slily

I guess HN is just a more pretentious version of Reddit now? Share simple facts and people downvote/flag you for not being sufficiently outraged about the subject?

I'm no fan of the direction Windows has been going since 7, but this is exactly like the default behavior of KDE Plasma (at least on OpenSUSE).

That explains it, I'm not in that ecosystem but suspected it was something similar.

They must have a very creative definition of "active user" because Zuckerberg gets 15-20k likes on his posts while I can scroll down X and find several posts a few hours old from random gimmick accounts with many times more. Taking that at face value to call Threads "the leader in its category" is comical.

This reminds me of how Playdate owners make it very obvious they don't use the thing in the way they retroactively justify their purchase by commenting on quirkiness or aesthetics at the expense of functionality or usability. I guess I get it but there's cheaper plastic toys out there.

Elon Musk got the stick for being outspoken and disagreeing with elements of a quasi-religious ideology (disregarding his further radicalization following that event). ESG doesn't "do what it says on the tin", there would be no significant backlash if it did. And it's just ridiculous to claim that mean tweets from a CEO outweigh the huge environmental impact of Tesla to the point that Exxon is/was ranked higher by ESG metrics. This absurd gaslighting and word-twisting does not work anymore which is why ESG, DEI and the like are being rejected.

This doesn't address the contradiction. The fact that a CEO's sociopolitical views take precedence over the impact of the actual company is exactly why ESG is a cancerous tool for political activism that should not be taken seriously by ethically-minded investors. (Kind of like DEI actually since you brought that up.)

I read /pol/ occasionally like I read far-left commentary and I can assure you that they portray Hamas/Iran/anyone aligned against Israel or openly anti-semitic as a gigachad. If Jews were wiped off the face of the Earth then sure they'd pick a secondary target, probably Muslims.

As far as I know, friendly fire and collateral damage are a reality in all hot wars, especially in situations such as this one where one side attempts to blend in with civilians, so I don't see how this is different. The good and bad of the Internet is that in the sea of information you can pick and choose your truth. Was Israel's killing of aid workers intentional or was it collateral damage? All I know is that Hamas was shown cooking up numbers and lying systematically and that's the side everyone believes for some reason. When their lies are exposed they are simply replaced with more or with some disproportionate criticism of errors committed by the IDF.

I see Jews being harassed, synagogues vandalized, 4chan-tier anti-semitic conspiracy theories going around leftist circles, and more broadly I see social media armchair activists who may or may not be relevant but do affect public opinion parroting Hamas propaganda wholesale, and the protesters featured in this post's article exemplify exactly that mentality which is what I was initially describing. Most people are reasonable, but I'm not concerned with people who know the difference between a hot war and a genocide.

I agree in principle, but I don't see many protesters demonstrate that nuance.

The idea is to stand up for the weaker party and that's it. It doesn't matter that Palestine is led by a terrorist group with a genocidal agenda with overwhelming popular support. They are weaker and therefore they can't be wrong, by virtue of being weaker they are automatically classified as oppressed and deserving of pity, whilst Israel being the stronger party makes it automatically the bad oppressive party in cartoon style. See also how no one doubts the obviously cooked numbers on Palestinian deaths. You can see this rationale mirrored exactly in the disproportionate criticism of Western states and specifically white settlers.

Are you serious? That culture is why America still has high innovation while other Western and "culturally Western" countries that do not are largely stagnant. I'm amazed at how often I see people (largely Americans I'm guessing) criticize the very things that make their country a world superpower.