sherry-sherry
Joined 5 years ago
Karma
222
Submissions
90
Member since
Apr 13
Recent submissions
Comment · 3 days ago
Comment · 5 days ago
Stats are better than an online survey.
You can look up the stats for these yourself, there's other studies too.
Comment · 5 days ago
The comment I replied to was a survey of internet users. So forgive me for thinking we might be talking about something closer to present day, where the right-wing is statistically more violent.
Comment · 5 days ago
Correct it's not the best study, but it's better than your survey. Mostly since it comes from things that have actually happened which other studies can look at too.
Your points about the data from this study are valid if there weren't multiple other studies that reach the same conclusions. The data still rings true.
You kinda undermined your own original argument by wanting to include non-fatal crimes and violence from the 60s-80s, when I thought we were talking about modern trends and as such is why I picked 1990 onwards.
RE: 5, as you said... when you remove the huge statistical outlier right-wing violence still outpaces left-wing almost 4.6:1. You took proved the point, the right wing is far more violent.
RE: 7, more people die at the hands right-wingers than left. I count death as a higher degree of violence; whereas I've seen you consider a survey response to be violent... so we might be at very different ends of the agreement there.
Anyway, this has been fun and I think we've both reached as far I'm willing to care about. Have a good day.
Comment · 6 days ago
> ... into a very left wing, violent, vehicle to export American political activism to the world
Reddit anecdotes and surveys don't currently reflect reality.
The far-right is responsible for *actual* violence by a large margin in recent history. https://ccjls.scholasticahq.com/article/26973-far-left-versu...
Over 80% of real world politically motivated violence between 1990–2020 is from far-right actors. Left-wing violence has increased over the past 5 years, but is still completely dwarfed by right-wing violence.
Comment · 27 days ago
iCloud Mail silently filters emails (more info in my comment linked). The sender isn’t told, receiver can’t ever see the message.
Comment · 27 days ago
iCloud Mail will silently filter emails with certain words (including in attachments).
You aren’t told something has been filtered and it doesn’t go to spam. It’s just deleted with zero recourse. The sender isn’t notified either.
https://talk.macpowerusers.com/t/icloud-mail-what-to-do-when...
I had this happen as recently as June 2026 when my current provider was up. It happens on @mac.com @me.com @icloud.com and custom domains.
Comment · 2 months ago
Longer lines of text are harder to read. There's a reason newspapers, books, articles, etc are all vertical and often have a similar amount of words per line. It's easier to follow, scan, and find your place.
Some more on this below:
Optimal Line Length in Reading — A Literature Review (https://journals.uc.edu/index.php/vl/article/view/5765)
Practical Typography — Line Length (https://practicaltypography.com/line-length.html)
Comment · 7 months ago
Sorry. I really meant that there's nothing people are reading or viewing that has higher contrast in the natural world. I should've been clearer (and less forthright).
Your points about day/shade contrast and eyes adjusting are correct, as are screen brightness levels people use.
> Look up at a bright cloud and then glance into a shaded doorway.
Yes, and that causes strain on the eyes. Our eyes very are good at adapting (as you said), but it is not pleasant to do rapidly or while trying to concentrate and interpret text.
Bleached white paper and black ink is (pretty generously) ~15:1 contrast ratio in a well lit room, which any half decent screen in the past 20 years surpass.
Pure black/white text is harder to read on screens since they are producing and pushing light at you (as opposed bouncing back ambient light like on paper). We have never seen text printed on paper at the contrast ratios a modern screen can produce, since there is no paper white enough or ink dark enough.
There are many things with typography that are finicky and sometimes counter-intuitive. Making text bigger and all-caps won't always make something more readable (see here: https://www.mentalfloss.com/transportation/roads/why-road-si...), likewise more contrast doesn't always make it more readable for everyone.
Of course there are people who require more contrast and larger type sizes and the great part about reading stuff on screens is we can often accommodate that better. Some websites/apps/etc handle accessibility options well and some really don't.
So I kind of went on a much longer thing than I wanted to... oh well. Sorry if I was too forthright in my initial comment, I guess clarity in intent/meaning can be just as important as readability.
Comment · 7 months ago
Paper and ink have at best, a ~15:1 contrast ratio (bleached white paper and black ink).
> The majority of screens have crappy contrasts (100:1).
No idea where you're pulling this from. A MacBook Air display from 2010, a very average non-retina screen, has about 300:1. A modern MBA is over 1000:1 real-world contrast performance. A very average quality budget TN display from 2010s is 500:1.
I could not find a phone or desktop display at my local retailer with stated a contrast ratio lower than 1200:1 (stated vs real world will of course be different, but not hugely).
I agree apps/websites should take into account user preferences (with things like 'prefers-contrast' in CSS). I saw a great example recently where a website had a light/dark/hi-contrast toggle... but on first visit it defaulted to the one based on current system light/dark mode and 'prefers-contrast' indicators.
We can have both text that's easier for most people eyes and higher contrast and/or larger text for those who need it.
Comment · 8 months ago
No.
There's pretty much nothing in the natural world that has the contrast ratio a modern screen can produce. It is easier on the eyes to not have blindingly high contrast.
No printed page in any book or magazine you've seen has ever had contrast ratio a screen can show. It's just not possible to do.
Legibility can be an issue, and is good to discuss. I agree that when something like "@media (prefers-contrast: more)" is set, text should be at a higher contrast level for those with lower vision. But don't blind everyone else in the process.
>... the amount of times per day I ask myself if I’m literally going blind, only to find out the “designer” decided for me how I should best read their website.
Yes? That's what the designers of literally everything do, decide how it will be presented to you. The magic part of HTML/CSS is you can change that to suit your needs.
Comment · 8 months ago
Have you ever seen a book?
They have huge gutters and margins, and not-quite-black text on creme/off-white/never-actually-white backgrounds... why? Because it's easier of the eyes for long blocks of text.
Comment · 8 months ago
I know what you’re complaining about, I just think it’s silly at this point.
Old versions work still, you can create your own. The app has had lengthy and good support — which you can extend if you choose.
They stopped reporting on individual boat arrivals, a media blackout was imposed and enforced.
For quite a while is was illegal for news to report on conditions. Doctors, nurses, security guards, other staff could be punished for reporting conditions there.
Australia spent over $9m per asylum seeker held on Nauru in 2025–2026. Some people there couldn’t afford food or clean water (it wasn’t supplied).
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jul/20/nauru-asylum-s...
https://rsf.org/en/australia-suppresses-coverage-refugees-na...
We outsourced it, at huge expense to the taxpayer and unfathomable suffering to many refugees.
It would’ve been cheaper and faster to house, feed, and educate them.