Well sure, but the fediverse is nowhere near that ubiquitous.

I wouldn’t attribute malice for… not using the same protocol others are? And the unnecessary work is posting on Bluesky too instead of just the fediverse?

Twitter was never part of the fediverse, so moving to Bluesky, even though it’s not on the same protocol, is still a step in the right direction. They’re not taking anything away from the fediverse… Well, they might be taking some users away because they’ve hit the critical mass of userbase to let people see what they want to see instead of the one-size-fits-all Linux Star Trek Leftism blend we’ve got over here, but people who are tired of that would be leaving Lemmy eventually anyways.

Not sure if your information is outdated or if you’re using a different definition of federate, but this blog post says they have support for a degree of federation: https://bsky.social/about/blog/02-22-2024-open-social-web

As for dealing with other people, it’s subjective. If they’re not satisfied with your answer, it’s an excuse to them.

To be a bit more specific, I’d say there are two factors at play, which are of course hard for the other person to judge, especially if they’re a manager not involved in the task itself:

• If you can reasonably perform the task as expected despite the obstacle, it’s probably an excuse. If you can’t, it’s almost certainly a valid reason.
• If you wanted to perform the task as expected, then something that caused you to not do so is likely a valid reason. If you didn’t want to, then you’re more likely to be using an excuse.

Of course, it also depends on the priority level of the task. If your sibling asks for a glass of water and you get them a mug because there are no glasses in the cabinet, those stakes are low enough that it’s a valid reason even though you could have checked the dishwasher or washed a glass yourself.

Getoutofmyheadgetoutofmyheadgetoutofmyheadgetoutofmyheadgetoutofmyheadgetoutofmyheadgetoutofmyhead

Sir! Excuse me, sir!

For 1, that’s why you say “Format your answer in this exact sentence: The number of bytes required (rounded up) is exactly # bytes., where # is the number of bytes.” And then regex for that sentence. What could go wrong?

Also, it can do math somewhat consistently if you let it show its work, but I still wouldn’t rely on it as a cog in code execution. It’s not nearly reliable enough for that.

The long-awaited sequel to “how to spot a polymorphed dragon.”

Yeah, me neither. The place looks like it might have been cool when I was a kid, though.

LSA

It got reuploaded here, didn’t it?

Yes. I believe this is what the SCP committee would call a memetic hazard.

Actually I was just being passive aggressive at you for the bit. But it’s totally understandable that you didn’t notice.

I like how you needed to demonstrate that you know what passive aggression is.

Fast food social media. Nice term there.

Anyways, I don’t see why this has to be a matter of high privilege vs. low privilege. There’s definitely a correlation, but depressed rich people and happy poor people aren’t uncommon. Also, not all questions of positivity vs. negativity are in contexts that relate to privilege. It could be about the direction of a media series, for example, which is where I’ve heard it misused.

Actually I would call that aggressive passive, because it’s very upfront and aggressive, but in a not actually very aggressive way.

Not tone deaf, just… doesn’t really make sense in context.

Every time I see the phrase “toxic positivity” my first instinct to contest it, because my first experiences with the phrase were a misapplication (that being positive is somehow toxic,) but so far on Lemmy, I’ve only seen it used in ways that make sense (the toxic expectation that others will be exclusively positive.)

Don’t worry, Mr. Mofu, I’ve got this argument covered for you. Ahem…

*always