LOL

I was actually thinking about my experience with Lemmy as I was reading this article, particularly how the scrolling is made to generate rage. I don’t filter my feed and just view “all”, but I don’t think I’ve once walked away from Lemmy not in a bad mood.

Now that may be observation bias or something, or a function of how I don’t tailor my own experience, but regardless, Lemmy leaves me angrier when I leave then when I open the app. I’m trying to cut back and eventually quit.

I use the same laptop bag for several trips a year, so I often don’t clear out all the pockets. The other day I realized I’ve been flying back and forth with a lighter I got from Vegas 2 years ago because it was buried at the bottom of a pocket. As for why the hell I had it in my laptop bag in the first place, I have no idea.

Right and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with not being neutral in that case. The original commenter said it’s “neutral corpo-speak” which I disagree with. Corporations would be all wishy washy or intentionally vague as you mentioned.

I don’t think of “politically neutral” and objective as synonymous. I think of politically neutral as attempting to appease or not piss of any sides. Being objective will often piss off one side (and we all know which side that is).

ChatGPT doesn’t actually give you a neutral answer lol. It flat out tells you climate change is real.

Edit: Just to be clear since it seems people are misunderstanding: I agree with ChatGPT. I don’t see objectivity and being neutral as being synonymous. And not being neutral in this case imo is a good thing. You shouldn’t be neutral if a side is clearly stupid and (as another user put it) is the enemy of objective data.