Yes, although I recommend against using /c/ because it doesn’t actually link to the community. I also recommend against typing out the full URL (e.g. https://lemmy.ml/c/asklemmy) because it might cause issues for people in different instances.

The proper way to link to a community is !communityname@domainname.tld. For example, !asklemmy@lemmy.ml

Surely it can’t just be number present. It must be some proportion.

Looking through the comments, it looks like it’s per 1000 Internet users.

My question was mostly rhetorical, really, to make the point that without units listed on the map it becomes almost entirely useless. Sure, it gives some idea of proportion. I can tell that the US has more GitHub users in a certain group than Canada does in that same group, but it’s lacking a lot of context. What group (Internet users, per capita, etc.)? 11.5 out of how many (out of 100 would be significant, out of 10000 not so much).

It shouldn’t be necessary for people to have to search through the comments to find this context. What if I want to share the map? Am I expected to caption it myself when I share it?

Sorry to kind of go off, I know it’s not really that significant. But it’s such an easy thing to include units with your data, and I feel like it’s necessary to emphasize its importance in this community while it’s still young and developing.

11.5 what? Data doesn’t really mean much without units.

This may not be exactly what you’re looking for but have you considered using Firefox containers, automatically logging in to a different Google account for each container? I’m fairly sure this would work on mobile (probably only Android though), and is almost certainly more convenient and polished than a separate YouTube client.

Did you look at the link posted? I’ve never seen a door handle like that, and I’m not even sure I would realize it was a lever if I saw it. It looks like a static part of the door to me.

I do agree that I’d probably end up pulling on it after some searching, but it wouldn’t be the first place I’d go.

I think you’re misunderstanding. I’ve always heard this in the context of a UBI, never that an employer should pay an ex-employee for the work that a robot does.

With this setup, nobody is forced to do menial labor. Those that are willing and able can pursue higher education and pick up more skilled jobs, increasing potential for technological advancement. Those that can’t or don’t want to can pursue their own interests and hopefully create some cultural significance. Essentially, the automation will allow people to leave their shitty jobs and pursue something more fulfilling without worrying about going bankrupt, all while society still has its basic needs met.

I’ve always thought this was an ideal scenario. Whenever I hear people talking about how automation is taking jobs and needs to be stopped, I think about how automation should really be encouraged to allow people to contribute more meaningfully, but this can only be done after we’ve established a UBI and other social programs to ensure that these people can get by without the income they get from their current jobs.