I spend like 5 hours a day commuting and so I contemplate a lot of oddities I suppose. Over the years getting weirder (or more practical, depending).
It’s so many things I don’t know where to start, I suppose it started simple with things like people loving their cars too much and taking different aspects of driving (entitlement, rage etc). To car insurance through to organisational behaviour. Environment to natural attrition. Changes in the societal pattern and behaviours.
Times that by like, way too long thinking about what a world like that might be like, and I am where I am…
From the negatives I think of I always see something that makes me think the net positive is worth the exchange
Nothing in particular. I would imagine car enthusiasts will have the same decisions as others. Some of them will just keep cars garaged for the month. Others might embrace it and start pimping the back of their cars. All sorts of in betweens. Some might even try modes of transport they never thought they would.
On my own, petty, individual level, it might mean next time we’re doing the 10km an hour crawl in peak hour it won’t be because someone is acting like a side panel ding is a reason to not pull off the road properly
And not really car culture but broadly ‘car’, anything discouraging me being on one side of the road driving to where you live and you on the other driving to where I live always ends up net positive
I probably should not post random things on the internet lol… 🤦🏻 there’s a lot of nuance. Obviously it’s only applied in certain areas (cities with certain congestion limits etc.).
My wife hates the idea, that’s really why it’s unpopular… she’s pretty much vetoed it I think under a subcategory of stupidity. I say that because it’s not even my craziest idea so it can’t be that…
Hence why I posted it, had no where to spew it out and I’m trying not to lurk as much to support lemmy 🙃
Other disclaimer would have to include I think of these things generally in the midst of the most boring mind numbing, or raging kill filled times of my day. But I’d have an answer to most questions I could ever think of and I’m still in camp reversedrive.
So just know when your on that road… there’s some idiot out there driving the other way thinking “we should be going the other way”
I think Vim bindings are dumb and get in the way. I will never understand the appeal of modal editing. Emacs was always the superior program since it was released by Richard Stallman in 1985.
Stallman didn’t invent Emacs; Moon and Steele did. Stallman ported it from TECO to Lisp — and not a particularly good Lisp. GNU Emacs shoulda been replaced by something in Common Lisp or Scheme decades ago.
Anyone that uses either is just doing so to feel superior, people sitting on 64 gig of ram, 32 core processors, 4090 gfx cards but they can’t spare the system resources for a proper gui? People only like them because they’re hard to use and awkward.
the real unpopular opinion is always in the comment replies. fr tho have you ever seen a real vim wizard at work? the productivity boost you get from a keyboard only workflow is mind boggling. it goes way beyond what anyone in notepad/modern IDE/Word can accomplish even if they have the fastest kpm in the world. being lightweight and universal is just a side benefit
I prefer Microsoft/Apple/IBM style key bindings (Ctrl+X to cut, Ctrl+V to paste, etc). Text editors don’t need to have a completely different set of key bindings from everything else.
thats anti-egg propaganda. egg is egg! egg is egg! we will not be ‘tossed’ any longer. I just had two soft boiled eggs yesterday with a crossoint and it was the highlight of my day.
add eggs to boiling water, cover remove from heat, 6 minutes, not to firm, not too runny, the perfect eggy
Absolutely this. I don’t mind eggs as an ingredient but straight up eating them is foul.
On the topic, can we please get some savoury brunch options which aren’t completely built around poached or scrambled eggs? Sure you can remove them, but it takes away such a massive percentage of the dish. Even vegan dishes just substitute the egg for a tofu scramble 🤢
I mean, it’s the phrase itself and that I can’t escape hearing it.
I often say versions of stuff myself like “Dear God”, “God in heaven” etc in other languages when I express things and react to stuff.
I cuss and swear like a cocksucking, shiteating dogfucker too in everyday conversations, so I wouldn’t describe myself as crude or offended by stuff. Swearing over here mentions hell and devil a lot, so I’m not a stranger to popping off those ones, either.
It’s just that phrase specifically in English that irks me as boring and unimaginative for being overused everywhere. Throwing that phrase in English during non-English speech just sounds more like aping stuff than a genuine expression. Vanilla is at a quadrillion Scoville scale compared tho the phrase.
Specifically that three-worded phrase. Not “Oh, God” or"My God" - I don’t have anything to say about them. It’s about the whole “Oh, my god” package.
I am sick and tired of hearing that one everywhere I turn or go.
That is the biggest factor in my annoyance with it. Can’t come up with anything else, once in a while?
Shit tastes like chocolate compared to how it sounds when thw specific phrase “Oh my god” is dropped in English in a conversation that’s not even in English by people who don’t even have it as their first language.
I’ve reached the point where that phrase just sounds like a poor pop-culture reference than an actual expression.
If you’re getting upvotes in this thread you’re a lemming that believes what everyone else does and you only allow yourself to consider socially acceptable ideas. Your beliefs are based on social proof, not introspection or critical thinking.
Another one: about 50% of the population are destined to be poor wagies and there’s nothing you can do to help them.
Dogs were hardwired by selective breeding to worship their owners. Not long ago they at least were loyal companions. You got one off the streets, fed it leftovers, washed it with a hose, it lived in the yard, and it was VERY happy and proud of doing its job. Some breeds now were bred into painful disabling deformities just to look “cute”, and they became hysterical neurotic yapping fashion accessories. Useless high maintenance toys people store in small cages (“oh, but my child loves his cage”) when they don’t need hardwired unconditional lopsided “love” to feed their narcissism.
Haha, I guess many dog owners just can’t see it how it is; probably an addiction to the lopsided unconditional “love”. I used to comment something similar back in Reddit, just to see the flood of downvotes and outraged dog owners.
Same reaction to supporting the idea that some breeds are generally more dangerous and/or more aggressive. “Oh, my MY pitbull is a sweetie!!” (adding this here just to test :D )
I think people are stupid about pets in general, just like they’re stupid about everything else. There are plenty of people who could make a good home for almost any animal, even a pitbull. There’s no “one size fits all” when it comes to pet ownership.
I agree with you about how awful it is to use these dogs as fashion accessories and put them in crates. I also think it’s because a lot of people desire the “lopsided love”. It definitely feeds their egos and a lot of them are narcissists, don’t know any better because they’re stupid or both.
Animals should only be in cages temporarily for the right reasons. I hate when people claim that their dogs love their cages. They don’t love them. They are just trained and conditioned to tolerate them. Most dogs do want to please their owners and it’s very convenient for these assholes to believe their dogs love being in their cages for hours on end.
I do agree that the caging trend is fucking awful. I have friends who leave their two large dogs caged for 8 hours a day and it crushes me. These are both well behaved dogs who wouldn’t make a mess out of a cage so I really just don’t get the point, other than it’s millennial meta to do cage training.
The “cage” thing is weird, because it seems like it is used by the worst/laziest dog owners, and by good dog owners / trainers (with very different reasoning). The average dog owner seems to not even use “cages” much.
Anyway, crate training is very much worth it, but it takes a significant effort
Sentience in humans begins at 4 years old (mental age). I don’t consider humans younger than that to be people. I also firmly believe that you have to have some form of consciousness, self identity, and clear cognition to count as a person.
A human corpse is not a person, a brain-dead patient is not a person, and a human with severe mental disorder should not be held to the same standards as other people.
Similarly, anything that does have sentience is clearly also a person, and should be treated as such. Animals such as crows, parrots, octopi, dolphins, whales, and some monkeys and apes are demonstrably as or more intelligent than some human children. They should not be treated the way they are.
As a side note, I agree with that other guy. Polycules should be allowed to marry.
Also, names in this day and age are useless, at least official ones. We have computers, we already use government issued ID for everything, having a name just makes things confusing. Just use nicknames, either created by the person or by agreement from peers and allowed by the person. The concept of a parent forcing a name on their child is archaic and cruel.
And finally, real life security is horrifying. I expected things to be like in the movies, where you need a special skill or training to do those spy shit. But no. In comparison to real life, Google actually has good security and privacy. WTF people? Everytime I receive mail with my name and a description of what’s inside just written on the box I cringe and go back to lurking online again.
Amen! I’ve always said that a right to life requires an entity to be able to benefit emotionally from having that right.
In essence that means:
It knows it can die
It knows what a “right to life means”
It can recognize whether it has or doesn’t have a right to life
And an additional rule is: any entity that attains a right to life keeps that right until it dies even if it drops below the threshold cognitively. This is to prevent anxiety around the thought of losing one’s right to life when in a coma or asleep.
Why even care whats a person and whats not? In the end everything is just complex Carbon compounds, Some minerals, some Amino acids, Hydrogen and Oxygen.
Why care? Also, what is Consciousness? Its not scientifically Measurable, and some even say its a concept and nothing provable, like the concept of a Multiverse.
We should care for legal reasons. When you have an abortion, or when you’re euthanizing a dementia patient, are you killing a person? If you are, there are ethical considerations.
Yeah, best to have a nice and orderly government-generated ID value, like “ALL80 AFAHSC NFF6”.
Just use nicknames, either created by the person or by agreement from peers and allowed by the person.
You are describing a situation that creates infinitely more confusion. Your opinion is not “unpopular”, is nonsensical.
The concept of a parent forcing a name on their child is archaic and cruel.
How do you want the person to be called? “Hey, you”?
But I agree that if parents apply to you a name that’s ridiculous, strange, antisocial or likely to provoke social consequences, the person should be the ability to change it (legally) to something else.
I believe in freedom. As long as my actions don’t hurt someone else physically or financially, then leave me alone. As long as your actions don’t hurt someone else physically or financially, then do whatever the hell you want. I also have the freedom to tell you you’re stupid for doing what you’re doing. You have the freedom to tell me I’m stupid for doing what I’m doing.
Move where? Another apartment where another landlord is going to hurt me financially? What does your believe system say should be done when my freedom from harm is being infringed upon?
You’re stupid for what you’re doing. Physical harm isn’t the only form of serious damage we can do to each other and this should be apparent for everyone having lived this life for more than 5 minutes. You can absolutely destroy a life without even touching a person, and by the nature of society being a common agreement on how we want to live together you absolutely shouldn’t be free to do so.
I think it depends on the environment you’re in. In my social circle, among family, friends, and coworkers, almost all of them believe that socialism is a poverty cult and a terrible idea that will lead to more human suffering, so when I express any socialist opinion, it will be unpopular in my environment. Obviously here on Lemmy, it’s the opposite and socialism is popular here.
I mean, yeah, politics, religion and other ideology-driven subjects are more contentious, but apart from these very divisive subjects, there isn’t much anyone can be a fan of that is unpopular.
What about food? If you go to Italy and declare that your favourite pizza topping is pineapple, I assure you it will not be received well. If you put chorizo on paella, you would be scorned in Spain… Go to an American police station and declare that doughnuts suck, and you might get shot.
Any topic that people are passionate about, and you are going to see plenty of arguments and see some unpopular opinion pop up.
Gonna need tons of capitals controls to prevent money from leaving, rich people are good at moving. To what end? So the federal government gets even more money to spend on subsidies, police riot gear & highways. They’d turn the Pentagon into an octagon before they’d meaningfully help their citizens.
I definitely think 50%, like they supposedly do in China. No exceptions. You try to evade it, you go to jail for six months, enjoy. I think that’s what happened to Jack Ma.
Anything would be alright with me, I’m in Australia and so I’m definitely warped with my international tax views. Probably why i’m at the extreme end of the scale
If other nations can have billionaires and we can’t, and our country is vast and rich, we will be at a disadvantage.
The WANT of money is corrupting itself. Actually having the money itself is not needed. People who want money will destroy your little system, and throw your country into chaos, ruination and poverty, united by a conspiracy of common interests.
I would rather just regulate what needs regulating, within reason, with a gentle hand, and only a strong hand with the worst of violations. For the record, I would be much harsher than the us has tended to be when it comes to pollution, etc.
Also countries should tax companies on money that goes out of the country based off of their overall profit. So if Google makes 10% profit over costs the. We charge them 30% tax on the money they funneled out of Australia. Done.
the world is overpopulated and everyone who wants to have children should require a license to do so (and it should cost a lot - like, a mid-tier job’s annual salary).
This would only deter people who would otherwise plan a child. Those people tend to have fewer children in the first place and are more likely to take good care of them. I actually think the best approach to reducing the world’s population increase is a heavy investment in education including reproductive education, especially in poorer countries which are the ones still actually growing fast.
Only people with progressive ideologies, willing to educate their children to be better than themselves, socially responsable, solidarity- and community- oriented and willing to work to leave the world a better place than they found it, should have children.
That excludes whole countries and political systems, and that’s a good thing.
That would create a generational time bomb. What happens when the now sizeably reduced younger generation has to care for a hoard of old people and pay their pensions?
Ro-butts! And govt procured provisions purchased in bulk if money is tight.
In the 1920s, many Americans who were put to work could not be paid because ‘the govt had no money’ but from remembrances of those who lived, they never ate better. I’m talking multiple huge fried pork chops per person, etc, but no spending money. It should cost even less to feed seniors, though I’d worry about the diet becoming too inflammatory.
You’ll just end up like China with millions of undocumented children, mostly women. Children who are local get to go to school as long as they are registered to live with a local family, so there is no impediment there. Also you will have tremendous flouting of the law unless you create a perfect sterilizing agent that is reversible and deploy it en masse.
Is this actually an unpopular opinion? For sure horrible like all things in war, but I understand that the alternative was an invasion with a hell of a lot more casualties.
No cause if we invaded japan how would we scare the soviet union?!! Those japanese children whose entire families were burnt to a crisp in nuclear holocaust were needed in order to scare big bad communism
Wait, what do you mean the soviets stole the nuclear secrets from us?!! What what do you mean that France figured out the creation of nuclear weapons all on their own?? The freakin zionists have them too?!!!
Dw, this isn’t an unpopular opinion, OP is just the most intelligent democrat voter
The imminent threat of an invasion (assembled in staging area and ready to go) could have been tried before. It would have been very costly, but would have been necessary anyway for an actual invasion if the nuclear bombs didn’t cause a surrender (there was a coup attempt to prevent it, so it was never a sure thing even with the bombs).
Yes. Unlike ground war, two entire metro full of people were killed and countless more suffered long term damages. Whatever the strategic value, this isn’t a decision that I find ethical in any way.
It did less damage than the firebombings and in the end probably took less life than prolonged war, the first was absolutely justified. The second is debatable.
Add comment