What are your blocking habits?

I made it through nearly two years and eventually caved after I made the mistake of arguing in favor of the truth, supported by video evidence and a fact check from an internationally recognized fact-checking organization only to be told to “fuck off”, a second user said that they enjoyed pissing on my shoe(s) in their personal fight against truth, and some other catastrophically braindead takes. I generally don’t like the blocking approach for opinions I don’t agree with because everyone has differing views and also people have bad days and that’s just life. However, being actively hostile to the truth and being extremely confrontational about it was a bridge too far for me and it was either blocking a few mouldy potatoes in an attempt to keep things tolerable or getting off the threadi/fediverse so I decided to give the former a whirl.

If you do block a lot of people, has that affected your experience?

Thankfully haven’t felt the need to block many, so the only thing I’ve really noticed is that occasionally one of the blocked users comments in the thread for something I’ve submitted (which I don’t get a notification for and can’t see) - but then someone unrelated replies to them and then I get a notification for a comment chain which I can’t actually load. It took me a while to even figure out why I was getting these “ghost” notifications.

If you don’t have enough GPU power to meet your heating needs, there’s a capital cost to get more (and depending on your existing setup, likely even more capital costs for other components to be able to run it in a separate system).

I think the implied point of comparison is (edit: e.g.,) heat pumps, which are effectively more than 100% efficient (as mentioned elsewhere in the thread), making ~100% efficiency relatively inefficient by comparison.

It’s not the intended effect, but this just made me sad:

That really matters. Not because the internet is the most important issue facing us today. Far from it. Compared with the climate emergency, genocide, inequality, corruption, democratic backsliding, authoritarianism and sustained racist, homophobic, misogynist and transphobic attacks, the internet is just a sideshow. But the internet is the terrain upon which these fights will be waged. It is the communications medium we will use to organise to save our species and planet from their imminent eradication. We can’t win these fights without a free, fair and open internet.

It’s become increasingly difficult to imagine the sort of wide-scale change needed to achieve that vision actually happening.

Tribalism is a hell of a drug

Sorely missing a com/mag/sub/your-preferred-jargon-word for theocho right now

The loss brainrot has taken another victim 😔

the kbin.social domain expires in a few days, on 10 September

Looks like someone might’ve bought the domain?

It doesn’t count when you have to change the headline

The Rules

Posts must be:

1. Links to news stories from…
2. …credible sources, with…
3. …their original headlines, that…
4. …would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Poor proton-Earth, barely mentioned at all :'(

Thanks for letting us know that your conviction is just performative shoe-pissing.

Okay, in do-or-die wartime I can accept some suppression of the truth.

If you genuinely believe the situation in the US is so bad and analogous to wartime that it’s worth spreading and supporting lies for the sake of “winning” then you need to stop wasting your time commenting on nottheonion posts and go figure out how to win. At the very least don’t waste time talking to people like me who spend time on truth, set up an automated posting farm and flood the entire internet with anti-Trump propaganda with no attention wasted on what’s true or otherwise ethical or moral.

If it’s not that bad and you can afford to piss away time here then you can still afford the truth.

Pick a consistent position and take actions that align with whatever you pick, but don’t try to have your cake and eat it too, it just comes across as hypocrisy to the rest of us. I hope to either see you around or not see you for a few years – and nothing in-between.

The short paragraphs thing predates smartphones and the collapse of print newspapers (here’s a paper from 1996 that does it), so fwiw I don’t think it’s that. I assume it’s some sort of stylistic / presentation thing that’s just normalized in news reporting. Maybe it’s an outdated holdover from print media somehow (where presumably more spacing = more expensive, so it presumably wasn’t a financial motivation) but I think orgs would’ve moved on by now if it was purely done for unnecessary legacy reasons.

Accepting whatever makes “the other side” look bad instead of fighting for the truth is the reason we’re in this thread talking about that dipshit [Trump]. I’m not sure I’ll ever understand why the fuck people in this thread fighting against that so hard

Trump is a convicted felon, promoted beans at the resolute desk, received millions of dollars in inauguration fundraising from big tech, has his own cryptocurrency which he promoted by promising presidential access, and is being called a madman by economists for the least stable US economic policy since Bretton Woods.

Trump is not like “other country leaders”. Historically the above would be disqualifying for “other country leaders”. You can’t cover news about him like “other country leaders”. I almost can’t believe that you’re saying that you can.

Yes, but the implication of “given the medal to look at” and “pocketing FIFA medal” is that Trump “stole” it or wasn’t supposed to keep it, which I haven’t seen supported by a credible source yet.

Edit: regarding your own edit (adding the second image), I found no information at the linked source supporting the sentence as presented.

Nonetheless, it’s pretty common for news sources.

E.g.:

• Associated Press: https://apnews.com/article/minot-city-north-dakota-ground-squirrels-dde22d2fa10140191a168687a5aa4daa
• Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/technology/intels-new-ceo-plots-overhaul-manufacturing-ai-operations-2025-03-17/
• ABC (Australia) you already saw
• BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpwqewyrw57o
• CBC: https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/carney-first-nations-summit-c5-1.7586758
• Al Jazeera: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/7/17/europe-assumes-financial-burden-of-ukraine-war-alarming-russia

All use this style of paragraphs. It’s not universal but I’m surprised that it’s surprising anybody!

That’s… pretty common for news sources?

I have linked a video showing what actually happened, linked a verified signatory of the International Fact Checking Network and member of the European Fact-Checking Standards Network saying that it was given to him and that the submitted headline is misleading, and your response is “don’t be naive”.

Are you guys fucking for real? What the fuck even counts as credible evidence to you anymore!?

If you have credible evidence saying it was only gifted retroactively, please link it. The video evidence does not appear support that interpretation of events.