abfarid

joined 2 years ago
[–] abfarid@startrek.website 11 points 1 week ago

I don't think the point of their comment was "poor people shouldn't have luxuries". Stupid actions are stupid, regardless. But when a rich person buys a sports car it's just regular stupid, and when somebody spends their entire savings on a sports car and starves later, that's extra stupid, because priorities. Everybody is free to do whatever, but it's important to admit when we do something stupid.

[–] abfarid@startrek.website 2 points 2 weeks ago

Sorry that I neglected your comment, but my response to the neighboring comment applies here as well.

[–] abfarid@startrek.website 2 points 2 weeks ago

I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's definitely not as "backhanded" as the other one. In fact, that "compliment", especially in the context of the meme, implies they didn't realize the person is transgender until it was somehow pointed out explicitly, because of the whole "wow, you're trans?" part.

[–] abfarid@startrek.website 3 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I kinda see your point, but I think context is important here. For many trans people, part of transitioning includes working toward presenting as their identified gender, and that process can take time and effort. So when someone says "you look good for a trans man/woman", in a clumsy way, it might be meant as recognition of that effort, like saying, “you look exactly how you hoped to". Which is completely different from automatically assuming that all women are stupid for being women.

[–] abfarid@startrek.website 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (8 children)

Isn't this about "you look good for a trans man/woman"?

"You're smart for a woman" is just straight up sexist and demeaning, while the former "compliment", maybe not as flattering to some as the giver intends, does not imply any prejudice.

[–] abfarid@startrek.website 5 points 2 weeks ago

Due to some ancient meme I can only see this gif with MGS alert music in my head.

[–] abfarid@startrek.website 2 points 2 weeks ago

Now that's husband-attracting outfit!

[–] abfarid@startrek.website 4 points 2 weeks ago

Dang, you're still posting? I haven't seen these for months.
Probably because I rarely scroll below 100 upvotes on Top...

[–] abfarid@startrek.website 1 points 2 weeks ago

What's the origin of that background? I've seen it on a couple of posts lately.

[–] abfarid@startrek.website 24 points 2 weeks ago

He will also never attract a husband.

[–] abfarid@startrek.website 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I saw list item 1 more as "I want my phone to last for 5+ years, so I will want to replace my battery eventually", rather than "I wanna wreck my battery fast, so it better be replaceable". Being wasteful with your battery like that goes against the spirit of Fairphone, IMO.

[–] abfarid@startrek.website 1 points 2 weeks ago

2.5 years isn't that long to evaluate battery degradation IMO, and as you said, you mostly don't even push your battery that hard. And the article even seems to imply that faster charging does impact battery life, it's just that manufacturers consider 100w a sweet-spot between charging speed and battery degradation.

view more: ‹ prev next ›