Personally I love oranges but cant stand orange juice.

  • JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    I wish it was socially acceptable to interest-dump someone and for them to do the same to you.

    Just getting a 5-10 minute lecture deep into a topic that someone is passionate about is fun and educational! Much better than trying to make small talk or talk about the 3 common topics at your workplace (at mine it is local tv, energy spending/taxes, and cars), which is often sports. Then you get to learn about other people’s interests too!

  • Leather@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    2 days ago

    Pancakes are fragile narcissists. You need a WHOLE FUCKING INTERNATIONAL HOUSE TO SLAKE YOUR EGO, YOU THIRSTY, PATHETIC BREAKFAST FOOD!!

    You’re nothing, nothing, compared to the waffle!

  • benni@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    Many programming languages allow “trailing commas”:

    my_list = [ 1, 2, 3, ]
    

    This is wonderful because you can treat the last element like the previous ones instead of having to make an exception. I use it all the time, even when it provides no benefit, and I think we should even start allowing it in natural language.

  • ThatGuy46475@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    If you’ve never worked on a holiday you shouldn’t be allowed to go to stores and restaurants on holidays.

  • Ginny [they/she]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    3 days ago

    Steak is overrated. I’d take a smash burger over a steak 9 times out of 10, and that 1 time out of 10 will just be because I’m in the mood for peppercorn sauce.

  • Quilotoa@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    Can Americans just switch their spelling back to standard English, please? Why do we have to have two systems of spelling just because the U.S. wanted to be different?

  • paraplu@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    Oranges are the worst kind of orange. They taste quite good, but if I need to use tools to eat it, I want something at least as good as a grapefruit.

  • Rooty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 days ago

    Deck PCs combine the worst of both worlds, they are too cumbersome to be a proper handheld, and too underpowered to compete with desktop PCs.

  • teuto@lemmy.teuto.icu
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    100
    ·
    4 days ago

    Decimate means 1/10th destroyed, lost, whatever. I don’t care that the dictionary says that meaning is obsolete. I get that the meaning of words changes over time, but it has the prefix deci. 1/10th. You don’t get to decide something that starts with 1/10th means near total even if it’s a scary sounding word.

    This is my anthill and I’m dying here.

    • DagwoodIII@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      4 days ago

      I read a Matt Helm spy thriller where the hero knows that his boss has been replaced by a double because the real guy would never use ‘decimate’ to mean ‘eradicate.’

    • railway692@piefed.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      4 days ago

      Does English have sufficiently scary words that are also etymologically correct?

      A population being halvsied just doesn’t hit the same, you know?

    • TheDoozer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 days ago

      My biggest gripe about it is that it should mean sacrificing a tenth (or a small portion) in order to preserve the whole.

      So many words that mean completely destroy, and we have to make the one meaning specifically not that to also mean completely destroy. The language is weaker for it.

    • SSTF@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      My personal gripe in this area is people misusing “objectively”.

      Such as declaring that a certain movie or game is objectively good.

      • DagwoodIII@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 days ago

        If an art work has been popular for years, has won dozens of awards, is used by experts as an example of excellence, isn’t it ‘objectively’ good?

        I understand your point, that a person might not like a particular movie or game and therefore think it’s ‘not good.’

        I’m saying that even when you’re talking about a subjective experience there are criteria that a disinterested party can rate and successful or unsuccessful.

        • SSTF@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          If an art work has been popular for years, has won dozens of awards, is used by experts as an example of excellence, isn’t it ‘objectively’ good?

          If I don’t like that piece of art, am I wrong? Am I objectively incorrect of the opinions inside my own head?

          Lots of people dislike award winning movies, songs, and games. Are those people measurably wrong? No. The plural of subjective opinions is not an objective one.

          • DagwoodIII@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 days ago

            You can dislike something, and still appreciate its merits.

            Say I get a bowl of broccoli soup. Is the bowl clean? Is the soup the right temperature? Was it made with wholesome ingredients? I may not want it because I don’t like broccoli, but I wouldn’t tell someone else not to try it.

            Objectively, it’s a good bowl of soup.

            See?

            • SSTF@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              4 days ago

              If a piece of art was created 100 years ago and every professional critic of the time thought it was trash without any merit, and then 100 years later the critical reception of that same piece had changed and it was considered a piece of high art, is that piece of art objectively good? Objectively bad? Was it objectively bad 100 years ago and then somehow became good?

              • DagwoodIII@piefed.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 days ago

                Good point.

                But, unless you’re talking about a hypothetical situation where the art was hidden away and rediscovered, the work must have had some merit or it wouldn’t have lasted 100 years.

                • SSTF@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 days ago

                  If an art work has been popular for years, has won dozens of awards, is used by experts as an example of excellence, isn’t it ‘objectively’ good?

                  In this earlier definition looking for objective merit, it leans heavily on professional opinion. If a small number of individuals not thinking a work that is “objectively good” is good doesn’t change that, then the opposite must also be true. Therefore, if we have a situation where the critical consensus is that a work is bad, and only a small number of people think it is good, then we have a piece of art that is “objectively bad” by using the critical standards, but which is held onto by a small number of people who disagree.

                  At the top of this discussion I didn’t define “art” merely as visual pieces (I actually used examples of movie and games). So that art could be anything expressive- music, books, plays, movies, games, and beyond. I can think of art and artists not appreciated in their time, and then over time critical perception turned around.

                  This is all a long way of saying critical opinions are at the end of the day still opinions. That’s why even critics disagree with each other.

            • Oascany@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              Bringing it back to the previous point: if I tried that bowl of soup and I didn’t like it, am I objectively incorrect? I found it to be a bad bowl of broccoli soup because I like my broccoli soup a certain way.

          • bizarroland@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 days ago

            I feel like when it comes to judging an artwork, saying that something is objectively good does actually mean “for the majority”, because there is no singular point of absolute goodness to compare it to.

            So even if there’s a little leeway in the definition of “objectively” that doesn’t necessarily mean that the statement is wrong.

            • SSTF@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              4 days ago

              saying that something is objectively good does actually mean “for the majority”, because there is no singular point of absolute goodness to compare it to.

              I agree completely that people use it like this.