Yeah, it’s not horrific or offensive like most of their work. It’s moreso pretty sad. It’s like the antisocial asshole of the family who ran away from their loving home 10 years ago, and going to visit them now, you see they’re still a terrible person, but scant glimpses beneath all that awfulness into their core show a sad, frightened little child who has no idea what they’re doing.

This is what a competent encyclopedic treatment of algebra looks like for comparison. The other algebra article fucks up from the jump, because the goal of an encyclopedic treatment of algebra is not to teach a reader the rote mechanics of solving a handful of elementary algebra problems (you can as a small example to aid comprehension, but making it nearly the entire article is failing the assignment completely).

It’s to cover what algebra is, its various subfields, its history, its applications, its relationships to other parts of math, etc. Covering algebra encyclopedically by offering a mediocre Algebra I tutorial is like covering internal combustion engines encyclopedically by making the entire article a short guide on how to change the oil and spark plugs in your car; it’s asinine and shows an extremely narrow, trivial understanding of the subject.

If you can believe it, that’s relatively tame for their coverage of mathematics. I linked to the wrong article on accident. Fixed now.

• Cursing you with knowledge
• Blessing you with ignorance (warning: comically horrendous)

Hope this helps, queen.

Edit: swapped second for something much worse.

And the fact two people are taking the selfie at all is bizarre.

• One – Obvious.
• Multiple but spaced out over time – Maybe strange, but makes some sense if you want to use them locally and don’t want to wait to have it sent to you.
• Everyone doing it – Makes sense as a humorous gimmick.
• Exactly two people out of a group of five?
  • As you said, same phone, so zero technical quality difference.
  • Basically the same angle.
  • The rear one will probably capture the first phone in her shot.
  • Looks stupid as fuck.

but saying the public doesn’t support Wikipedia when we’re actually the #1 supporter worldwide of Wikipedia feels kind of disingenuous.

Like I said, active support in hearts and minds – being ready and equipped to defend it if it comes under threat. Relatively, North America is the most supportive financially compared to the rest of the world. To the extent that’s related to a bunch of factors, I’m not qualified to say (and I’ll say I feel a fuck of a lot more qualified than most).

When I say that people take Wikipedia for granted, you can hopefully tell that I’m talking about it in the same way people often used to take basic executive branch norms for granted before Trump’s terms. Not everyone did; people who were especially politically engaged probably didn’t. Most people would’ve told you they supported them; an overwhelming majority of people who weren’t far-right nutjobs would’ve. But they often treated them as “too big to fail”, and they were blindsided as Trump destroyed them.

I’m not sure why you’re calling Americans out here.

Because the original comment (not made by me) was an appeal to Americans. The subsequent comment said it’s not the [American] public. Thus I’m specifically limiting what I’m saying to Americans, regardless of the relative extent to which it applies elsewhere. Because that’s whom the conversation – that I didn’t start – is about.

It’s not that Americans are against either of these per se; it’s that they’re indifferent. Ignoring people brainwashed by the right-wing propaganda against Wikipedia, sane Americans largely take Wikipedia for granted. I don’t mean that bitterly; I mean that it’s been there for 25 years, its quality is better than ever, finances are good, (edit: many people read it through some intermediary), and everyday people therefore don’t consider how unstable its position really is, how much work there is to do, and how irreplaceable it is.

As for the IA, sample 1000 American adults. I’ll bet you five or fewer could tell you what the hell an “Internet Archive” is.

These bailouts for the oil industry are getting ridiculous.

Broadly speaking, anxiety is an elevated mood; the reason stimulants exacerbate anxiety is the same reason stimulants are contraindicated in people with bipolar disorder. For someone trying to achieve concentration while suffering from an anxiety disorder, a prescription medication like guanfacine might be better if possible; it has an off-label usage for anxiety disorders, and its two main usages are in treating ADHD and lowering blood pressure (neurostimulants like caffeine, by contrast, elevate your blood pressure).

Caffeine withdrawal thankfully only lasts about a week at the worst.

If you’re not the customer, you’re the product.

Except most free and open-source software, major open knowledge bases, literally the social media service you’re using to communicate this point right now…

While understandable when talking about services by for-profit corporations, this talking point without that context is oversimplified to the point of being obnoxious in a world where I can set up a desktop OS with a fully featured environment and software suite then go browse a social media site where at no stage was anything free where I was the product.

Edit: Moreover, an arguably worse problem with this saying in 2026 is that it implies (doesn’t outright state, but implies to an uninformed reader) that paid services can save them from this, which these days is almost universally untrue.

Specifically a cranky baby, which is hilarious. “Maybe mommy’s milk will settle you down” is my interpretation.

Go drink your mother’s breast milk and then come back!

wot

Glad you liked it! I know Lemmy can be short on in-depth OC, so I tried to pull from my small pool of specialized knowledge. Maybe other people will see it and do the same for their small but in-depth field of knowledge.

“Business owners deserve the profits they make because they’re the ones taking on risk.”

“No, no, not like that!”

“Shaheds have a pre-programmed kill limit.”

But how? The evidence is right there.

Two things:

• Real quote. Thought this part was a shitpost.
• Why does he look like dollar store Javert?

I have an excruciatingly hard time believing anyone who maintains a legacy codebase is going to look at a brand-new Java extension and say “Yup, that’s the basket we want to put all our eggs in” – compared to a robust, well-tested adjacent language that has vastly more benefits. If an organization is already extensively changing their legacy codebase to comport with some fledgling Java extension, they may as well just port to Kotlin.

OP, your documentation on your GitHub is unreadably sprawling, and despite that, you only have one tiny section addressing Kotlin, the most blatantly obvious answer imaginable to nearly everything you’ve created here (the response reads like it was generated by an LLM, just saying):

Q: Is JADEx trying to replace Kotlin or Java?

A: No.

• Kotlin : a separate JVM language, designed independently
• JADEx : a Java language extension, enhancing Java with null-safety and type expressiveness

Key Point:

JADEx does not aim to replace Java; it simply extends Java, making it safer and more expressive while staying fully compatible with existing Java code.

This really addresses absolutely nothing about why someone would use JADEx over Kotlin when they’re already willing to use non-default Java. IntelliJ can convert existing Java code to Kotlin code. I agree constant by default is nice, but it’s hard to imagine, weighed against Kotlin’s benefits, that it would get someone to stay on Java (especially some fledgling extension of it) if they really want null safety.