As others have said, time. Also, the realization and repeated internal reminders to yourself that they were not who you thought they were.

It’s very easy to build up someone in your head to be better than they are and to fill in the gaps with positive assumptions, especially when you’re crushing on them. You have to realize that those fuzzy feelings were in your head. The feelings weren’t based off reality, and they obviously weren’t the same feelings in that person’s head. At the very least, those feelings weren’t based off the full person, because you didn’t know them fully.

The version of them you liked didn’t exist, because that version wouldn’t be (in this specific case) homophobic, ableist, hating special needs students, and making fun of you behind your back.

Yes, it may hurt to remind yourself of the reasoms they are shit, but it’ll hurt less than allowing yourself to pine for a “what could have been” that was based off a version of them that only existed in your head.

Glad a hothead like you is on the road so much. His insurance did what they’re supposed to do and your insurance did what it’s supposed to do.

Sounds like you should have pushed them for some therapy, because you’re right that the motorcyclist’s completely at fault. But his lawyer’s BS really shouldn’t be sticking with you like this.

Do you seriously think lawyers don’t pull that kind of shit in every possible case? I’ve got a relative who’s a public defender. Compared to some of what he can tell, that’s absolute beginner level stuff. Of course they’re going to reach for every bit they can, including your logs, fair or unfair. That’s their fucking job, and why most people hate lawyers. Prosecution’s purpose is to arrange every possible shred of anything they can grasp at that might convince the jury you have even a grain of culpability.

If you’re looking for more dystopian fiction classics, I highly reccomend Fahrenheit 451 (especially if you can find it with the afterword from the author that includes an extra scene he wrote a number of years after the book came out that is between the fire chief and the main character) and Brave New World.

I feel that together with 1984, they cover a wide variety of causes and methodologies of dystopia, which is useful because no one book is going to cover everything. 451 features a society that has effectively entertained itself into the state we find it in, masses desiring and ultimately pushing for the suppression of emotionally upsetting information long before the start of the story. Brave New World features a carefully engineered society where reproduction and ultimately the upper limit of a person’s lifetime ability are carefully constructed and engineered, where sex has been divorced from intimacy, and people are on strict drug regimens to regulate emotion and thought.

They still effect visibility under most post sorting options, lower scored things display lower. Matters in a minor way for scrolling through the subscribed feed.

Thank you for making content!

People have been calling 1984 prescient to the current time since at least the 1980s.

And everyone knows my personal theories of how those in power are planning to screw us over are the only valid theory. My mom said I am a very clever boy.

More seriously, I don’t think you’re wrong, but leaning on the authority of 1984 is bound to draw some banter.

I think part of the issue is that a lot of people who are aware of this know that it’s been happening for a lot longer than since Trump’s first election, and it’s not specifically a right wing takeover. It’s an overall consolidation of power into the hands of an ultra-wealthy few, and right wing is currently the most advantageous position for them to take.

This particular video is from 2018, a year into Trump’s first term, and it shows a large amount of local news stations that were believed to be spread across the political spectrum (at least for US run stations) all reciting the same exact script.

But the movements of Rupert Murdoch, or the Sinclair Media group, or iHeartRadio, or any of the many number of conglomerates didn’t just crop up overnight purely under right wing situations to support right wing movement.

Unless you really think Trump’s first election was some 5D chess thing, he was catching flak from all sides. Before that, the news media gave incredibly kind coverage to Obama’s involvement in the Middle East, his use of drones, his moves to further the rights granted to the US government and intelligence agencies through the Patriot act (started under Dubya, but expanded under Obama), the construction of illegal immigration centers during his tenure… the list goes on for him like it does for most Presidents.

The screws have been tighening for decades, this isn’t something shockingly new to present day, we’re just approaching critical mass.

While I’d prefer no AI assistance, I think it’s reasonable that a dev say “I do this shit for free. I have this amount of experience and I’m reviewing all it suggests and does thoroughly. Accept it or don’t use the software.”

Like I agree with the slop question, but for fucks sake at least try to have some bare minimum respect when talking with the people making something you use for free.

Personally, my issue (and it’s a fucking huge one in my opinion) is the spiteful removal of stating under future commit authorship when it’s used.

The specific commits effected should reasonably have extra scrutiny from other contributors and the community, regardless of your opinions about AI and related morality. Removal of it from commit authorship makes that impossible.

It also makes it that much more difficult for people to be aware that AI was used, which takes away the option of informed choice from users. Not ok.

As evidence: How the fuck is a company as big as Microsoft letting their CEO keep making such embarassing public statements? How the fuck has he not been forced into more public speaking training by the board?

This is like the 4th “gaffe” of his since the start of the year!

You don’t usually need “social permission” to do something good. Mentioning that is at best, publicly stating that you think you know what’s best for society (and they don’t). I think the more direct interpretation is that you’re openly admitting you’re doing the type of thing that you should have asked permission for, but didn’t.

This is past the point of open desperation.