I feel like certain extreme adventures should involve waiving your right to rescue. Why should four plus competent, trained, healthy people have to risk their lives to save someone who is most likely incompetent, untrained, and unhealthy - but merely buying their way into extreme conditions?

If I decided I want to make a trek across the Sahara using nothing but authentic 1000 B.C equipment, why should anyone have to endanger themselves to save me? If I want an extreme outdoors adventure, isn't foregoing rescue really adding to the appeal?

But the worst thing is that those who survive will just have the ultimate accolade, in their minds. Of course out of all the cool places on Earth to go, dumbass shallow LinkedIn-posting, Medium-blogging C-suite "grind" types have to pick the place that elevates them above all the other peons (aided of course, by some peons they underpaid to take them there). And when their own hubris endangers them, rather than accept their fate, they demand yet more peons endanger themselves to rescue them. It's like a microcosm of the whole world. Fuck these people. You sign up to summit Mount Everest - you're signing up to maybe die. Isn't that what you wanted? Real risk? Real adventure? Or did you just want an appearance of it that you could repost to others in your life, like everything else? Fuck

I’m not sure why you’re getting angry about this. If you’re correct, then my disagreement comes from a misunderstanding of what you’re saying. I’m not trying to be an asshole, in fact I hope I’ve come off respectfully to you. I know it’s upsetting that I seem to hold a belief that you believe is harmful, but I am at least trying to be respectful and come to a consensus. I like to talk to people with different opinions, not so that I can prove my correctness over them (I already intrinsically believe my own correctness by virtue of believing it), but so that I can change my opinion if I am wrong. I really don't want to be upsetting or antagonistic to you. I want to learn, understand, and grow. I am not trying to rephrase things and receive headpats, but it's up to you to decide if you want to believe I'm commenting in good faith or not.

With that out of the way, I do not believe I am expressing the mindset the standup is ridiculing. I believe the comedian is ridiculing someone who gets mad or threatened over their partner orgasming with a vibrator. I also dislike and condemn this behavior. I am only trying to provide a shade of subtlety to the ongoing social discussion on this issue by saying that the sexual desire in itself to bring one's partner to orgasm without a vibrator is not a shameful or condemnable belief to hold. I had thought you and I were in total agreement, in fact, until you said that the desire itself should be condemned. Perhaps you misunderstood what I meant by "the wishing itself". But if not, then there's a much more interesting discussion to have that could touch on a lot of cool subtleties about the issue, and we might both enjoy thinking about it.

Once again I'm sorry for having been frustrating. At the very least let me reaffirm as plainly as possible: someone being angry, bitter, jealous, or hurt by their partner not orgasming in the way they want, is exhibiting a harmful sexual mentality that should be changed. I hope our agreement on that front allows you to mark me off your "one of those assholes who is mad about the vibrator" list. ┐⁠(⁠´⁠ー⁠｀⁠)⁠┌

This was asked of her. The answer was no, and the reasoning was that they won't walk like that. She knew it was irrational lol

What exactly are you worried about? The instance logging your IP, device info? I'm not sure I really see a large privacy or security risk if you're logging in from a VPN and if you're using a unique password. And what do you mean by some of the application processes being invasive?

I feel like accessing your Lemmy is pretty much like accessing any other website, but your instance really doesn't know much about you in comparison to others. I don't know much about deep privacy and security risks though.

Yeah it pains me too, but it seems that being a trollish funnyman who makes good screenshots worth reposting is the essence of electability in 2025

Yeah but police literally get away with murder here so I don't think this will end up making a big splash

Yes, they aren't trying to make an alternative butter substitute as I understand it. They're trying to make real butter via a purely chemically synthetic process.

I am also weary of Bernie's endless calls to do this or that while not specifying any way of doing it. I certainly don't expect him to do anything more, he's already made a much larger impact than most individuals ever can or will. But that entire tour with AoC kind of felt like only half of a useful thing. We all know it's a problem. We all want to put a stop to it. But nobody knows how, that's what's missing. What do you want us to do, Bernie?!? Vote in the primaries, I guess? Would be nice if the next steps were included in the message to take action. Like an instant macaroni box whose instructions just say "You must make the macaroni!", it feels a bit silly.

Many interesting takes in this thread. The biggest thing I want to add here is that this type of neckline is actually not designed for larger breasts. Large breasts would pinch and bulge around the sides, which while maybe desirable in a purely sexual context like for lingerie or pin-ups, is not usually considered desirable from a fashion standpoint. These curved flat necklines are meant to emphasize the natural curvature of small breasts. I see this sort of shape often on runways and models with smaller breasts. (Granted, that body type is the norm for runways. Nonetheless, it means that's not a concern.) For instance, these similar dresses are both modeled by women with similar body types: https://www.prettylittlething.us/black-diamante-strap-detail-puff-ball-dress.html https://www.lucyinthesky.com/shop/aila-rhinestone-babydoll-dress-in-black-64892

So the issue here is not your body, but I think you are correct to think something is off with the dress. You look good in the dress, which is all most commenters are checking for, and that's a good bar. I agree it at least looks flattering, but from a fashion design perspective, it could be improved (I say this not as a fashion professional but as a fashion nerd who spends too long looking at runway shows and analyzing clothes). The positioning of the neckline itself on your torso is a bit too low, not because it's revealing, but because that sort of neckline typically is positioned about level with the armpits, but on your dress it is lower. This makes it look like it's a child sized dress, just with strangely long straps that allow it to hang low enough on an adult to cover their hip area. Do you see what I mean? The straps are about a third of the height of the body of the dress, but normally they are about a fourth or less, I think. This could work so far, if not for the depth of the cut in the neckline simultaneously being too shallow. If that cut was deeper, down to the belly area, then it may make tiny, low-worn aspect of the dress seem intentional (see this dress by Schiaparelli https://pin.it/PO7V3jtHg), but because the cut looks like a typical summery dress depth, it reinforces the feeling that the whole dress is just being worn low. I have an urge to tug the dress downwards from the back so that, like a pulley, the front moves upwards.

No offense to your husband or the other men commenting, but, of course they like it - it's showy and it does fit you well. But this is only the minimum bar for a dress to clear. Models could look good wearing a potato sack, but that doesn't mean a potato sack is a good dress. Luckily your dress looks a lot nicer than a potato sack! Whether I'd keep this or not depends on how demanding you want to be with your wardrobe. It looks very good, really. Much better than the average dress, and the whole outfit is lovely and very iconic looking. But if you're the type of person who wants to own only a few outstanding garments, this does not clear the higher bars of great design, in my unprofessional opinion. I think that your doubts about the dress may be coming from you picking up on that and mistakenly attributing it to yourself rather than the design.

People thought "Gulf of America" was just Trump being ridiculous and egotistical, but to me it now seems clear that it was intended to lay the groundwork to ban press like AP. I believe that was a multi-step plan. The administration is not stupid, they're getting everything they want. Everything is working out in their favor. That is not by accident, that is not the result of stupidity.

It's worth pausing and considering what kind of non-stupid, multi-step plan would call for a large accumulation of likely Trump-supporting soldiers with military equipment at Washington D.C.

Is that what this is? Who knows. But I think it's naive to attribute any of these actions to just ego-stroking.

Surprisingly solid article especially given CNN's initial propagandistic coverage of the Luigi story. They actually quote people they interviewed, they seemed to cherry pick a representative sample rather than a few crazy people. I don't think this really says much about CNN though, but it is uplifting in the sense that the social narrative around Luigi is becoming so solidified that even mainstream media can't dance around it without looking totally idiotic. I suspect the crowd also had very clear talking points in mind that made it difficult to find a bad look to cherry pick. Very nice to see such a clear message here, especially on strong talking points like the clearly unequal treatment vs school shooters, and best of all - this article even mentions the line of reasoning that the CEO was effectively a mass murderer. Surely a more contentious angle, but definitely one with some validity to it. Very pleased to see that make it into this article.

I think this is quite a bad idea even if we totally set aside any ethical concerns with AI, solely because it increases the hardware requirements to run a Lemmy instance. I believe that a critical goal of federated services should be to reduce the barrier to entry for instance ownership as much as possible. The more instances the better. If there's only two or three big ones, the problems of centralization appear again, albeit diluted. The whole point of federation is to have multiple instances. Already many survive on donations or outright charity. But AI increases costs immensely.

I think it's fine to add features that require more compute power if they have a vast improvement to user experience for the compute required. But AI is one of the most computationally intensive features I can think of, and the ratio to its value addition is particularly low. There's so little content on Lemmy that you can feasibly view the entire post history of most communities in under a day of browsing, so there's no real need for improved searchability - it's just not that big here yet. And even when it does get that big, I think a strong search algorithm would be just about as effective, much more transparent, and most importantly not require instance owners to add GPUs to their servers.