I had a better relationship with forgiveness when I started thinking about it being for my benefit.
Being angry at or hating someone is hard, takes mental energy, and is stressful. Letting that go can be a huge relief.
...and there is no reason to forgive someone if doing so would be self-destructive or potentially harmful to you in other ways.
Why though
They are trying to develope enough dependency on them that they could stop being open source and the majority of browsers and websites dependent on their development just fold and allow google to control the internet.
Big companies only let stuff be open source in order to rugpull it if and when it would allow them to be successfully anticompetitive.
Corpse:water sounds like it would be a calorie free carbonated vodka drink that my sister "likes".
I just love how America has become the political symbol for "the worst of both worlds". I just love living with no privacy with random freedoms infringed, and also where any random person could decide to gun me down in the street with no great difficulties.
Well that would explain why there isn't a general use community only instance. Honestly that feels like a feature that should exist, while still leaving "local only" as an instance setting for people who like it that way.
Still seems odd for instances with a specific set of premade communities with new ones disabled to worry about hosting accounts, like the startrek one.
I kind of expected some people to start instances for mostly just making accounts (some of which I have seen), and for other people to make instances just for community hosting and disallow account creation (and afaik this hasn't been done to any appreciable degree). I'm not sure this is even possible or functionally useful with the way lemmy currently works for community creation and stuff, so maybe that's why it didn't happen.
Honestly I even expected some instances to pop up with the sole intent and purpose of serving one community, but even stuff like the startrek instance have account creation available.
Maybe it's because lemmy is so new for people. Niche instances would rather host accounts than scare users away in an effort to get them to sign up elsewhere.
This is probably one of the most insane things I've ever said but its like the Mario and Luigi of terrifying climate charts from 2023
Probably heat, maybe timed doors, timed food, or something like that.
This is silly though, isn't it? Most people think most things that they disagree with are low quality by nature of being something they disagree with.
Whatever was intended for them, IMO upvotes and downvotes work because everyone just uses them however they want, and the sum total of everyone doing that averages out to a somewhat passable quality sorting system. Trying to tell people how to use their upvotes and downvotes is just yelling into the wind.
You are being downvoted because crypto is volatile, untrustworthy, and the favorite tool in the last 30 years of scammers and swindlers. Even if you described it perfectly, talking about it like it like it isn't a reprehensible thing will and should draw negative attention from people who know better than to tolerate con artists and their enthusiastic marks.
But again, exactly like how the big players happily maniuplate the stock market willfully for furthering their own goals and increasing their value, how does any of what you said provide any confidence for me or anyone else that people with dominant amounts of the currency can't cooperatively and subtly push it's value up or down as it suits their needs? I don't care either way personally, I wouldn't get involved with crypto with someone else's money if I was paid to do it. But idk why crypto people would trust this after the whole point was supposed to be a trustless system
Its like a ransom if the stakes were as low as possible. They hold your state of non-annoyance hostage and ask for a negligible amount for it so no one gets emotionally involved in this exchange regardless of whether or not they wanna pay the ransom. Instead of subterfuge or the threat of violence they "get away with it" by nature of being generally inconsequential.
All this to say, seeing as you payed the "ransom", I would personally describe you as more bothered by ads than anyone else. Not a value judgement, just an observation.
In order of least to most bothered by ads, doesn't it make sense to assume
People who watch ads (unbothered)
People who install adblockers (somewhat bothered)
People that pay money to remove ads (extremely bothered)