OpenStars

I would dare say that the vast majority of the people on Lemmy are by no means "average". Not necessarily better or worse, but we do have biases: we seem to trend towards older IT professionals who will put up with all the website glitches, as compared to e.g. a normal tween that would not.

Example "average" lie (in my own addled mind): "Gurl puh-lease, you lookin' MIGHTY fine right about now!" (translation: bish please, you look like a dumpster fire wrapped in bacon, insteada puttin on makeup and pounds, you need to be going to the GYM!:-P) Or at least this is my impression based on Twitter and YouTube, though tbf I don't really look at either of them and what posts do make their way onto Lemmy (or Reddit before the collapse) may have been... slightly skewed? :-D

I used to just tell people. It... did not go over well:-P. After that I lied, for their sakes b/c they did not truly want to know.

Having read this over, fwiw I am definitively siding with @snooggums@midwest.social on this. Here is an illustration that I think will help:

Child 1: Hey, let's grab some cookies!

Child 2: Okay! (reaches for cookie but before they can grab one...)

Mother: Hey, what are you doing - you two are not eating cookies are you, hrm!?

Child 1: No mummy dearest (choose appropriate slang of choice here:-), we two are not eating cookies...

Question: did child 1 lie? Technically their statement is accurate according to the narrowest possible interpretation - they both were not eating cookies, yet, even though the intentions of them both were fairly blatantly obvious.

Communication among humans is not math - the meaning of a message requires interpretation from the multiple parties involved. And in particular the recipient is usually in possession of additional data than the sender - at the very least, once the sender chooses to send the message packet, then the receiver has obtained +1 message that prior to the sending did not yet exist between them (and which may contain additional data, such as "a sender exists" and "the sender was located in this direction, at the time of the sending").

Anyway the child KNOWS what the mother intended to ask, but deliberately and blatantly told an extremely skewed version of the truth that is SO distorted, SO unwieldy, SO twisted, that there is no doubt that the intention was to deceive. In a normal situation anyway - though ofc exceptions always exist e.g. an autistic child, or one who has suffered some form of brain damage that causes them to struggle with over-literal statements might somehow literally be confused what the intention of the mother was. But in a normal situation, the meaning is clear: the child lied.

Any judgement about that is ofc up to interpretation - maybe the mother is actually pleased at having taught her children to lie so well? :-P

And I for one appreciate so much that you do - take all the time that you need and I will know that the response will be all the better for it.:-)

This presumes that all people are informed. New people, by definition, are not that. Arguably their fault for (checks notes) getting on a social media site then?

I am saying that it is easy for a day-1 noob to feel "dunked on" based on this absolute rush of feedback, especially for e.g. someone on the wider Fediverse who was not even aware that hexbear was that way, so especially they had no chance to consent to that - no pop-up messages appeared, nothing really unless you hunt around dig and also scroll down to see it, underneath the community, they just saw a post and replied as normal but then WHABOOSH!

Also you did not explain how the person you were responding to was not merely "wrong" but rose to be fully "disingenuous". Sadly this is something I notice often with hexbear - the culture seems to value "fights", which ngl could be helpful if the goal were to use socratic discourse to achieve some end goal like Truth and/or Compassion, but far more often it looks to me, from the outside, like people who just enjoy fighting/dunking for its own sake.

You are free - and I will fight to the death for your rights to do precisely this - to do as you please, as it pertains to yourself, but when it crosses over to affect other people, then different rules come into play. Specifically, if people from hexbear will not control themselves, then that leaves others to have to do it for them - e.g. warn people what to expect from hexbear users. i.e., it is not "disingenuous" to say that hexbear users seem to be spoiling for a fight, if that is literally what happens.

I dunno, all I do is hit copy, then go to the website and hit paste, and that's pretty easy as well:-P.

I do need to step up my game for work though, b/c it keeps asking me a password multiple times a day so if I could rattle one off that would be better than having to open up my password manager and get it.

Well, I was going to argue against that, but then I remembered that he is rich - which I guess is the same thing as smart? - so... okay! :-P

I mean, we do hold leadership to a different, higher standard, that much is true. But is this man not the foremost world-class expert authority aka leader of his own life at least? And if not him, irt to that super narrow niche, then who else would be considered the leader of his own life?

Imagine if you will a scenario of a Doctor on television, let us call him Oz, who gives patently false advice that literally gets people actually killed. It is not okay for the TV station to air whatever film was handed to them, but how does that absolve the responsibility of this Doctor Oz from his own measure of responsibility, one may even say culpability (or perhaps criminal liability?) in this whole affair?

Again, there is more than one way to be incorrect, and by extension they both were partners in this crime against journalistic integrity.

NO, NOT THAT, WHY DO YOU ASK IF BRAIN SLUGS CONTROL THAT MAN?

Yeah I thought about adding a note that it's pretty outdated - and dictionary based scans were always possible even if less common in the old days - like those infamous passwords "God", "Love", "secret", or like "admin".

The artist is pretty smart most of the time though so I presume they were aware of that possibility and meant that on a more basic level there are multiple ways to make passwords easier for a user to remember, not necessarily just this one rather simplistic take but as part of a whole approach. Then again, they didn't say that, and instead said this, thus the controversy.

Personally I gave up entirely and now I don't even know what any of my own passwords are, though my password manager does:-). I guess... if you cannot beat them, join them!?:-P

Also, are we not going to discuss the conspiracy theory that many of the people espousing this ideology were mysteriously killed!? And their families too! In fact, anyone even so much as near them had a chance to be affected, possibly some still here but with permanent brain damage!

Sounds pretty sus if you ask me...