kava

Because everyone else uses Whatsapp. I don't like it either but I need it for work so I use it. It is what it is.

It gets better once you find interesting subs. I think it scratches the same itch and I plan to continue using it. I do have some concerns about the community, however. I guess I was hoping it would be less of an echo chamber and have a more nuanced and in depth discussion.

I haven't really found that and I think it's more or less the same as reddit most of the time.

I also miss browsing through the short video subs like /r/crazyfuckingvideos once a week or so just to see some crazy things.

However, I do find there is actually pretty good discussion on tech stuff and you do find some geopolitics/ political discussion if you read through some of the ideological drudgery a bit.

So all in all, I think Lemmy so far has been a positive experience for me and I'm committed to remaining here for the foreseeable future. At the end of the day - it's an open source decentralized community. I'll put up with a lot of shit just because of that. No chance I'd be going back to reddit.

I've tried this. It's full of bugs and doesn't have any of the same polish or QOL features. Iirc it's an old fork from back when paint.net was open source.

I've considered contributing but I'm not experienced with c# or .net

I prefer paint.net for asbuilts in underground construction. I use GIMP when I'm on Linux / MacOS but paint.net is a nice simple in between from basic paint-> photoshop.

GIMP is a lot closer to photoshop. Don't get me wrong - it's a great software but paint.net fills that role a little better for what I need to do.

I paid for and use parallels on my apple silicon laptop just for oaint.net

Kava likes kava

I have quite a few. I don't believe in copyright laws or IP in general. I think it holds back innovation and exists solely to benefit megacorps like Disney or pharmaceutical companies.

For example - you develop a new drug that really helps some people. You charge $50 a pill even though it costs you $5 to produce. Without the government protecting IP, another company will come around and produce it and sell it for $6 a pill, providing cheaper access to healthcare.

People will say "what would give someone the incentive to make new things?" Without actually thinking it through. For a great example of how lack of IP is a good thing, look at how Shenzhen went from a fishing village to a Chinese San Francisco in a few short decades.. one company will take the product of another and iterate on top of it.

Another unpopular opinion is I'm pretty absolutist with free speech. I think certain things like calls to violence or intentional defamation of character should be restricted. But pretty much everything else should be fair game.

I believe in open borders and think the US should return to the late 1800s style of immigration. We're gonna need the population to compete with China in the coming century.

I also think that the primary investment into climate change at this point should be preparing for the inevitable changes instead of trying to prevent the inevitable.

Drugs and alcohol are a loan. You have to eventually pay back what you're getting - and with interest.

Please take it from someone who's been there - stay away. Using substances to cope with mental health issues is a dangerous road that inevitably leads to one of three options - institutions, sobriety, or death. Only takes one hot shot to send you to space.

I find when I have a balanced life nothing in particular tends to make much of an impact. And when it does, those emotions are important and you shouldn't try to douse them. For example if your mother dies, it's normal and healthy to feel devastated.

What I mean by a balanced life is a meaningful job, fulfilling social relationships both romantic and non-romantic, hobbies and interests- intellectual and physical.

Stay far away from drugs.

Article 1 states that we should "act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood"

Which, I totally agree with. However if that was the definition for violation of human rights then essentially everyone in the world is constantly having their human rights violated because not everyone gets treated as a brother by everyone. This definition would be broad enough to be meaningless, I believe. Even though I agree we should love our fellow man and treat him with respect.

Article 5 I see more of an argument for, but I think even there is lacking. It says "no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

For one, it's clear that the context is in POW / criminal treatments. However let's expand the broadness of this statement and say that perhaps using a racial slur is degrading. It's open to interpretation but let's follow the thread.

Would me making fun of Donald Trump's hair be considered degrading? I would say so. Am I violating his human rights? I don't think so.

If I am criticizing someone by calling them a tyrant, is it degrading? Well, it is open to interpretation.

I recognize you specifically said you are not arguing for this because you are not prepared to defend it - because you recognize it's an overreach.

Freedom of speech is a critical part of having a free society. If we get rid of free speech to protect others, we are simply throwing away our free society for one where speech will inevitably be tightly regulated. We are heading down a dangerous road.

I would never call someone a racial slur because I believe that all races are equal. However I do not think government should be restricting hateful speech. If we believe in free speech, then we must defend it precisely when someone is making abhorrent speech. Because otherwise, we don't believe in free speech at all. A wise man said that, one who went through the Holocaust. I am with him 100%

Federal government pressured social media companies to do this. It was all in the name of fighting misinformation. Which again - is fine now but it doesn't take much imagination to see how this can go wrong should the wrong person be elected.

Large monopolistic companies are in many ways extensions of the state.

And I'm totally fine with that. I'm asking why is one apparently a violation of humans rights and the other isn't.

Re-read that quote and tell me which parts implies you can't say anything. Because according to your quote everyone has the "freedom to hold opinions without interference" which would presumably include opinions such as "[racial group] is inferior" and the ability to express it