app devs with new requirements. Source is here in case someone wants to see if they can build it.

I'd imagine lemmy has among the lowest has-sucked-dick ratios of any potentially mixed-gender community.

I have to disagree honestly. So many times someone tells me about some question they're pondering, and when I offer some suggestion about what may be going on or how to fix it, they're like "Why are you talking about something you know nothing about? You don't have to have an opinion."

But am I allowed to? I'm a curious person. If something interesting or strange or problematic is happening in your life, the first thing my brain is going to do is start trying to explain it. So I could keep it to myself, but then since my mind is on something I'm not allowed to talk about, I'm going to sit there and be silent and then they'll be like "What? Do you have any reaction at all or are you going to just sit there in silence?"

And then I pull out my beretta...

This is a type of ad hominem fallacy because you're downvoting based on something about the speaker that is unrelated to the argument. You might argue that there is a correlation between the misspellings and logical fallacies, but you offer no evidence, and the fact that you committed this phallusy while spelling everything correctly speaks otherwise.

He didn't. The quotes in these tweets are fake. If I search for these quotes these tweets are the only results. Twitter is a hostile platform to reality as reality can get in the way of virality. Hence why you never see sources on twitter. This was likely written by someone with only a passing familiarity with gandhi's position on WWII who probably guessed at how he would speak based on his character in Civ.

What did gandhi actually think the Britiish should do in 1940? In his actual words:

I want you to fight Nazism without arms, or, if I am to retain the military terminology, with non-violent arms. I would like you to lay down the arms you have, as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions. Let them take possession of your beautiful island, with your many beautiful buildings. You will give all these, but neither your souls, nor your minds. If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourself, man, woman and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them.

Basically he was speaking for an extreme form of non-violent civil disobedience, not capitulation.

Also a famous gandhi quote: "Stop believing everything you see on twitter you gullible rube"

There's a lot of assumptions in saying it's just meaningless chemicals

• That chemicals are meaningless and lacking intriniic value. Seen from the outside they may appear that way, but evidently from the inside it seems quite different.
• "We" are not some other unseen brain behavior (not a crazy idea since we've never seen consciousness working in the brain)
• We are within the brain
• The brain exists at all
• Any knowledge exists at all (dubious as Mickey points out)