Honestly, set an alarm clock for when you have to get off, this way you won’t miss it.

makes sense. i was just saying that there’s no easily visible satellite view on the webpage.

Electrical – OpenStreetMap straight-up maps the global electrical grid. It’s incomplete, but the tools are there, and there’s a lot already done. By helping this, you’re creating an open dataset in an area that’s otherwise often extremely opaque. Your data may be the literal best open data that exists.

I wonder whether this is even legal. Like, in some places, there is intentionally no public information about infrastructure available to make military targeted operations by other countries more difficult. Like, if a neighboring country knows exactly where your vulnerable infrastructure is, they have an easier time aiming for it. I think that it’s not so clear to me whether mapping critical infrastructure on a publicly available database is even legal.

when i open openstreetmap.org, click on edit, i see this:

it’s different for everyone. for me it’s 6-8 hours, but some days i sleep all day long

The thing that has always bothered me about OSM is that it’s just so weirdly done.

Like, a lot of information could simply be pulled from government databases. Yet OSM doesn’t seem to do that, often leaving out information that should be publicly available.

Then there’s the very weird thing that they don’t have any satellite view? I mean, one of the advantages of OSM should be that any kind of data can be added by motivated individuals. I don’t get why things like topographic map, weather map, and all other kinds of map aren’t already integrated … i wanted to do it myself but i found the whole structure of the project confusing, so i left it be.

Then what i don’t get is what exactly is the aim of the project? Like, what is the status of integration with navigation apps? I still can’t simply search for a public transport connection in my city with OSM. Is there any plan to allow that at all? Is it even encouraged? Why is there nobody talking about this at all?

in my personal experience, attraction has little to do with gender and much more to do with personality. if i just don’t vibe with the other person, it doesn’t matter whether they’re male/female, i can’t get with them. It has literally nothing to do with gender. everything with mindset. ok i admit it, the body does play a role, but not 100%.

I think i would be mostly proud of myself. I did a lot of things right, but recently i keep asking myself the question “would i want to spend time with myself”? Like if there was a perfect clone of myself, same mindset, same body, same everything, would i like them?

Most of my life, the answer has been “Yes”. Now, i’m starting to respond to it with “no”, actually not. I’m just not the kind of person myself that i myself would like to be around; ironically that’s what makes me more popular among other people, it seems. So i’ve traded liking to be around myself to others liking to be around me. I still like myself, but i wouldn’t wanna be with another version of myself, if that makes sense. Of some things, there better exist only one of it, if you know what i mean.

I wonder where they are going to since it is famous that only the Americas really accept immigrants.

ehh, i tend to think that there’s meaning in a lot of jokes

huh i think that’s a good explanation actually. i’ve had similar thoughts myself but didn’t have the words for it so i called it “sexism II” (which you call “sex positivity”) to differentiate it from “sexism I” (sexism). It might be silly but i didn’t know how else to express myself.

I also think that it’s noteworthy that the “reduction to a function” is something that happened to basically everyone in 1960, not just to women. Men were just as much “reduced” to being the “breadwinner”, which is a function as well. I think that’s not talked about as much because men don’t tend to talk about “being reduced to a function” as much. Some kind of “society forbids to complain” or sth.

hmm yeah i’ve a bit of trouble with the whole concept of “objectifying” because what does that really mean?

in my view, people are always both objects and subjects at the same time. it’s like people have a body and a mind at the same time, because only having 1 of the 2 would be pointless.

you know what, fuck you, we can’t have nice things because of people like you, i hope you suffer in the puritanical hell that you deserve to be in

3 … 2 … 1 … before it causes a shitstorm about sexualizing women

in many languages, vocals (a, e, i, u, o) carry emotion, consonants (k, r, t, l, m, n, …) carry meaning.

how is this worth a post?

my cat says she wants another snack

it shouldn’t be called K-shaped because we’re very much not “OK”.

it should be called r-shaped where the “r” stands for republican but also for ruin.

yeah, so what’s the solution?

“boomers have all the wealth” is something that younger people post on social media to have some group to hate on to feel better about their own situation. it’s not actually true. most boomers are about as wealthy or poor as you’d expect a normal person to be, some built some wealth a few decades ago when wages were still high, some are broke.

in small rural communities, there’s often only one political organization. i’ve been there, i’ve seen it. i wanted to vote left but guess what, they don’t even run. and those that do are fringe groups with no connections.