Perhaps it should be decided by a cognitive test instead of age. This is a dangerous road though, because a lot of people with cognitive disabilities can and should be allowed to vote for themselves.

Maybe the test could be made to test if a person understands what an election is and them being able to form their own opinion.

The main issue isn’t age, but rather that a lot of people vote for something that they think others expect them to vote for without ever forming an opinion of their own.

However those people should also be allowed to represent themselves, so I think all elections ought to have the option of voting for “shit, I don’t know, I have no idea what’s this is about”, and if that vote came over a certain threshold, then the election should be void and postponed for a week.

Janus Hugh

Climate Change: they should clean up as they go. It ought to be part of the production cost.

Immigration: Why aren’t the laws enforced? The issue is that employers absolutely do hire unregistered immigrants, otherwise they wouldn’t come. Even Trump himself has Mar-a-Lago staffed with illegal immigrants. Either make them legal, or stop the employers from dumping the employment market with “they took our jobs”-employees. It’s the most hypocritical thing. It’s not complex at all. It’s just racist slavery.

Compromise doesn’t have to mean giving up on anything. It’s more often about finding a middle way solution on an issue that both sides can accept.

This is how I would suggest compromising on each issue without either part giving up on any:

Abortion: Religious people can give up all the rights they want.

Gun control: Ban guns in cities. Allow them in the wilderness.

Climate change: Allow industries to pollute as long as they pay for cleaning it up.

Immigration: The whole thing could be solved by not allowing employers to hire people without their paperwork in order.

Culture wars: The fear is that certain cultures get to control others? Don’t allow anyone to force their culture on others.

Trump gets president: Okay, if all power is removed from the position, then he can be the representative of the country. Not a good one but whatever.

It’s be a racket.

I’ve played “it came from the desert”. I’ll take the tiny lions any day.

Just toss a bucket of water at them or adopt them and keep them in a terrarium.

The correction is typically slightly lower than for glasses, but besides the corrections (sphere, cylinder and axis), lenses also have curve (BC) and diameter (DIA) to fit your eye.

If you have an old box of lenses you can usually find all the numbers printed on the side.

I only use lenses occasionally, so when I recently ordered lenses online using the info from an old box and correcting for the change in my glasses since I had the old lenses, I could sort of figure it out, but they are probably still off by 0.5 or so.

I think you’re better off seeing an optometrist than guessing.

134 indicates that this is a prescription for glasses and not lenses. Lenses are typically only available in increments of 10.

If that’s the case, you should get a new prescription specifically for lenses, because the spherical correction (-4.5) will also be different between glasses and lenses, because of the distance to the eye.

I liked that game. The controls were horrible, but the story was okay and it featured a lot of new game mechanics for the time. They tried too much really. It was more of an experience than a game.

You can’t make anyone understand anything.

You can however question their belief and motivate them to consider other options.

I know you’re looking for arguments specifically for your opinion, but you should really try to avoid using arguments at all. If you set an argument, they will attack the argument and use this to dig into their existing belief on whatever is the actual topic of disagreement instead of addressing the actual topic. If you “attack” them, they will “defend”. This does not change their opinion.

It’s better to question them, so they have to think about why they believe in what they do. By questioning, you also show that you do not understand or agree with their opinion.

It also keeps the discussion about something that exists on their side. As soon as you introduce an argument, the discussion turns to being about something that you introduced, and that’s not at all what you intended to discuss or change. Be careful with that. They will attempt to make you present arguments. Don’t let them do that. It’s about what they believe.

Ideally, I’d call up Zelenskyy, ask if he wanted to hang out, have a beer and offer him the job.

Realistically, I’d be doomscrolling on Lemmy, have a wank, get drunk and go to bed.

Skibidi Yankovic

Some years ago Reddit had such a large reach in the media space that you could be discussing something on there and news outlets would pick up on it. For a brief period it actually felt like a platform where ordinary people could get heard and influence the world outside of Reddit or at least sway opinions of other real users. The reason why it worked was the massive userbase. The high profile AMA’s drew quite the crowd. Those days are long gone. It’s been a long time I saw any serious news outlets report on what happens on Reddit. GameStop was probably the last big Reddit thing to make a dent on the outside world.

I don’t want Lemmy to be that big, but it would be nice to know that if you make effort to write something that is important to you, that it gets read by more than two other people who already have the same opinion.