Thanks for this response. I do think our parents were more similar than you’d think. And I hadn’t really examined what I was taught about money as closely as you. I was never taught in anything in a systematic way, it was more like thousands of little interactions about saving money (because we “couldn’t afford” something I wanted, often; or if it was my money, what about things I wanted later?) and also just always knowing we were struggling financially.

For me, it was more than enough to think twice about spending large amounts. Then over the years I combined that sort of thinking with specific saving strategies I taught myself. For me, the constant barrage of recommending I save my money, or that we couldn’t afford something, or that we had to help my dad make some extra money, was enough to make me think about it all before going hog wild. Then I built up an untenable credit card balance in my early twenties and that was a wake up call too. I felt I knew better, so I swore off spending money I didn’t have unless I “had to”.

My siblings though? They didn’t learn shit. They blow most of their money on whatever and afaik they are both still in debt. Every time they get unexpected money they see it as free money to spend. Maybe I should blame my parents more, because they needed more/different guidance? It also doesn’t help them that my parents bail them out financially every couple of years.

Your parents sound eerily like mine though in some ways. A core memory I have is when I was probably about ten I was handed a paintbrush and told to paint my closet. I started about doing it without any instruction whatsoever and was scolded for doing it wrong! I responded that I literally had no idea what I was doing, they didn’t teach me, and only at that point did they teach me to use a paintbrush. But it was like you say, reactive to doing it wrong and nothing proactive at all… I don’t understand how I came out as functional as I did. Because they too did a lot of teaching the lazy way, tell you nothing ahead of time and then get mad when you didn’t know…

That’s cool. What do you do when you, for example, go to pay your utility bills or plan a trip, and the sites required don’t work? I’m sorry to keep asking versions of this question, I’m just truly perplexed. When you stack this against even a choice like going vegan, veganism seems easy (and I feel like it’s quite difficult in today’s world).

I interact with websites very often that seem to be the only option to accomplish something I want or need to do. If most websites don’t work, that makes once-easy things hard again. So it is just hard for me to picture. Especially when framed like your post did. I know it’s a joke but surely to post it, and after your other comments, instead of seeing this as a huge obstacle, you seem to see it as a blessing?

Heh, I mean modeling can work in the intended way or by accident in the opposite way you’d expect. So yeah I’d say it worked for you :)

Just telling them to be smart with money is not what I’m talking about though. What I’m talking about is actually modelling and teaching some amount of knowledge about how to save.

Because of course you can’t expect a child to learn a bunch of vital and complex stuff when you don’t attempt to help them. My original reply here was concerning people who actually had been taught something, rather than those who heard some useless vague advice in passing.

Sure, that’s true. I think in mine and many cases, wrapped up in the “being smart with money” lesson is saving, mitigating risk, and decreasing spending where possible. I at least hope most parents (who bother at all) are defining what being smart actually looks like.

Guess it depends on your perspective but for me this just reminded me of how disgusting cigarettes are

My parents did a lot to model being smart with money and only one of their kids (me) picked up on it. Kids often love being the opposite of what they’re taught, no matter how much it hurts them.

I don’t think this is exactly correct. The distro maintainer is responsible for choosing when and how to roll out/test upstream updates. So if they are doing their job, they would be pumping the brakes on specific kernel updates until they’ve worked out issues with them (or waited for upstream to fix them). So distros based on Ubuntu may or may not experience the specific issues that get rolled out upstream of them. Also, there could’ve been things elementary os was combining with the kernel updates that could’ve caused breakages.

I actually started my Linux as a daily driver journey on elementary os. There were some pretty major breakages that caused me to look elsewhere. I forget what they were but it was very frustrating. I landed on pop os because, like elementary, it’s Ubuntu minus some of the garbage. I think pop os is better now than it used to be, and I still daily drive it. It’s been a while since I had any major issue that seemed to be the os itself. Can’t remember the last one actually so it was probably years ago.

The first string in quotes was you, the second was me. Probably was confusing. In any case you answered my question and I feel less confused. For me, this number would probably be 95% no kidding. 50-70% is surprising but again, before I thought you were implying most sites, maybe even 90% worked fine without JavaScript. Once I consider that you already know many sites that don’t work without JavaScript which you don’t even try anymore, I guess those percentages could make sense.

It’s a wild way to live, gotta say. By turning off JavaScript, you’re essentially turning off most of the Internet. And especially when you are already running it in a super secure container, this is just wild to me.

There are so many things I hate about these types of sites,

What confuses me is that in this case “these types of sites” is “almost the entire Internet”

I’ll be more direct and ask a question. What percentage of the Internet would you say you run into major functionality broken without JavaScript?

It’s just a very confusing thing to claim, that’s all. If 90%+ of the web doesn’t work with js off then you’re either predetermining that you just won’t use 90% of the web. You’ve decided that ahead of time, so you cannot really say “these sites suck” because you haven’t even been able to use them. If you had said “I try not to use JavaScript dependent sites” that makes sense. But the way you’re presenting it, you don’t have any trouble and just use most sites. Which I happen to know is not possible.

That’s not really what this post was about at all. It was self deprecating and not about the person taking forever to reply

I tried using the web again last night with a browser extension that toggles off JavaScript. Out of like 8 websites I tried to use, literally all of them were broken.

So it’s not even just convenience. It’s that practically no one is building websites to work without JavaScript. I think that sucks, but I cannot change it by just avoiding most websites in defiance.

I don’t know what websites you’re using that still work without JavaScript, but they’re in the minority from what I can tell.

1000 upvotes, 400 comments all pretending to get it

This keeps getting reposted… Why? 🤮

That may be true also, but no one posted me with the caption “lol”

It is confusing to me because A) what’s funny or interesting about this? B) how would one possibly know about libre office and not even know how to check if there’s an osx version. Any idiot should be able to figure that out in moments.

But mostly A.

“it’s a meme”

No it’s not, it’s a screenshot of a confusing exchange.

on this issue

Seems like a very clear and appropriate use of language to me.