Upvote for relevance and quality of the content.
Downvote for irrelevance or bad vibes.

The problem I’ve had with Reddit for so long is people using the arrows for agree / disagree. This does not promote discussion or interesting ideas. This often promotes comments that are irrelevant to the story people are commenting on. If I read a headline, I want the top comments to expand upon and contribute to that story.

Example: the headline might be about the decline of people eating apples. The highest voted comment might be a smartass comment about how red delicious is not delicious. But the article is actually an in depth report on the affects of climate change on apple production increasing the costs to consumers while processed foods have become more popular.

The amount of garbage on Reddit is just unreal. And now they’re training AI with it. All because people use the voting system improperly. Using my example, AI now believes apples are less popular because they’re not delicious. When people use an AI search engine, they’re not getting the true story.

I will absolutely upvote someone I disagree with. It’s rare but if they have an interesting thing to contribute while displaying knowledge of a subject, I’m all here for that. Genuine engagement with people we disagree with is how we all partake in poking holes in our echo chambers.

It’s an increasingly fine line but I don’t see these forums as social media. Ranking things by agreement or popularity feels like social media to me.

If you’re interested in a reward system, check out minds.com. Although, since it’s inception, this platform has become a cesspool or right wing extremism. It’s sad what it’s become.

Keep and invest 5 million. Give the rest to my city and schools.

The rule you’ve described is ‘you have the right to treat people how others have treated you’.

That is not the Golden Rule. The point of the Golden Rule is to proactively be a good person, not one who reciprocates. Regardless of how others treat you, by treating others how you want to be treated, you will be seen as a good and decent person who spreads kindness in the world. Someone whom others won’t go online and complain about. Someone who is less likely to make someone’s day a little more shitty.

The Golden Rule is awesome. I struggle daily to abide by it.

operate a vehicle with lane assist and not even notice that it is enabled.

I see this as the problem. We’re becoming more reliant on robots to accomplish basic tasks. If the mode of transportation is fully automated - fine. But that is not the case, yet. It’s still the licensed driver’s responsibility if there’s a crash. You can’t tell a judge your robot made a mistake.

You know how they say Gen Alpha doesn’t know how to turn on a computer or use a file system? It’s like that. We can’t just give the robots full control of our lives. We should know the basics of operating a car, of being aware of our surroundings, of how to instinctively make a split second decision.

I’ll offer a compromise. There should be two (or more) levels of operating licenses. If you want your car to do everything for you, you do not have the same permissions as someone who knows how to fully drive a car. This means you’re unable to rent or borrow a car that requires your full attention. At least this creates some sort of stricter legal ramification when someone who’s been dependent upon driver assist features for a decade and gets behind the wheel of a “dumb” car and kills someone because they don’t know how to merge onto a highway. Frankly, we could benefit from this premise on existing drivers and vehicles today.

I still regularly use my iPod. Going on 20 years old! I’ve replaced the battery and swapped the hdd with an sd card.

That’s an interesting example. Around 2010, I had a MacBook Pro (granted, before they were super thin) and I’d regularly pick it up by the screen. I then had a thinkpad for work and did the same thing and it cracked in half.

I just bought a 2013 Mini Copper. The tech is relatively limited but I have to admit there are some ergonomic issues - specifically with the lights, wipers, and radio controls. I installed a phone holder but I’m almost regretting it. I’m trying to retrain myself to not rely on gps for everything. Like, I shouldn’t need gps to tell me how to get to my mom’s house where I’ve driven to hundreds of times.

The problem you’ve addressed is that too many people should not be driving or doing what they’re doing while they’re driving. All these safety features are really just ‘I’m too distracted to pay attention to operating a motor vehicle’ features.

There absolutely is some technology that’s been beneficial. But the cat has been let out of the bag and people are losing the choice to safely operate a car on their own.

The original Volkswagen Beetle was specifically designed for literally anyone to work on it.

While cars have had computers in them since the 1970s, they were still easily diagnosed by almost anyone with a basic education (most people took a basic automotive class in high school). If you could fix a lawnmower, you could fix a car.

Now cars are just rolling computers. Mr. Nerd, how often do you upgrade your computer? And how long do you anticipate Teslas remaining on the road? Aren’t they all doomed to the scrap yard in 10-15 years?

You can still work on older cars. They may be less safe, they may cause more pollution. But in the context you’re arguing, I can’t say you’ve presented a compelling case.

Moreover, consumer demand for distraction has driven (so to speak) the popularity of cars and other gadgets to do the thinking for us. A brief example is how often my Uber driver takes a wrong turn into another state because he’s unfamiliar with the city and relying on his phone. A taxi driver would never make that mistake because they’re knowledgeable and able to think for themselves.

I’ll pick a dumb device 9 times out of 10.

Dude. Everything?

I’m exhausted with how much stuff I can’t use like I used to because a dev or manufacturer updates software. Granted, the speed of things is much improved thanks to chip technology. Software, in some cases - many cases in my experience, is getting worse.

A big one for me is music. I prefer FM radio and my own music library (digital, iPod, cd, vinyl). Because, as it’s increasingly becoming the case with everything else, you’re relying on someone else or some algorithm to do the thinking for you. And when you finally get used to something, they break it or add needless complexity.

Another one is cameras - they just do way too much crap now. Lots of people might find added features and improvement but for me it just gets in the way of iso, aperture, shutter speed. And then they’re outdated in five years anyway.

I still have a dumb tv from ~2012. The back lighting is starting to go and I’m terrified of getting a new one.

If you’re continually having issues passing a written exam, I would respectfully request that you just stop now. These “laws and rules and stuff”, generally, are not complicated and are far from stupid. This is the bare minimum you should know in order to operate a motor vehicle safely in the presence of other vehicles and children. If you’re unable to grasp the seriousness of this, how it can literally impact your very existence, you may not be responsible enough to operate a vehicle. Granted, probably half the people on the road shouldn’t be on the road either.

Why I’m not “normal”.

I don’t understand popular culture. Things like “The Bachelor” and why people choose to spend their time watching this stuff on a regular basis for decades. I like sports but the fanaticism can be obscene (says the guy from Philly). I understand TikTok releases dopamine but how do people not realize they’re addicted to these things? How is it that so many people are so gullible and unable to discern obviously fake or subjective or biased information. How do people fall for advertising? How are people not curious to know the reality of a situation? How can people defend things that are so obviously wrong or bad for all humans? Why is “obvious” obvious to some and entirely vailed and twisted for others?

There’s something that a lot of people share that I don’t understand. Something about the need to be right. The need to be protective. While also having the need to not care too much about anything more than entertainment. There’s a subconscious desire to be part of something, to be a cog in the machine, to be a consumer, and to be lead by someone else.

I vividly remember, at eight years old, going to catholic catechism class and realizing that every religion claims to be the true religion and if that were the case it’s plausible my religion was the wrong religion or that all religion was simply made up. I’m by no definition a very intelligent person so why is it that I can figure this out, before I barely even know what sex is, while the vast majority of human civilization for the past 2000+ years hasn’t asked this question? How are we still warring over verifiably made up stories (the Bible’s Jesus was a story based on several preexisting religions)?

I certainly have strong, sometimes less-informed opinions, but I’m here to learn. I like to think I’m humble but sometimes I let semantics get in the way. If you prove me wrong or offer something I hadn’t considered, I’ll at least shut my mouth about it and do more research.

To make it less about me, I want to learn more about whatever the subject is that I’ve just described.

Edit: This is funny and kind of relevant. Someone else recently posted a question on Lemmy about using the Internet Archive. This lead me to go back and look at a personal blog I had starting in 2005. This quote from 2006 is relevant to not understanding why people do what they do:

Look, I understand that Chain Mail will never go away, and it’s not even the hassle of hitting the little delete button. It’s just that I am so irritated by the people who think that they are either going to find themselves falling in love with the person they have in mind when they hit the send button or that they will be financialy independant because they SENT-AN-EMAIL. Do you idiot’s have any clue at all?! COME ON!!!

through time

Dude, you’re saying this as though the internet has been around for millennia. And as if you’ve never been to / heard of a library.

I’ve downloaded a ton of music videos to create my own self-hosted MTV station. I’ve downloaded music and books. I’ve used it to view non-paywalled (NYT) articles shared on Lemmy. I live in Philadelphia so I’ve used it to look up the earliest version of the “yellow pages” or “white pages” from the 1800s. I’ve searched for the videos they used to show us in elementary school on 16mm - stuff about the expansion of the USA, the national parks, history of my state or city, etc. I’ve used it to look up tv commercials from the 1980s for a bit of nostalgia and older tv shows that people have uploaded from their personal VHS collection. Some people just upload personal stuff that’s entirely mundane but voyeuristically interesting. And I’m certain I haven’t even scratched the surface of what’s on there.

“Allowed to run”: There are shockingly few requirements to be president in our constitution. You just need to be a natural born citizen and at least 35 years old. There are some nominal requirements that vary state by state to get on the ballot.

However, this is the funny part, we’re still (I think, I may have lost track of all his court cases) trying to determine if a sitting president who engages in insurrection is able to run for president. This would seem to conflict with the constitution’s fourteenth amendment. And it would seem to conflict with the supreme court’s decision that suggests engaging in insurrection is an official presidential act.

No. Because they specifically said this is not the case.

The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts.

They’re essentially protecting a president from flagrant lawsuits that could be brought for unfounded accusations. The constitution outlines a handful of constitutional duties (such as pardoning) which are by definition the law not prosecutable. There’s a presumption of immunity for their official acts. Anything they do outside of official acts is not immune.

Nothing has really changed. It’s only made it more clear how difficult the process is to indict a president. The Fourth section of Article II still exists.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

So, let’s say, not for the first time ever, a president orders an assassination and congress wants to hold them accountable for this action. It will need to be determined if this act was part of their official duties. The issue SCOTUS has presented is that it’s very, very difficult for congress to obtain the motivation for such an act. Such a case would be dependent on the specific circumstances. I mean, if the president orders the assassination of a foreign leader, no one’s going to, nor have the ever, question that. If they order the assassination of a congressional leader, don’t imagine they’re going to get away with that.

When someone asks what’s a dead give away someone is a kid, it tells me they’re not old enough to remember the ASL days.

the constitution, which the Court just put the President above.

Are you joking?

The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts.

Also,

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

the court creates absolute immunity for the president’s exercise of “core constitutional powers

Right here is where she’s losing me. It’s The Constitution. It is very much The Law above all laws. By definition, these acts, as defined in Article II, are immune from prosecution.

Roberts was very clear that the charges against Trump need to be reviewed to determine if they’re “core” official acts or “perimeter” official acts. As I interpreted what Roberts said, there’s no way Trump is getting away with everything.

POTUS is not absolutely immune from acts outside their official core duties as outlined in Article II. They can still be impeached. Impeachment is little more than a review of actions to determine an indictment. Only upon conviction may a president be removed.

I appreciate the few level-headed people observing this historic event.