r/truepopularopinion

I get it. I'm in a major city (Chicago) Rent is higher, thus they have to charge more than some little town in central Illinois.

What I've got a problem with are these places that have this excessive decor, and pictures of models with hip cuts, especially the ones with the hipster vibe. They then charge $50+ for a fade. It's basically like someone decided to make a place for men to get their haircut, price it at salon prices, but not give you an actual salon.

I think the blacks still have their simple barber shops, and I'm sure they'd have not problem cutting the hair of white boy like me. I'd feel out of place, but I'm sure I'd be welcome. Same with the Hispanics.

Well, good thing is, I found an old Mexican guy that charges $30. It's not a Mexican barber shop, but he's been doing the trade for years and has a simple setup. Nothing pretentious. Only problem is he only does cash..and CashApp, I think,.so have to remember to take cash.

We need that. They cut your hair. They charge you a reasonable amount. Not all this modern decor and all that. We don't want that. I'm afraid when these few old men die, we will be stuck paying what these half-ass salons charge. Just paint the walls or put some simple wallpaper on them.

Without root access and an unlocked bootloader, you don't truly own your phone.

By default, Android places lots of restrictions on the user, for example they have no normal write access to the MicroSD card since Android 4.4 and USB OTG media since Android 6.

Google provided no menu option to let the user opt out of these restrictions, so rooting is the only way to gain normal access to your property.

Unfortunately, bootloader unlocking requires a factory reset, and backing up in-app data can be difficult to impossible depending on the app. By the time people learn about rooting, it tends to be too late.

Do not accept this nonsense as normal. This is an ownership violation.

I hereby release this post into the public domain ().

I see many people on Keto who think their diet will work for 95% of the population. Yeah, it can for you. Though, most people aren’t going to thrive best in keto. Especially not me. When I was on keto, I couldn’t sprint, lift, or do crap.

If you want to do Keto, then do keto. If not, don’t do keto. Not every is going to do their absolute best on keto.

Mainstream smartphone operating systems (Android and iOS) let applications arbitrarily disable screen capture, screen recording, and screen mirroring to an external display such as a television or an MHL connection to an HDMI monitor.

I am surprised smartphone users have been conditioned into accepting this ownership violation as a "normal part of life". It is not.

As a device owner, you should be able to screen-capture anything that appears on your screen, without exception. App makers have no business deciding what you can screen capture.

Two well-known examples of screenshot blocking and screen recorder blocking are the , and .

The first one probably only intended to prevent incognito mode from appearing on external displays such as a television, which is accomplished though the same feature as screenshot blocking and screen recorder blocking (). So screenshot and screen recorder blocking are apparently collateral damage.

Samsung also added the "secure" flag to their lockscreen key pad in 2023. The goal of this is to prevent it from appearing on external displays, so screenshot and screen recorder blocking are side effects. There is no reason to prevent the device owner from screen recording the keypad if they voluntarily wish to do it, which can be useful for a demonstration or bug report, using a temporary passcode.

See also my prediction on :

And regarding WhatsApp profile pictures: Screenshots of profile pictures are not privacy violations and never were, but have legitimate reasons such as preserving good memories.

Everyone knows that one should not upload something onto a visible spot on the Internet that one does not wish to be preserved by others. A profile picture is such a spot.

A privacy violation is, for example, . Here, developers are being coerced into disclosing personally identifiable details (including home address!) that they probably wished not to, in order to be able to release applications that work on most Android smartphones sold (network effect).

But a profile picture is something one voluntarily chooses to make public, and not even a mandatory requirement to be able to use WhatsApp. Not a privacy violation.

Ironically, this comes from Meta, Inc. - one of the biggest data harvesters in history.

I hereby release this post into the public domain ().

I never understood why popcorn seems to be so popular in cinemas. It tastes boring, and sometimes popcorn pieces get into your throat, drying it up.

I don't get what the big deal with "necroposting" is and why people are so bothered by it.

A helpful response is a helpful response. If something adds value, it should be posted. Simple as that.

When done correctly, how can people pleasing be manipulative? Even if you are lieing about you opinions or feelings, as long as you keep that up and do not make it others peoples problems, then surely that is not an issue. If you do make it someone elses problem then, by defintion, you are not a people pleaser. People pleasing, when done correctly, only benefits other people.

Nothing against them personally, I don't know them, but I just always for some reason find seeing them annoying, like their constant presence on a post/subreddit makes me tired of seeing them. They don't even have to have the flair actually, I just don't like seeing repeated commenters on multiple posts of a subreddit in general, not their fault though

(Should of named this to "I hate seeing top one commenters and posters" but I edited this in before anyone could comment, so any of the first few people seeing this post should of already read this)

I’ve been seeing a lot of strawman arguments online aimed at anyone who questions or disagrees with the decision to have Bad Bunny perform at the halftime show. The typical response is, “Oh, you’re just upset because his songs are in Spanish and you don’t understand them,” or, “If you don’t like it, you must be a racist.” That’s… not it. For a lot of people, the Super Bowl is pure escapism a break from politics, not a stage for activism. Bad Bunny has been outspoken about issues like U.S. immigration policy. While he’s exercising his right to do so, that’s exactly what some fans don’t want when they tune into sports. Some just want to be entertaining and not be shoved with political messaging.

I saw this short, and its the last straw. I don't like AI or the effect it'll have on artists, but someone needs to call out these reactions for what they are: immature & dishonest. AI has nothing in common with animal abuse, and that comparison is fucking disgusting

Many artists say that art from a human is inherently more valuable than AI, which is more than objectively untrue, its a lie on their part. Human artists give us everything from Baby Geniuses to Jack & Jill. Meanwhile, Amazon has a major problem right now with fake-authors making bank by selling AI generated books. Do I want artists to get replaced? Of course not, but we aren't gonna avoid that possibility by lying to ourselves about it

The most widespread fallacy surrounding this topic is that art can't be seperated from artists. The low-hanging fruit is that Dan Schnider is one of the worst people on the planet, but I still adore Drake & Josh, because art is more than just the human who made it

The high-hanging fruit is post-modernism. Literally anything can be art, even a basketball. What makes it art is what you can derive, not what the artist put into it. If you believe that art is subjective, then its hypocritical to say that art cannot exist without a human artist

Again, don't shoot the messenger, I hate this as much as you do. But we need to take a step back, and make arguments that appeal to reality, rather than arguments that appeal to a fantasy. When you see a great drawing, you will enjoy it, until you learn that its AI. Then you'll retroactively decide that it's bad: and until you can acknowledge the bias involved, you're doing nothing to stop AI, you're only plugging your ears

When I first heard that the government reserves the right to force you into military service whether you like it or not, my initial thoughts were “How dare they!”, “Who the fuck do they think they are?” and “I’d make them regret it the moment they put a gun in my hand.” 

And when I learned about the anti-draft movement during the Vietnam war, it ignited a reverant passion in me. The men who burned their draft cards quickly became my heroes. 

The way I saw it, by burning their draft cards they were setting fire to the very concept of conscription as a whole. So it’s incredibly dissapointing to see that some people only support the draft dodgers in the Vietnam war not because they oppose the draft but because they oppose the Vietnam war, and that they still support the idea of the draft being implemented under different circumstances, such as in a defensive war, but that’s just stupid. It makes no difference whether you die in a defensive war or in an offensive war, you’re still dead and gone all the same. 

And even with the issue of potentially dying aside, as a matter of princible the state should not have that much control over you. That level of authority should not exist. If the state needs citizens to join the military to fight a war, they shouldn’t be able to do anything more than say “pretty pretty please”. 

I’ve heard all the arguments in favour of conscription and they all fall flat because they’re all based on the false axiom that your life belongs to your country. And to be clear, it does not. 

Nobody owes their country a goddamn thing. I don’t owe my country a goddamn thing. You don’t owe your country a goddamn thing. The state and people who teach civics classes will tell you otherwise, but they’re full of shit and deserve a good smack. 

Some fucking idiots will claim that conscription is the price you pay in exchange for the rights and freedoms the government provides you, which is just flat out untrue. Rights and freedom aren’t a favour from the state, you’re naturally entitled to them just like you’re naturally entitled to breathe in the oxygen around you. 

People will say that conscription falls under the same social contract between citizen and state as taxation, but that’s also based on a false premise. You don’t pay taxes because it’s your duty as a citizen. You pay taxes becauss the state holds the threat of criminal prosecution and incarceration over your head for not paying them. It’s easier to just pay the damn taxes to get the state to crawl out lf your ass and fuck off, but they don’t have that same kind of leverage when it comes to conscription because prison is preferable to war. Hell, it’s preferable to boot camp, at least you get to keep your dignity in prison. 

Draft defenders will also point to existing wars as a precedent to justify conscription, either WW2 or the current war in Ukraine. Don’t get me fucking started on Ukraine. If anything, Ukraine just proved that even in the event of a hostile army invading a country, enforcing a draft is still cruel and unjustified. 

I’ve always been against conscription, but the war in Ukraine is what made me go all in on being super hardcore against conscription at all costs. Specifically the Ukrainian government banning all male citizens between the age of 18 to 60 from leaving the country. It’s so unbelievably unfair that a person’s gender can be what determines whether you or not your live is worth protecting. It literally makes me sick to my stomach when I think of how unfair it is that males are trapped in the country while women get to have fun and party everywhere else in the world.  

Whenever I stop to think about just how unfair it is that mobilization situation in Ukraine is gender-specific, it makes my head hurt. It makes my stomach feel like stone. Women aren’t any less fit to fight than men are, wars aren’t won by proportional upper body strength, a woman can hold a gun and pull a trigger just as well as any man. Men don’t have some special superpower that makes them better at combat than women. And men’s lives matter just as much as the lives of women and children. If sending women and children off to war sounds unthinkable, it shouldn’t be any less so for men. Men are not expendable. 

I can’t even begin to imagine what it must have felt like for Ukrainian men on the first day of the invasion who fled to the border with their families only to be told that they have to stay behind while their sisters and mothers had free reign to escape. Can you imagine the way their stomachs must have sank, or the chill the ran up their spines when the travel ban was announced. If your own country would make you feel like that, then your own country is just as much of an enemy as the invading country. And don’t tell me it was those men’s duty to stay behind and fight, because men and women are supposed to be equal, so if women don’t have that duty than neither do men. 

As for WW2, it’s easy to point to that war as a justification now that it’s faded into history. The narrative around WW2 is also tainted by survivorship bias, because we only hear the stories of those who made it out alive. When we think of WW2 and of everyone who died in it, we aren’t putting themselves in their shoes. Being in a situation like D-Day would be absolutely horrifying and not at all the type of situation anyone should be forced into against their will. It’s easy to swallow when it’s half a century old history that’s long over with, but would you really want to be in one of those barges being sent directly into an open killing field like Normandy beach? I sure as fuck wouldn’t. 

80 years after the fact it’s easy to look back at WW2 as a noble cause or a “job well done”, but put yourself in the shoes of a military age male during that time. You wouldn’t know if you’re going to survive to see the end of the war, let alone if you’re even going to win it at all. Wanting to avoid getting involved at all costs was a perfectly valid endeavor.  

When people point to the bloodiest and most costly war in all of human history as an example of how conscription can be justified, it’s really not the home run they think it is. 

In my childhood, my parents only bought margarine thinking "it's basically the same as butter, just cheaper". Then I visited a friend's house where they had real butter, and oh boy did it taste great. I couldn't believe what I missed out on all the time.

If you try butter after just having eaten margarine for a long time, it feels like an explosion of taste. You never want to go back to margarine. Margarine only feels like a low-value "wannabe butter".

Of course, butter costs far more than margarine, but the value reveals itself in the taste.

Was it always meant to be a far right political subreddit or did the moderators just allow their members to turn it into what it is?

You could also use it for anything rather than just being amazon in house stuff. If you wanted to be nice to a stranger on reddit you could just send them a code and then they could redeem it. Everything about the new amazon cards sucks and nothing improved.

black

in the coming days a system which uses automoderator to enforce compliance with civility will be implemented

Details will follow

it's a popular opinion. you don't have to believe opinions listing is fine

…with a few obvious exceptions such as libellous pages. If Wikipedia's mission is collecting the world's knowledge and history, they should keep everything. The deletion practices were made in the early 2000s, a time where Wikipedia barely had enough funding to survive. Now, Wikipedia's host organization is swimming scuba-diving in money, so there is no economic burden to keeping all articles.

Not only does keeping all articles make Wikipedia more useful to everyone, but also encourages more authors to contribute, since they don't have the uncertainty whether their article will be kept.

Since keeping all articles makes Wikipedia more useful to readers, it increases donations that offset any cost that would come from it.

If the Wayback Machine can retain half a trillion pages, Wikipedia sure as hell could be able to do 1% of that.

A quote from a long-term administrator:

Deleting an article that other people have worked on is objectively worse than keeping it and letting people find out about the topic. No-one’s even asking for it to be promoted or featured or anything. By all means slap a notice on it telling readers that it’s “sourced entirely to blogs and fandom wikis”. I have never heard any good reason from anyone why any good-faith contribution to Wikipedia (that isn’t vandalism, libel, or just garbage) needs to be deleted. All that serves to do is give a massive middle finger to anyone trying to give something to the world, and produces an inferior encyclopedia with less coverage. — Timwi (talk)

Originally posted to , but just like many subreddits, their filter is bogus garbage.