What a novel idea.

This is like telling people that they are doing something wrong when they don’t “buy low and sell high” when they’re trading. Obviously. Issues with browser parity are born from a difficulty of the how and the when, not the what.

It’s ironic that I use Firefox personally but unfortunately we prioritized Chrome when I did more front end work too. Firefox would often render views differently compared to Chrome (Safari was also a shetshow) and we had to prioritize work ofc, especially for legacy stuff.

The thing is, as a pure guess, I would bet that it’s Chrome that’s not adhering to the web standards.

Honestly I’ve come around more and more to bypassing the Democrat party.

Every time after we get ice cream hasn’t changed the fact that our choice will always be between ice cream and driving off cliff until we eventually drive off the cliff. Either we drive off the cliff now or later, so maybe we should probably try to stop getting ice cream.

deleted by creator

Well the claim was your’s and I’m of the opinion that comparing who’s hornier isn’t a worthwhile endeavor.

Even if you take horniness to mean session frequency, why frequency, and why only that when there are also duration and intensity. There are also hard to quantify variables like met and unmet satisfaction. It could very well be that the integral of the product of all those variables over dt for all time ends up being close for all groups of people.

Differences are fine, but if those differences are a result of a very specific meaning, you should just that then than to potentially perpetuate an outdated and unhelpful stereotype.

I feel like you haven’t provided any reasoning and evidence to support your opinion besides, “This is what I see from my perspective so that must be true at large.”

It seems to me that you’re implicitly defining horniess with a narrow interpretation of sex drive: how often people think about sex, which men very well may. To that I go back to my original point that using that to make claims is an outdated, overly simplistic, and lazy generalization. It’s one that isn’t very insightful and one that offers little utility.

That’s an outdated, lazy, and inaccurate generalization.

Women are just as horny as men but straight women experience higher risks engaging in dating than gay men experience resulting in more caution and selectivity engagement.

Straight women who are able to have as much sex as they want tend to be those who are in stable, long-term relationships. The bottleneck is safety as a hard requirement for sex.

Donations and many self hosted volunteers, helped by the unique nature of the fediverse architecture also distributing burdens, fewer users, and lower computation/storage/availability requirements (compared to a more centralized service like a dating app).

Sorry if I come off like a butthole but I’m both curious yet dubious of the idea. I feel like people probably have thought about it but they probably ran into the same problems you’ll run into.

You didn’t quite answer my question. Where are you getting revenue? Eg. Subscription, one-time fees for X, grants, investments, etc?

Duallingo started like a non-profit but even their revenue with its massive userbase couldn’t cover their expenses so they had to compromise hard to keep the lights on. The same happened to Coffee Meets Bagel. Hinge started with the same premise of “this app is meant to be deleted” but they also had to compromise and eventually sold to Match Group.

Also, I feel like gay men are a unique demographic that has higher that average engagement so Grindr is probably in a uniquely advantaged position to resist enshitification.

I guess I’m just saying it’s probably in practice a cost center like city infrastructure or schools or research, so it might only work without heavy compromises if it’s also funded by taxes.

But even non-profits need to pay for operating costs like salary and cloud fees. Where would you get the funding for that?

deleted by creator

Omg too close, lol.

His face really exemplifies my impression of the entire Boomer generation.

They’re obsessed with chasing aesthetics of wealth (tanning their skin) but are also too arrogant to reconsider their values in light of all the new knowledge we’ve discovered (using sunscreen). So they just end up with avoidable consequences (extra wrinkly), pissed off, and don’t even know why or how so they just take their angry out on everyone else.

True, it does happen.

I learned recently that your can cut the two vertices that form the base of triangle watermelon slices (so that the slice becomes a top-heavy pentagon) so that they don’t collide with people’s cheeks when they eat them. You can do it on quater-wedges before you make them into individual slices.

It’s seems so obvious but none of the adults around me did it growing up, lol.

Boo, but jihad just means holy war like Allah means God. I literally learned the word jihad from playing FF8. When do we take borrowed words literally versus phonetically?

I’m a first gen immigrant but despite having native American English, sometimes once in a blue moon I’ll encounter a semi-rare word I’ve yet to be exposed to.

So my closest analog is that I was confused for the longest time why people kept referring to statues of figures from shoulder level upwards as busts when they never had chests or breasts or boobs or blossoms or busts!

So for the longest time not only was I confused, I would be on the lookout for statuses that depicted from breast height upwards, but I never found one, lol.

Would it be in poor taste to call these people jihadist?

Oh I don’t doubt Alex Jones is still at it. I don’t follow closely at all to the conservative-sphere but they all absolutely incite stochastic terrorism.

And they all are quick to discard previous and current beliefs as if they never happened. It’s kind of crazy how efficient they all are at converging on the same new belief when the previous one becomes too indefensible.