noughts

I would use Organic Maps if OSM supported entering UK postcodes in the search box. Can’t wait to stop using Google Maps.

> Charles looks healthy, he has the muscle mass most women prefer (…)

> In most people's opinion, the first woman is thin (look at the frailness of her arms) and the second woman is fit.

This normativity is gross.

That’s fair, sorry, I read too much into what you were saying!

I don’t understand this argument. Are you saying the internet should be organised in a way that benefits the US, even if it is confusing for people in other countries? By your reasoning, it would make sense for .com to be US-exclusive because the US had a primary role in inventing the internet. Let’s pause to ask ourselves “what is an actually good system?” instead of “how can we justify US privilege?”.

Always found it arbitrary that .gov is only for use by the US.

This is very cute, not sure how I missed this. I never liked the aesthetics of the XML that shows up when you click an RSS feed. Will make some time to style my websites' feeds soon. :)

I’m going through the exact same thought process, also working on a desktop app, also using AGPL.

Thank you, I wasn't sure if I should edit this for clarity when I posted.

I don't really know anything about Tailscale. But I really dislike passwords — I think they're very frustrating for users to use, and it feels like we should have found a technological solution to this problem by now. Passkeys seem to be a solution to this problem, but it's up to people to adopt them. I upvoted this post so that others might see a company implementing passkeys, and that this might encourage them to implement passkeys too. Once we have widespread enough support for passkeys, maybe we might finally ditch passwords.

(Or, maybe passkeys are bad, I don't know, but we need to have a conversation in order to find a better solution.)

> I never hear men complain about the unrealistic depiction of men in women shows.

Err, really? I'm a man and I complain about this all the time, and so do some of my friends. In any case, even if you've never heard people talk about this, I'm sure there are objections to the depictions of men that _you_ could imagine. If you think these objections are underrepresented, talking to those around you about them would be a positive influence.

> It was just some (influential!) minority of feminists who complained about this, got amplified by sympathetic journalists (who mostly lean pretty far left), and the rest is history.

Already in this sentence you're discounting the fact that these complaints resonate with people. I'm not sure in which way you think these feminists are “influential”, but let's say journalists widely covered certain arguments. Do you mean this media coverage somehow brainwashed people? Surely not, because you would be denying the agency of readers. Clearly there is something in these arguments that legitimately appeals to people. Isn't it interesting and important to find out what parts of the arguments resonated with someone and why, even if you think the end result is wrong?

For example, I disagree with those who voted for Brexit to happen. But if I just dismissed them as brainwashed idiots, that would be very foolish of me. These people voted this way for a reason, and I need to understand which part of Brexit resonated with them, even if I think they came to the wrong conclusion, otherwise I can never understand them and I can never advocate for an alternative that will meet their needs as well.

> (who mostly lean pretty far left)

Again, why does this matter? There is no need to resort to football team factionalism, to make things about politics instead of policies. Do you think the arguments are good? Great, then these people have a point. Do you think these arguments are bad? Okay, that's fair, make your opinion heard so that you can add your voice. Tell us in more detail about why those policies are bad, not about why _the people making those points_ are bad. It would be rash of me to psychoanalyse why are you are making certain arguments without even knowing you, let alone to say that you are trying to influence people as part of some conspiracy. (Sorry if I'm portraying your view in an overdramatic way but it did sound like you were saying something like this a little bit.)

> motivated reasoning

Motivated by what? Do you really think a love of complaining is a more likely motivator than a desire to right a perceived injustice?