Okay, everyone knows guns are literal weapons. Not everyone has the time to look into things and develop an anticorporate opinion to the point simply using a service is a loaded weapon and simply using it is cause enough for “no sympathy, sucks to be you!” when they have trouble with it. Maybe this might make them change their minds eventually, but even if it doesn’t… this seems a bit more blaming the victim. Get angry at the corporation, not the person who wasn’t born believing corporations bad. If I fail to lock my door, that is probably unwise of me, but everyone should be more mad at the thief for stealing from me in the first place.

deleted by creator

I find it funny that the pufferfish blows up at its own gunshot

Also asexual.

Just consider most people really like sex, and some experience it as a very intense physical want to the point it makes sense that a bad version of it is better than none at all. Sort of similar to food. Better to have bad-tasting food and at least sate your hunger than to have nothing and starve.

Although, of course, it breaks down. The comments talk about actively harmful sex people wouldn’t want as well as harmful documentation; bad sex and documentation is not actually always better than no sex or no documentation. In the analogy, this would be sex that gives you an STD, or documentation that sends you running in circles and misleads you.

I’ve found a lot of understanding sex comes with just understanding a lot of people really really want it and experience it as a nigh-on need. Maybe liken it to some intense desires you have, things you need to be happy that you nonetheless don’t need to survive. (Of course, this is a generalization, I understand not all people with sexual desires have them this intensely. Some don’t need it to be happy but would sure like it a lot. And some might even get it more mildly. But for the purpose of understanding more mainstream jokes, analogies, etc. about sex…)

deleted by creator

I was a happy MuseScore user before and after the UI changes. So this post brings to mind questions that usually float in my mind:

• When I can happily use a thing whose UX is criticized: is it just because I don’t know any better alternatives, or because I’ve spent so long with it that of course I know how to work it? Or is the UX really not that bad? Or is it that there are often general solutions for most of the population, but sometimes some people take really well to things that work poorly for others and vice versa? Is it that the hated parts are bits I do not touch much in my workflow, so of course I see no problems because I am not interacting with the problem parts?
• When I have difficulty using a thing whose UX is praised or has no criticism: is it because I am smoothbrained? That I just have not had enough time trying to figure it out, so of course I struggle and just need to apply myself more? Is it something that works for most, but it will not work for everyone? Am I in a really niche use case with bad UX that nobody else has bothered to complain about?

I do not have enough UX knowledge to criticize or make objective evaluations here. I only have how easy it is for me to navigate applications. Though I would like to work on gaining it someday, especially so I can help out FOSS targets of “bad UX” complaints.

Some people actively desire this kind of algorithm because they find it easier to find content they like this way. I’m not sure if they are immune to doomscrolling and actually have gotten it to work in a way that serves them and doesn’t involve doomscrolling, or if they are doomscrolling and okay with it. But for me, I really wish I could go back to the chronological feed era.

This is both sweet and funny. I’d love to have a spouse like that. Thanks for taking care of them :)