If this happens at work then yeah, definitely a personal trait that you need to work on.

As someone who shares the same trait and has learned to manage it with time, I recommend you look into anger management. Plenty of free stuff online to start with but a professional can be a huge help, if you can afford it or if your workplace is willing to assist you with getting to a resource.

For me the key is being self aware enough that before I blow up I recognize where I’m headed and DISENGAGING until I can settle down. Blowing up, for me, is an ego driven/lashing out issue. It’s complicated and I don’t feel like explaining, but that’s me. I can tell when it’s happening and I care more about not being unprofessional or damaging interpersonal relationships so I DISENGAGE before I get there, which does not FEEL as good, but it’s necessary.

I can’t tell you exactly what you need to do, but I would bet a lot of money that you can start to identify when you’re headed in that direction and stop the train before you go off the tracks. To do so you need to be willing to put your ego aside whether you think you’re right or wrong and LEAVE the room or end the conversation. To do so is not easy because you want to release whatever you’re thinking about the current real/perceived grievance, but if you’re not being a functional member of society because you blow up in a rage then you have to modify your own behavior somehow. Disengaging is the simplest and most effective way to manage it.

With time and more self reflection, personal work, therapy, maturity, whatever - you’ll need to disengage less and less and can manage/cope without that tool. But for now that should be your goal until you learn to control yourself.

This isn’t an other people problem, it’s a you problem. It’s not that you’re not allowed to express yourself, but there are appropriate and inappropriate ways to do so in polite society, between friends and loved ones, and in a workplace. If you can’t admit that then start there.

Get on board or lose friends, break up, and get fired.

HVAC isn’t the only trade. HVAC is a TON of reactive work due to heating/cooling loss, which has immediate tenant impact that needs to be taken care of ASAP.

Any utility work is likely in the same boat.

Depending on your area you could look into framing, masonry, concrete. If you’re detail oriented you can get into cabinetry, tiling. Windows/doors/flooring is good for consistent work. Roofing will likely be consistent but it’s hard af and fucking dangerous, I wouldn’t recommend.

You want to look for businesses that do new construction/commercial if you’re looking for steady work. If you’re getting into the industry you’ll likely start as a laborer, but if you’re a good worker that shows up on time you’ll quickly outgrow that because a TON of laborers are super unreliable, drugged out, shady etc. It’s hard work, and often fairly thankless at first, but if you have a good attitude and show that you want to learn you’ll get a taste of different stuff and can maybe narrow down where you want to focus. It could mean you take a pay cut at first depending on what you’re making now, but if you can get picked up as an apprentice in a union you might get over that hump (depends on your area and the union… I’ve seen IBEW brothers who work in restaurants when there isn’t enough work to get them out on jobs. Totally depends on your area/season/trade).

Another possibility is mechanic, diesel is not going anywhere as well as bodywork/paint, but I’m not really sure how that industry is to break in to. If you’re not a car guy you might struggle to get your first hire unless you’re willing to do cleaning or other stuff at a shop/dealer and work your way up, but I don’t really know.

The best time to start a career was when you were 18, perhaps. The second best time is tomorrow. It’s up to you what you want to do with your life but most of us don’t get stuff handed to us so if you want something better for yourself you’ll have to look for the opportunities and push for them.

Perhaps. But you realize it now, and you also have the opportunity to take things in a different direction if you want.

Communication is important. Admitting when you did something that you think is wrong is good, we all make mistakes. Tell her that you’re sorry and why, and let it be. Either she will forgive you and you guys can move forward if it works, or she won’t want anything to do with you, and both are fine. Emotions are complicated.

I’m not defending Israel. I’m answering this guy’s question, like wHaT PrOxIeS??

You can straw man all you want, but not once have I defended Israel’s actions. Just because Israel is shit to gazans doesn’t mean that Iran is not also shit to Israel. Straw man.

If we want to have a legitimate conversation about morality then we start by agreeing on facts.

Trying to claim Iran did nothing wrong is not factual.

The most prevalent proxies are the houthis and Hezbollah, which Iran has been arming, financially supporting, and influencing for about two decades now so they can attack Israel without getting themselves into an all out war with Israel and the USA, which they know they would likely lose.

Argue all you want about whether or not Israel should have bombed Iran, but calling it unprovoked is extremely disingenuous.

So I will preface my comment with the fact that I hate Internet ads and do everything within my power to block and/or avoid them. Aside from being annoying they’re a blatant security and malware risk, and I avoid them for that reason alone.

That being said, hosting websites gets pretty expensive pretty fast when lots of people come to your site, especially with the advent of much higher bandwidth media that goes along with better quality images and video.

In my opinion the fact that the majority of people just have an expectation that everything online should be free is THE problem. I was there when the Internet was free and open and without ads. That was the culture, and the root of the issue we have today is that that culture is the foundation of the general expectation that it should continue to be so.

But that’s not sustainable with the costs involved in hosting today. Shit costs money yo, why should other people bear that so you can search for recipes for free without it being annoying for you?

The fact that nobody is willing to pay for content via subscriptions or paid apps is literally why the ad-based model is the overwhelming majority of the Internet, and apps, and why data collection/sales is so rampant.

Web development and running a webpage is not easy. Even for those that are skilled enough that it’s easy for them, it takes a ton of time. Usually multiple people’s time for any site with enough visitors to make it a good site. App development is hard and takes a skill set that requires a lot of training or time investment to learn. Why should all that go for free for you?

Until people are willing to pay for content they find valuable the Internet will be a hell hole ridden with ads. YouTube ads are awful, but do you have any idea how much it costs to run YouTube? You think someone should just absorb that out of the goodness of their hearts? Ridiculous.

The goal of the Internet is still to share information and communicate, but all the hardware and bandwidth and time costs real dollars, and the only way for most sites to recoup that is via ads because people just won’t pay anything if given an option, they’ll just go to another site that has free content, because there’s SO MUCH stuff that you can generally find what you want, for free with ads, somewhere else.

There’s only two possible solutions that I see:

1. everyone starts being willing to pay for content they find valuable. I don’t see this happening. There’s too many people that share your opinion without taking into account what it costs to actually run a modern website.

2. some complicated type of system that directly pays websites for use, based off of usage from people. I think this is almost too complicated to implement that it’s likely impossible with today’s Internet. If we want to also maintain privacy/anonymity when surfing I can’t see how this can ever work - so unless we have some future system where people are uniquely identifiable on the Internet, and then some additional system that somehow “fairly” compensates websites for traffic from users, this won’t happen. It would need to involve ISPs, their customers, and web site owners in some coordinated payment system to work.

Not to sound too preachy but to me your comment comes off as super entitled.

I pay for apps that I think are valuable, even ones with no cost like Signal. Because I value what they provide. I subscribe to sites that I find valuable enough to do so when it’s an option. I abhor data collection and ads and I fight them without prejudice. But even I don’t think I pay enough directly to offset how much I cost providers, I’m sure I don’t, but that’s mostly laziness because it’s a pain to pay every site directly so I donate to the ones I really appreciate and use heavily. If I could pay my ISP for my link and then have a direct credit system that throws dollars and cents directly into website coffers as I use them, that would be great - but I don’t want to give up my privacy either, so… Yeah.

Long story short, ad-based content is going nowhere until there’s a fundamental shift in either people or how the Internet operates.

Retro is always in. Rock it!

I care about you, stranger. I hope you’re doing well.

About half of SCOTUS decisions are unanimous. The just don’t make the news.

The 6/3 splits usually do but they’re actually much more rare.

No, he was responding to a top level comment about banning a style of weapons being ineffective, and essentially said that banning this particular platform of weapon will be effective because reasons.

That’s a pretty common perspective for anyone that’s never lived a life where you must hunt in order to put food on your family’s table, or you need to shoot coyotes or other pests that attach your livestock or crops that threaten your farm-to-table, or lived in an area where there’s literally no police for an hour or more and it’s just you if anyone comes knocking.

Poor rural folks don’t have a huge representation on Lemmy but there are plenty that live this way in the USA.

You don’t see it in the bigger cities and suburbs, rightfully so.

I don’t even live in a small town and there’s plenty of people I work with that drive in ~45 minutes and have livestock that have to worry about coyotes and other wild dogs attacking their livestock.

Guns are a tool. If you can’t imagine what they’re a tool for all it means is you lack perspective to see how - no judgment, just stating the fact. I mention all this because this misunderstanding is a huge reason for the divide between pro/anti gun crowds, and closing the gap can help set us up for better discussions about where we want to go in terms of gun legislation (assuming you’re in the USA - if not then all applies in general, not to you specifically)

My reply wasn’t in response to the law, but to the guy claiming that by removing AR-15s you increase the barrier to entry to mass shootings.

Read the federalist papers if you want to understand the 2nd amendment better. You’re just as wrong as the people who like to say that the 2nd amendment was just to protect having a militia.

Hand guns are so, so much more common in crime, rifles are barely a blip on the map. Also, handguns have almost no use other than killing humans/sport. (You can argue that they can offer some sort of protection from wild animals when you’re hiking, by scaring them away with noise… I can’t really think of much else)

Semi automatic rifles cover the gamut of utility. They’re not JUST for killing people and/or sport. Every reason you could legitimately need a gun for, the broad category “semi auto rifle” covers, so banning them has a disproportionate impact to people who use them legally and as tools vs banning handguns.

If people seriously want to make a dent in gun crime/accidental deaths/suicide we need to look at handguns, but they’re not scary looking enough so there’s no clout. Instead we get stupid laws that try to ban scary looking black guns or limit magazine sizes. Pisses off gun owners that know it’s useless and doesn’t actually get at anything that can make a difference. It’s all theater.

It really doesn’t. AR-15s are everything you said, but just because you take this one specific model rifle it off the market doesn’t mean there aren’t thousands of lightweight semi automatic rifles that are cheap and just as capable to buy instead. They might not be the gun owner’s version of LEGO, but they’re just as available and just as lethal.

If someone wants to be a mass shooter they have unlimited options in the USA. AR-15s are just so common you see them more. Starting this decade about 1/4 of the firearms produced in the USA are AR-15s.

If 1/4 the cars sold in the USA were Corollas because they’re cheap and easy to drive, would banning Corollas in Maryland reduce car wrecks? No, people would just drive Camrys or Civics or whatever and still drive like idiots.

deleted by creator

That same target audience would be the least equipped to install a new drive or handle any problems that do come up. How many John Q public people have even opened up their laptop to dust it out?

Problems might be rare, but if I am selling a product (in this case new storage with Linux on it) I need to be able to charge enough to cover all my overhead. Every time I sell it and it doesn’t work out of the box that’s time spent helping the customer, more shipping/return costs, or both. Markup has to cover all that, and I’d guess that it’s not viable as a business model to charge a high enough price to deal with all the random static from computer illiterate people.

I get what you’re saying but I just don’t see it being a viable business strategy to sell this product to that target audience.

Anyone who knows enough to seek out and purchase a Linux OS drive can just download and install it themselves.

Hmmmmmm… I think the hardware bugs might be rare, but common enough to make this a tricky product to sell consistently to the unknown masses.

Also, I think storage partitioning could be a problem; assuming some number of people would have other drives that they had OS/media together, or just separate storage with files they wanted to keep. Those would be NTFS, which can read/write on Linux but you won’t have the best compatibility with Linux program execution (depending on a ton of factors).

Haters on here but yeah, it’s lame.

Are you trying to describe monogamous societies or polygamous ones?

OP is asking why Western societies frown on polygamy, but you respond by talking about the strategic value of having more readily available cannon fodder - I assume in polygamous cultures, because that’s the only thing that makes sense. A monogamous society, assuming relatively equal M/F birth rates, would have LESS available available military men, by your own description.

I’m not sure how that answers OPs question unless you’re saying that Western societies frown on polygamy because it was SEEN as just a tactic to raise armies?