Because there is value in a large group speaking with a unified voice to say "this is wrong, and you need to know that the rest of us think it's wrong. Your behavior will affect the relationship you have with us all going forward". Direct intervention isn't the only form of consequence.

Is it the best solution to the problem? No. Is it still worth doing? Yes.

Tl;Dr: a meme went around asking women if they'd rather be stuck on an isolated island with a strange man or a strange bear. Most women chose the bear, largely due to the bear being more predictable and easier to deal with than a man inclined to do them harm, which, based on the experience of most women, is a whole lot of men.

Fragile men took this as an attack on all men everywhere and were offended at being "called a predator".

There's a pretty good thread in my comment history where I try to address the issue with one such fellow male and their response is about what you'd expect, confirming all the reasons why women chose the strange bear over the strange man

Security professional here. This is legit a good call on their part. It's because those types of addresses won't bounce emails but aren't necessarily in your control; it's very, very easy to spam those petition forms with mail@ for a million real domains without bouncing the emails, making them seem legit.

You own your domain, obviously, so it's really as simple as creating a forwarding/alias address of "[email protected]". If creating a forwarding/alias address is that much of a problem for you I suggest that you likely shouldn't be hosting your own email in the first place.

Your laziness isn't a good reason to be upset with a company taking steps to reduce their security overhead significantly

Koichiro Ito was the producer, NOT the director who is famous for creating those movies. He collaborated with the studio, he did not write or direct the films. Please do not destroy and undermine these beautiful works of art over a single credited contributor who did not create the films.

Further, he was only arrested in February of 2024 so the studio hasn't even had an opportunity to turn down future collaboration with him.

I've only ever seen the term "feefees" used by people whining over facing the completely predictable consequences of their actions

This is a trash headline and complete click bait

Tourists are not being banned from the geisha district

Tourists will be FINED if they enter PRIVATE STREETS that are not meant for or prepared to handle the tourism industry

The geisha district will remain open to tourists. Full stop.

Sky News is garbage

If people knew what devs said (justifiably) about players when nobody is looking, the internet would implode.

Like, I'm not trying to be an asshole, but holy fuck gamers are the worst about actually knowing how games are made or the consequences of various decisions they want made.

I don't know why 80% of gamers think playing games means they know how to make games, but it infuriates many of us to no end. We get that it's just misguided desire to see the games improve but jfc it makes life incredibly difficult (especially for the CMs)

EDIT: Imagine someone told an architect "You should just remove that load bearing wall. This other building doesn't have one in that position and it's great. Why is it so hard for you?"

Outrage-bait drives traffic. What you're seeing is the same amount bad behavior over time being made much more visible by people who seek to profit from the misery, along with an overall increase in our willingness to discuss the issues

The shopping cart is the ultimate litmus test for whether a person is capable of self-governing. To return the shopping cart is an easy, convenient task and one which we all recognize as the correct, appropriate thing to do. To return the shopping cart is objectively right. There are no situations other than dire emergencies in which a person is not able to return their cart. Simultaneously, it is not illegal to abandon your shopping cart. Therefore the shopping cart presents itself as the apex example of whether a person will do what is right without being forced to do it. No one will punish you for not returning the shopping cart, no one will fine you or kill you for not returning the shopping cart, you gain nothing by returning the shopping cart. You must return the shopping cart out of the goodness of your own heart. You must return the shopping cart because it is the right thing to do. Because it is correct.

A person who is unable to do this is no better than an animal, an absolute savage who can only be made to do what is right by threatening them with a law and the force that stands behind it. The Shopping Cart is what determines whether a person is a good or bad member of society.

The issue has never been that games can't run on Linux. It has always been a simple question of "will the games I want to play run?" More than ever, that answer is yes, but if your favorite game doesn't, or if you never want to worry about "will this upcoming (online) game let me play on Linux?" then you use Windows by default.

Like, I love y'all, but the Linux gaming community on Lemmy is kinda insufferable with the straw-man "people think games can't run on Linux" argument. That's just not the issue

There are lots of reasons to pirate stuff, but this argument in particular boils down to "We should steal stuff now because maybe some day in the future I won't be able to use the paid version after they go out of business." And that is shitty.

You bought it, so go crack it now that the license check is broken and nobody will care. That's GOOD piracy. Support the creators, pirate when you can't or it's unreasonable to pay (more).

Don't just pirate to mitigate theoretical future inconvenience. Do it to circumvent actual inconvenience, or to get things you couldn't otherwise afford, or to say "fuck you" to big, shitty companies.

But pirating from a small-time dev just in case there are maybe license problems far in the future is not The Way

Unsurprisingly, when people are given enough money to make immediate, material improvements to their life, they do.

If you're homeless and miserable, suffering psychological and/or physical pain, and someone gives you $20, the most immediate relief for that suffering is often escapism into things like drugs and alcohol. In situations of extreme distress, humans tend to favor solutions that immediately, if only temporarily, remove the stress. We see this behavior all across humanity.

So the thing you spend money on in that situation iis typically the thing that will, in your belief, most improve your short - and medium-term condition. Give them $20, they'll get alcohol. Give them $500, warm clothes and other durable QOL improvements. $7500? A car. $50,000? Long-term shelter.

Sadly, this study isn't telling us anything that psychologists and social workers didn't already know :/