Yep, you’re right.

KaChilde ran through a more thorough version of my own logic and I realized I am being a stubborn ass, sorry about that lol!

I concur, and realized my logic is flawed.

… sorry.

Welp.

I tap out, you’re right lol.

Don’t attempt set theory before breakfast, otherwise you end up making a fool of yourself as I have.

=[

Hangry is not a useful state to approach logic from.

If you pick A, B is also red, and C is also an irregular 4-gon. So A is not unlike either B or C.

If you pick B, A is also red, and C is also filled solid with color. So B is not unlike either B or C.

But if you pick C, while C does have elements in common with A and B…

(it shares ‘irregular 4-gon’ with A, and ‘solid color fill’ with B)

… it is also unlike each of them singly, as well as both of them together, in that it is green.

Only when you pick C do you result in a pair of sets that are cleanly dvided by the same property difference.

Is that more clear?

If you pick C, the distinction between C and A is the same distinction between C and B.

Thus, if you pick C, C is unlike A and B in the same way.

This is what I would call a clean or clear distinction, or … kind of unlikeness.

This is not the case, does not occur, if you pick A or B.

You end up with a picked set of one element that differs from the remainder set in ways that are inconsistent among the elements of the remainder set.

IE, a muddled or inconsistent distinction.

No.

You are wrong.

“Select the image that is unlike the other two.”

The only possible choice that results in a set of 2, and a set of 1, which are seperated cleanly by a distinct property, is picking C.

The goal is to define a difference between potential sets such that a distinct property exists between the two sets that you create.

To define two sets where unlikeness exists between them when they are compared.

Your job is not to merely compare three elements.

It is to compare three possible pairs of sets that can be made out of three elements.

Which elements have which particular combinations of attributes is thus very important, not irrelevant, as your simplified description of the situation portrays.

Oh ok, so there’s considerably less than one a year.

You know, due to gun control.

Compared to the modern US with over one a day.

Saying… anything positive about X is undermined by negative things about X is just completely missing the point… well, any potentially productive point.

The USSR did bad things, authoritarianism is bad.

Uh huh. Yep.

Apply that logic to any other society, ever.

Ok, I guess we don’t have any societies where the state acts as a functional monopoly on the legitimate use of violence that are worth discussing as examples of anything good.

Thus apparently there are no examples of nearly any societies, ever, worth further investigation or comparison or potential, at least partial, emulation.

… Am I misunderstanding you, or is that your actual position?

Or are you just nonsenically picking on the USSR for a problem it did not really have in comparison to many other societies?

If your point is ‘mass violence enabled by the state is bad’… almost no one on lemmy is going to broadly disagree with that, no one is going to ignore all the deaths, other than I guess tankies and fascists.

Its a moot point (in the US legal system sense of moot point), its a pointless point to make, amongst people with functioning consciences.

But if you’re trying to have, I dunno, a conversation or commentary on …

… what would be an ideal way for modern society to handle the nearly completely unavoidable fact that firearms exist in a modern society? who should have them, or be able to have them, under what circumstances, under which conditions? …

… then the framing of your original comment is completely unproductive and banal.

It asserts a laughably false equivalence with no evidence.

And yes, it is still a laughably false equivalence to point at evidence of something like a 1000 degree of magnitude difference in number of yearly mass shootings… as … evidence of equivalence.

It is not as simple as ‘Don’t support mass murderers.’

One person’s murderer is another person’s justified hero, dutiful soldier, person just doing their job, justified revolutionary, despicable terrorist, etc.

… only one choice is green.

How is this difficult, other than if you are r/g colorblind?

The correct choice is C.

If you pick A, B is also red, and C is also an irregular 4-gon. So A is not unlike either B or C.

If you pick B, A is also red, and C is also filled solid with color. So B is not unlike either B or C.

But if you pick C, while C does have elements in common with A and B…

(it shares ‘irregular 4-gon’ with A, and ‘solid color fill’ with B)

… it is also unlike each of them singly, as well as both of them together, in that it is green.

C is the only choice where ‘is unlike the other two’… is true, in any sense.

It has a distinct property, not found in any member of the remainder set, nor shared by the remainder set as a group.

Look.

I also don’t like tankies.

But wtf are you talking about?

Please, go, find any evidence of mass shootings carried out by basically random, deranged individuals in the USSR, with their own firearms,.or firearms that they somehow obtained in a personal capacity, for private use.

Genuinely, if you can find anything about that, I’d love to hear about it.

But you can’t just imply/assert something happened with literally 0 evidence, and flip the burden of proof into an assbackwards state.

Yes, the USSR definitely did use the mass armed power of the state in many ways that were very bad.

But… thats not the same thing as broad individual access to firearms leading to rogue actors going on mass shooting sprees.

The USSR had massive gun control for private citizens… as best I can tell, you could pretty much only own something like a smoothbore, single or double barrel, break action hunting shotgun, as a private citizen in the USSR.

I’m don’t even think most average people were allowed to privately own a pistol, you’d have to hold some kind of position in either the military or state to be able to do that, again, as best I can tell.

Anything beyond that would be highly restricted, criminalized.

So… yeah. It would seem to follow that if private access to firearms is heavily restricted, you don’t get a bunch of private individuals having a uh, terminal ballistically enchanced public crashout.

I’m not gonna pretend I’m an expert on the history of this subject, in the USSR… but you shouldn’t either.

‘People I don’t like are bad, so that gives me free reign to make up baseless claims about them’…

… thats a significant reason why people who don’t like tankies… don’t like tankies.

Its because they make disingenous arguments and argue via implications that can’t be proved or disproved.

You’re doing the rhetorical equivalent of ‘just asking questions’.

Please provide either some actual evidence, or at least a logically compelling argument that what you are asserting/implying … actually happened.

Best case interpretation:

Community effort aimed at teaching useful skills, funded and safely managed by a state entity, for the benefit of the broad society.

Nah, its showing the difference between:

Anyone can buy and own and posses and carry a firearm, basically, with little to no required training.

and

Everyone is encouraged to be trained in the proper usage and maintenance of firearms, but also, you do not get to take them home with you, carry or posses them privately.

Gun control was huge in the USSR.

But… that does not mean that you cannot also train the population in the usage of firearms, and then just keep those firearms locked in the training facilities/range armories.

Sure, you’re allowed to have whatever takeaway vibe you want… but that doesn’t mean your takeaway vibe makes any sense at all.

… You… didn’t know about the AK 74?

Lemme guess, you think the AR in AR 15 stands for Assault Rifle, right?

… you’d be surprised how often i see this on dating profiles.

“Yes hi, I’m blah blah blah, I’m looking for maybe a partner, but I’m also terrified of human communication and connection, and may take quite a long time to reply… but that doesn’t mean I’m not interested. Or… that I am interested.”

No, not in the ways that matter, they are not different.

Hence the counter coup.

I’m not talking about a Dem led counter coup, I find that extraordinarily unlikely.

I’m talking about removing the treasonous, lying, thieving, evil bastards, by force.

Doesn’t really matter to me who or what actually constitutes that force.

Because at that point, it will be clear to nearly everyone, that the entire rotten, demented structure is as arbitrary as it has, in actuality, always been.

Correct.

But it is an adorable Vaporeon.

When the law fails… what is left?

Cowards?

Or those with convinction?

… Have we all forgotten how this country was founded?

Or a forceful counter coup.

… just sayin’.

… I completely agree, it seems you understand UI/UX design principles very well!

So… yeah, its entirely possible to have a more varied and more artful internet, that is also not garrish, and broadly functional, if one takes care to account for details as you’ve outlined.

That just… isn’t the path we largely went down.

But uh, neocities is a thing, they’re trying to bring back the old spirit of much more lightweight, much more personal and customized websites that the old net had.

https://neocities.org/

Look at their example showcases!

The sites themselves are art.

EDIT:

Though it might be a good idea if they attempted to also offer a basic formatting standard for mobile sites.

Well, it is possible to live a life where you can do most of your work remotely, do most of your interaction digitally, such that you can just … not answer a call, not be in a voice chat room, or whatever.

Its not easy to accomplish this, but it is possible.

Pull that off, somehow, and then you have much more control over how often you choose to expose yourself to obnoxious and performative social functions.

But even without that:

Stand up for yourself, politely assert your boundaries and expectations, in any kind of relational context, and if people violate them, go with either a 2 or 3 strikes rule, and then if they keep breaking them… ignore/ghost/avoid them to the greatest extent possible.

“Why are you avoiding me?”

“You were rude to me, after I told you the things I find rude.”

If they, on their own, attempt to apologize, well, judge that per the specifics of that situation.

But don’t encourage or ask them to.

Suffer no fools, ghost all assholes.

There are ways to use subtle and subdued color palettes that are more interesting visually than typical modern style guides, don’t break built in hyperlink color defaults, while also not being as… high contrast, high intensity, as many 90s sites.

We have just had stylistic stagnation for a good deal of time now.

EDIT: Some examples:

Oh, sure, yeah.

I do this by telling people that sometimes I yap and go off on tangents, please free to interject if I’m dominating the conversation and don’t realize it, I won’t be offended.

Socializing is actually really simple when the rules are clearly and explicitly established, as opposed to a mixture of unspoken norms and boundaries that everyone just either guesses at, or assumes that everyone has the same norms and boundaries as themself.