Sure you can do these things in parking lots, but I expect most people would prefer a more pleasant and dignified space to perform recreational activities in if they were just as common and convenient to find as a parking lot.

I don’t often interact with fan-bases for FOSS projects, instead as a developer I mostly interact with maintainers and contributors. Sometimes the maintainers are incredibly abrasive and belittling to issue contributors for seemingly no reason. When I observe this, it makes me think twice about opening a new issue under that project. In fact, at this moment I’m considering building my own alternative to a FOSS project for this exact reason!

Edit: I know this might seem like an extreme response, but I’m also looking for a good excuse for a side-project. Depending on the project it might be worth it to brace yourself against the bristles to try and reach common ground. It could be that the maintainer(s) don’t even know that they’re coming off a certain way. But YMMV.

I’m keeping my eyes on Locus: https://github.com/Myzel394/locus

I was digging through the comments for exactly this, thanks!

Yeah, I’ve felt this at times, but games are meant to be fun and low stakes. If certain games make you feel this way I think it’s worth reflecting on what about the game triggers this response. Perhaps there’s a way to avoid that thing or reframe your thinking around it. Otherwise, there’s no shame in not playing a game that makes you feel bad!

ChatGPT is human enough sounding for the registration forms. I’ve got no idea why folks think this is the end-all solution when it could be faked just as easily.

A simple deterrent for this could be to “hide” some information in the rules and request that information in the registration form. Not only are you ensuring that your users have at least skimmed the rules, you’re also raising the bar of difficulty for spammers using LLMs to generate human-sounding applications for your instance. Granted it’s only a minor deterrent, this does nothing if the adversary is highly motivated, but then again the same can be said of a lot of anti-spammer solutions. :)

If absolutely everybody stopped tipping in America this instant maybe something would change. But that’s not going to happen, just as voting tipping away won’t happen. It’s incredibly easy to sway people who have no opinion on the matter (more than you’d think) to believe that tips are good and necessary and actually beneficial to the worker. And the people most motivated to argue this happen to have the money to throw into shifting public thought on the matter. No, the only real solution is worker organization, and the only way workers can organize is if they have the resources (time, energy, money) to do so, external support can also help.

A large portion of you in the replies don’t feel like they should be obligated to tip because they feel it’s up to the employer to properly compensate their workers, and yet they feel comfortable enjoying the product of these exploited workers’ labor. My question to all of you is, if you care about worker exploitation, why don’t you, the consumer, speak out against this practice directly? Call employers out, speak to the workers, see what you can do to help them organize. If you can’t be bothered to do any of that, consider not dog-piling on the worker for the faults of their employer by deciding not to tip and making it harder for workers to organize. It seems to me that by not tipping, you’re just helping employers and not workers.

I just don’t get how not tipping workers is supposed to teach corporations a lesson. They’ll just churn through willing bodies all the same.

This seems like a weird take. Put another way, you’re withholding what you know to be fair compensation for services rendered as a form of protest against the company, but at the workers’ expense? Just trying to make sense of your perspective.

There’s that “just” again. :)

buy and mail checks, balance your checkbook, and go in person to buy things, go to the bank, or get service

It’s simply unrealistic to expect your average American to add all of this (and much more) to their routine and expect the benefit of ditching the smartphone to somehow outweigh the additional time and energy investment. Going in-person for anything in an average American city these days is far more of a hassle than it was “back then”. This is at least partially due to the fact that our cities are built with cars in mind and not people, but that’s a rant for another day.

I’m not sure what can be done on a smartphone that cannot be done on a computer.

Basically any form of two-factor authentication which is becoming increasingly more common and necessary for the average user to access anything from banking to employee services. Sure there are desktop 2FA programs that you can use in certain scenarios, but using these is often bad practice and defeats the purpose of even having 2FA in the first place.

Certain food or delivery services require you to use a mobile app to interact with them. Whether or not these services are essential or not depends entirely on the needs and circumstances of the individual.

I know you mean well but this is kind of a privileged take. Not everyone who wants to disconnect can afford to. It’s kind of like how many people can’t afford to just not use the internet, without it they will likely lose access to many essential resources.

“Just” not using a smartphone is viable for an increasingly vanishing portion of the population, in the US at least.