I can say as a member of the PCSX2 project that I understand why we and other FOSS emulators use it as official support – but nevertheless wish that we didn’t. We’ve discussed practicalities before, and the project doesn’t stay there just from inertia or because of personal preference; there are major practical reasons to prefer it over a forum (which we have), a wiki (which we have), or Matrix.

I’d be willing to endure the pain points and to scale back support in order to be off of that shithole, but I also get that’s a fringe minority sentiment shared by only a couple others. All of us would be tech-literate enough to use a client like Signal or Element for intra-project discussion, but very few people would come to Matrix for support (nor would we probably want them to due to the much greater moderation burden per end user), and the chatroom model – to most of us – is much easier for support than a forum. The only reason I’m still begrudgingly on Discord is for PCSX2.

I share your hope, but I seriously doubt this will come even close to dislodging us. Smaller projects, perhaps.

I have literally no idea what the article means by “[A5] is not yet officially recognized as a vitamin by mainstream institutions”. A vitamin is just an organic molecule necessary in very small amounts for human metabolism. What institutions? What constitutes “official recognition”?

It does, so far, seem to have scarce scientific literature published about it. Against my better judgment and if only because it seems like there’s nothing better, I’ll link to this 2025 article in Nutrients – despite being a journal published by notorious, predatory trash factory MDPI and despite two of the authors having major financial conflicts of interest.

Lastly, I think “With a background in biomedical science” is fluffing Mic, who has a BSc in sustainability and a master’s in public health. That makes him more qualified than most, but to me not qualified enough to inform me about the health implications of a novel vitamin with like eight papers on PubMed that allegedly isn’t even formally recognized by mainstream medical institutions.

“Too bad [some shit I just made up with no empirical evidence].”

sitting in a wall-e chair chugging Alfredo sauce

This is an unfair and libelous depiction of my utopia where I sit in a Wall-E chair chugging Alfredo sauce with, I’ll thank you to remember, fettuccine noodles mixed in.

I want a world where I can use those things without doing irreparable damage to my body and mind. I can fantasize about them when divorced from the practicalities.

I do want the Wall-E chairs, but I would never actually accept them. It’s like how I want a 20-liter bucket of fettuccine Alfredo, but I would never accept and eat one.

My pool is as boundless as the sea,

My love as deep; the more I give to thee,

The more I have, for both are infinite.

The card you pull:

I’ve never heard of Sabs before, but I hope I don’t have to see more of her if the rest are like this. This post is like ideological vomit with half-digested chunks of sentiments I agree with, and it mimics the beats of an actual point but with none of the substance. It’s clearly ragebait, but it seems more difficult to make up bullshit like this than it would be to just discuss real problems.

The FDR quote is extremely dubious; I’ve never seen any actual source showing that he said it. If anything, FDR was very vocal about the importance of elections. You might prefer this great, authentic one for future use, though:

An election cannot give a country a firm sense of direction if it has two or more national parties which merely have different names but are as alike in their principles and aims as peas in the same pod.

—FDR, Fireside Chat, June 24, 1938

The tweet, of course, is fucking nonsense. Here’s the wording used in the survey:

(Asked of 499 Voters Who Are More Likely To Vote In The Democratic Presidential Primary) If the 2028 Democratic Primary Election were held today, and the presidential candidates were Kamala Harris, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, Maryland Gov. Wes Moore and former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, who would you vote for?

As far as I can tell, this was not commissioned by “they” (the DNC). Who the fuck else were Rasmussen supposed to include? Genuinely, that statistically any of those 499 voters would have picked and are likely to run in 2028? That is a very plausible list of candidates, and the only absence I can think of who has any buzz is Mark Kelly. This isn’t manufacturing consent; this is a poll designed to return useful data. “Instead of deciding who you want”? Yeah, no shit; that’s because primaries are limited to people who are popular and determined enough to get on the ballot. Would it have actually made a difference if they’d put “Other (please specify)”? Not realistically, no, and you’re lying to yourself if you think otherwise.

If anything, not including a list of candidates would likely even further centralize the responses around one or two well-known candidates, because most voters aren’t familiar enough with politics to keep track of potential primary candidates.

This complaint is incoherent.

Damn, is this a subtle ad for a print subscription to The Onion?.. Because I kind of want one now.

but not in the house.

You were saying?

Once Egypt’s wives stole chancla techniques from Latin America and repurposed them for use with thick, leather sandals, they became unstoppable.

laugh track

Since this post is lifted, title and all, directly from /r/UrbanHell, I’ll link the post here in case anyone wants to read the comments.

One of them links to a really good New York Times article from 2013 about this exact problem. You genuinely cannot comply with New Jersey traffic laws – reasonable ones that keep you safe – and walk to the stadium on foot.

Even the first lines of the show are our main character talking about transitioning from one thing into another. Water White is an iconic ally.

It’s always on the other person if they’re confused

You read me say “I, for one, much prefer the turbines” (or at least I hope you did; maybe one whole comment is expecting too much), didn’t read the single other comment I made that was right there in case you were actually confused, made a snarky remark insincerely framed as a question accusing me of doing the opposite of what I actually was, and then got defensive and called that “being confused” when called out.

Buddy, I don’t know if you’re professing confusion about this specific discussion, human conversation, intellectual honesty, the English language… but none of them are your fault, and help is out there.

At random:

• We maintain a nuclear bomb of a party trick for nerds, which is a list of unusual Wikipedia articles.
• We have our own newspaper.
• If you go to “View History” on an article, there’s a link called "Page Statistics that does what it says.
• We keep a list of perennially discussed sources which can often be a decent litmus test for source quality.
• We explicitly have stricter guidelines for sourcing in medical articles.
• There’s a specific guideline about living people notable only for one event.
• Many single-sentence species articles you see were generated years ago by a bot. Any formally described eukaryotic species is automatically considered notable enough for its own article.
• Wikipedia has portals which act as landing pages for different subjects.
• Administrators aren’t glamorized or self-important like is often aasumed outside Wikipedia. They have a mop badge, are voted in, have strict codes of conduct,, and only number about 800. When people complain about admin abuse on Wikipedia, 99% of the time in my experience it’s sounded like a regular user (who, with few exceptions, has every right to do this) didn’t like their edit and reverted it – but they assumed that was an administrative act.
• Wikipedia has varying levels of protection for articles. Extended protection, requiring an account with 500+ edits and 30+ days old, is the highest one you’ll normally see for highly controversial topics like Donald Trump, ongoing international conflicts, etc. The exception to this is the Burger King Whopper, which was extended protected for nearly a decade after Burger King tried to abuse Wikipedia for a commercial and caused a tsunami of vandalism.
• There are awards.
• I think everyone should try Wikipedia’s sister projects at least once. The English Wiktionary, for example, is a fantastic everything-to-English dictionary.
• A huge chunk of our species images comes from iNaturalist.
• Thanks largely to one insane editor, Wikipedia is the greatest single resource on New York City architecture ever created, and I would bet my life to a pack of chewing gum on that.
• The “Did You Know?” list on the front page isn’t just random facts. An article can only be nominated to be there seven days after it’s created, expanded by 5x, or promoted to Good Article status (99% of the time it’s the second or third). So usually, clicking on the article, you’ll find a niche subject that someone very recently put a ton of passion into researching and writing.
• There’s a beginner-friendly Q&A forum called the Teahouse.
• Most media used on Wikipedia is hosted on our sister project, Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia itself. Exceptions are usually fair use material.
• There are new page patrollers who can clear new articles for indexing by search engines.
• There are three types of article deletion: speedy, proposed, and articles for deletion (AfD).
  • Some articles meet very narrow criteria and should be deleted as soon as possible without discussion, in which case an editor can nominate them to be checked by an admin.
  • A proposed deletion, or PROD, happens when an editor tags an article as such and leaves an explanation. Anyone can remove the tag for any reason, and a PROD can never be placed on that article again. If the tag remains up after seven days, an admin will read the PROD and decide if it’s valid.
  • Articles for deletion (AfD) is what you’d probably think of. Someone nominates an article for deletion, and for at least seven days (often more if there’s no consensus, and rarely less per a snowball clause), the article is discussed – usually on the grounds of notability. It’s not a vote, but people do summarize their argument as “Keep”, “Delete”, “Merge”, “Redirect”, etc. The discussion is reviewed by an administrator who has (basically) final say and has to decide on the most compelling argument in terms of guidelines and policies – although it’s very rare for them to noticeably break with the overall discussion.
  • Articles deleted by PROD or speedy deletion can be readily recreated, while those discussed at AfD cannot – those need to overcome the discussed concern.

right?

Wrong, and I can’t imagine how you reached that conclusion based on my first comment, let alone the second one where I say the exact opposite of this. I guess it’s easier to fill in the blanks by assuming whatever you want to be true than by reading.

Yes, often on farmland, they’re larger and more dispersed.

I am, to clarify, intentionally choosing what I think are pretty images of wind farms. I actually like the way they look and wish the OP used an example like this (even though the wind capacity in this second image is still comparatively small, it’s much more representative than the OP of what typical landscapes with wind turbines look like).