I understand that our local galaxy group is considered "gravitationally bound" and therefore exempt from the expansion from each other (((, but we don't seem to have other galaxies collected into their own "local groups" of gravitationally bound clusters, so are we saying we're somehow unique? Is there a trick of perception taking place?))) <---edit:this is wrong

I found this quote in the Wikipedia article on the Expansion of the universe.

While objects cannot move faster than light, this limitation applies only with respect to local reference frames and does not limit the recession rates of cosmologically distant objects.

It seems to me that if we can perceive at cosmological distance something that cannot exist, perhaps we are falsely observing an expanding universe. Maybe everything IS gravitationally bound and we're just seeing expansion because... Relativity?

When I was a kid, like a real little kid, I remember having this one song I liked a lot about a guy trying to deal with getting wedgies at school. I remember almost nothing about it now, other than the guy eventually finds that Fruit of the Loom brand underwear has stretchy enough elastic to make the wedges painless. (This song is the reason I kept bugging my parents to get me Fruit of the Loom brand underwear instead of other brands.)

Now I can't seem to find the song. The only reason I know it existed is because my parents also remember my weird brand loyalty to Fruit of the Loom because of that song. Can any of you guys help me find the underwear song that defined my childhood?

Since whales are teaming up with each other to take down yachts and teaching others how to do it I thought this would be a fun question.

If a majority of intelligent enough sea animals that could communicate with each other teamed up to mess with human activities in the sea who would win.

By the way for people that say that humans would obviously win we have already lost a war against emus before.

~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~

Are CompTIA certifications still a viable way to get back into IT? I left the workforce at the start of 2020 to be a stay at home and I'm wanting to get recertified so I have options if I want to reenter the workforce.

Thoughts?

As a follow-up, is there signs that the internet/technology may play a role in making a better society for all?

Body positivity is such a strange concept to me. There's efforts to reclaim words while simultaneously calling them bad if used as an insult. Ideally, people wouldn't be offended by someone describing their body with common descriptors, but socially there is so much value attributed to certain body types that it's almost impossible to avoid having an emotional response of some kind to various descriptors.

For example, It's not bad to be fat, but calling someone "fat" is almost universally considered a bad thing. The same definitely seems to go for the idea of being "short."

I'm asking this question because I can't put my finger on why but something seems to be different about the use of the term "short" from the use of the term "fat." I think that part of it is how, to me at least, the term "fat" is so generic and hard to nail down to a discrete definition, implying that the word really doesn't have a clear connection to reality. On the other hand, height is a single-dimensional number. You either are above a certain threshold, or you aren't.

I recently learned that May 6th to May 10th is "short king week" because it's 5'6" to 5'10" which then prompted me to search for the origins of "short king" and apparently the person most-credited with popularizing the term is Jaboukie Young-White who claims the term was meant to include all men under 6 feet tall. The average adult male height is 5'9" leaving men considered roughly average to be called "short" which is still considered an insult by many.

I dunno. As a term that was intended to champion body positivity compared with how the term is actually used, what do you think of "short king?"

So in the whole anti-natalism/pro-natalism conversation (which I'm mostly agnostic/undecided on, currently), my friend who is a pro-natalist, argued that the success/stability of our world economy is dependent on procreating more children each year than the previous year, so that we not only replace the numbers of the people who existed from the previous generation (and some, to account for the statistical likelihood that many won't have children or will be sterile or die young etc), but also ensure that the population keeps growing in order to produce more and more human labor to "pay back the debts" of previous generations, because all money is borrowed from somewhere else... this is all very murky to me and I wish someone could explain it better.

She is also of the view that this will inevitably lead to population collapse/societal/civilisation collapse because we live on a finite Earth with finite resources that can't keep sustaining more humans & human consumption (and are nearing critical environmental crises), but that there isn't any other option than to keep producing more children because a declining population wouldn't be able to support itself economically either. Basically the idea seems to be that economically & societally we're on a collision course for self-destruction but the only thing we can do is keep going and making increasingly more of ourselves to keep it running (however that as individuals, we should be plant-based & minimalist to reduce our impact to the environment, non-human animals and humans for as long as possible). And she is worried about the fact that fertility rates are falling & slated to reach a population peak followed by a decline in the relatively near future.

As I said I'm not sure how I feel about this view but at first glance I think that the effect of having fewer children in providing relief upon the environment and helping safeguard our future is more important than preserving the economy because destroying the actual planet and life itself seems worse than economic downturns/collapses, but I really don't know enough about economics to say for certain.

I'm working on a side project studying variations in human facial features. It's been helpful to study celebrity faces because it's easy to find numerous reference photos. I've actually got a fairly good range of weird looking white men, turns out Hollywood is pretty flush with those, but it's been harder to find unique looking women or darker skinned people of any gender! Idk if I just don't know as many actors in those demographics, or if it's just harder to break into Hollywood as a weird looking person without also being white and male, but it's probably some combination of the two.

What're y'alls suggestions?

I'm thinking seriously about getting Google out of my life, and trying NextCloud.

Looking to get a personal account through a managed provider.

Does anyone have any experience with it?

How does it compare to ownCloud?

Any hosts I should look at or avoid?

Any apps I should get for it, or avoid?

Any issues I should be aware of before I switch?

@asklemmy #NextCloud #OpenSource #Linux #Cloud

For example, I have kept the habit of washing my hands with soap, first thing when I come home.

Currently I'm using #, but it causes issues with certain applications.

Example:

#Top Folder
Games
Music
New Folder
Pics

Currently using mostly Windows, but trying to transition to Linux, so a solution that works for both would be perfect.

Thanks, Lemmy!

What I mean is: some boolean flags are perfect for the real world phenomenon they are representing e.g. is_light_on makes you understand perfectly that when it is true the light is on and when it is false the light is off.

There are other cases in which if you didn't write the code and you don't read any additional documentation, everything is not clear just by looking at the variable name e.g. is_person_standing, when true it's clear what that means but when false, is the person sitting? Lying? Kneeling?

I'm obviously not talking about cases in which there are more states, boolean would of course not be a good solution in those cases. I'm talking about programs in which there are only two states but it's not obvious, without external knowledge, which ones they are.

It’s annoying seeing the same headlines numerous times linking to same stuff because it’s cross posted to 3+ instances.

Is there a setting to reduce that or app that handles that well?

For me : Trippie Redd's "!" Is actually a great album

Most entries in lemmy's RSS feed have a that points to the relevant lemmy post eg

Title: Any DE or distro without touch support?
Author: https://lemmy.ml/u/tarius
Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 01:24:59 AEST
Feed: Lemmy - linux
Link: https://lemmy.ml/post/15632012

That makes sense - clicking the link takes me to the conversation.

Other entries however, include a link to the subject of the conversation eg

Title: Wayland usage has overtaken X11
Author: https://lemmy.world/u/KISSmyOSFeddit
Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 03:30:46 AEST
Feed: Lemmy - linux
Link: https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/a71c1b49-fb63-420d-8afc-d40661ffd79c.png

The feed I'm using is https://lemmy.ml/feeds/c/linux.xml

This is unfortunate as clicking the link in my reader (elfeed) does not show the conversation - I rely on the to take me there.

elfeed being built in elisp in emacs, I have been able to concoct a fix especially for lemmy - but it really feels like a bug in lemmy as no other feed needs it. Where can I report it or discuss it?