Unless it dives with you in its mouth.

The 4 freedoms of open source per RMS apparently dont include calling your project whatever you want to call it. You have to run that past him.

Sometimes games ship updates that mess with the game. I have over 20,000 hours in WoW. But my play habits from over almost 2 decades ago don’t reflect the current quality of the game.

And some people compulsively play games they don’t enjoy because “once I get to the next thing, it will finally be fun!” And maybe this person had an awakening and realized that they will never get there… Or after this amount of time had a drastic change of heart.

And some people leave games open when they aren’t playing.

I’m not saying this is normal or necessarily healthy, but it’s not unfeasible.

One of my (otherwise random) WoW guild members had my grandma as his kindergarten teacher.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P68HWtN4zG8

In Deep Geek always has the deep answers to LotR questions like this.

If I’m going to be an optimist, the post says “People didn’t previously get diagnosed because a bad upbringing is just abuse and not diagnosis” and this person is saying “with a good upbringing, you get help with diagnosis instead of abuse.” No joke involved. just “The secret to not having miserable kids is not abusing them.”

Obviously the negative take would be “Abusing your child until they behave ‘normal’ is a good upbringing because it ‘helps’ them blend in”

Which one was it? 🤷 Poe’s law kinda means it’s impossible to know if this is sarcasm or not. I’m not about to go digging through someone’s post history to find out their attitude on the topic.

For a purely semantic sake, you’re probably right. But for a colloquial sake, the term “valid” here, doesn’t mean “legally valid” or “medically valid”, but instead means “emotionally valid.” For some people, confirmation is therapeutic enough to help. Also “diagnosis” doesn’t exclusively mean “medical diagnosis”. There are many definitions to the word, and in a medical sense, it usually means what you’re describing. But “I think I have ADHD” is a diagnosis. Not a medically valid one, but something that might help me get through the day sometimes. And if that’s all I need, then it’s emotionally valid.

Being told “your self diagnosis is not valid” to some people is the same as being told “There’s nothing wrong with you.” (Because most people aren’t working on a strict legal medical definition of “diagnosis”) Emotionally validating your assessment that something is wrong can very well be what drives people to advocate for a medically valid diagnosis.

Also, saying “You don’t have ADHD unless it’s diagnosed ADHD” is wrong regardless of stance on self diagnosis. If my arm is broken, it is in fact broken, even if it hasn’t been diagnosed. Undiagnosed issues are still issues. Too many anti-self diagnosis claims come across as saying that if you don’t have a diagnosis it doesn’t exist. At most you can claim “You don’t know for sure you have ADHD unless it’s medically diagnosed”

As with all things, a self evaluation is a useful “what do I do next” step.

You’re right. There are multiple definitions of the word stable, and “unchanging” is a valid one of them.

It’s just that every where else I’ve seen it in computing, it refers to a build of something being not-crashy enough to actually ship. “Can’t be knocked over” sort of stability. And everyone I’ve ever talked to outside of Lemmy has assumed that was what “stable” meant to Debian. but it doesn’t. It just means “versions won’t change so you won’t have version compatibility issues, but you’ll also be left with several month to year old software that wasn’t even up to date when this version released, but at least you don’t have to think about the compatibility issues!”

Debian aims for rock solid stability

To be clear, Debian “stability” refers to “unchanging packages”, not “doesn’t crash.” Debian would rather ship a known bug for a year than update the package if it’s not explicitly a security bug (and then only certain packages).

So if you have a crash in Debian, you will always have that crash until the next version of debian a year or so from now. That’s not what I’d consider “stable” but rather “consistent”

You’re right, it’s very likely he wasn’t intending to use a slur. But it seems to me like a lot of the reporting is “he didn’t mean to disrespect people!” when that’s not the case. The pope’s intentions were absolutely to disrespect people, just by his actions, and not by that specific word. the specific phrasing he used to do so doesn’t really matter.

the pope had made the remark while reiterating his position against gay people becoming priests.

It doesn’t matter what word he used, he was using it in an anti LGBT sentiment.

The 87-year-old pontiff was reported as saying that the Catholic seminaries were already too full of … gay men.

Here, I removed the slur. This isn’t any better. Italian fluency wasn’t the problem and didn’t change his argument.