ObjectivityIncarnate

For there to be squatters, the landlords had to have this property open and unrented for a while.

Huh? A squatter is most commonly simply a former renter who stops paying without moving out. The property is not vacant at any point.

Uh…

https://youtu.be/vpZf-svlXnQ

They’re each trying to put their own spin on it, there is no actual distinction in the words, just in the subtext/implication.

The former implies it’s a lacking of a necessary thing, the latter implies it’s the avoidance of an unnecessary burden. It’s completely subjective whether a child is one or the other to someone.

It’s a broadcast of one’s own biases to consider either of these terms more ‘valid’ than the other.

When Firefox started recording key strokes

Source? That’s news to me, and when I tried finding a source myself, all I found were extensions etc. to add that to the browser.

EDIT: Both the comment I replied to, and a comment replying to me by the same person, have been deleted…were they caught in a lie/mistake and not brave enough to admit it? lol

I remember the joke that Microsoft called it that deliberately so that if people wrote “I hate ME” it wouldn’t sound like they were trashing the OS.

You thought that because the headline is pretty deliberately misleading. Clickbait trash.

The article is clear the broken update effects a specific subset of enterprise users, on a specific mix of base versions and cumulative updates.

So you admit the headline is lying, then? The headline doesn’t even try to use weasel words to say “some users”, it just straight-up says that the update removes things, heavily implying both that it’s a global change, and that it’s deliberate.

It isn’t necessary.

LAMF lies in the 'victim’s expectation not being met, with respect to who the thing they supported is happening to. What they support and what happened must match; the LAMF lies solely in the ‘I assumed it (what was supported/done) wouldn’t happen to me’.

I think even ‘adjacent’ is giving it too much credit.

After all, what’s happened is the literal opposite of what they wanted, while LAMF requires that the thing you supported happening is what happens, you just thought it’d happen to others and not you.

That’s not the number of people using Amazon, that’s the number of people paying for a premium subscription service on top of their Amazon usage. No one, whether they buy things on Amazon or not, needs Prime.

That is the point they’re making.

Why would you think that? Such accounts would be trying to make Trump look good.

Trump promised to lower prices. A complaint after he is in office about rising prices should make it very obvious what those people thought they were voting for.

when I knowingly voted to be taxed on all foreign food

You’re assuming “knowingly”. Trump told people tariffs were going to lower costs, falsely claiming that the foreign countries would be picking up that tab. If person X doesn’t independently know/learn that tariffs basically never work that way, then the OP reaction makes perfect sense.

This also isn’t LAMF at all—LAMF is about supporting something being done, but expecting (without evidence) that it will only be done to Others, and not you. She obviously didn’t support raising prices at all—the person you voted for NOT doing as they promised is failing to meet the most fundamental requirement for an LAMF situation.

This tweet is essentially:

You promised to lower prices, but prices went up, this is NOT what I voted for.

For it to be LAMF, you have to actually get what you’re expecting others to get. The person you voted for NOT doing what they promised to do is literally the opposite of LAMF.

Basically:

I voted for the Leopards Eating Faces party, I never thought they’d…wait, they’re not eating anyone’s faces

is the equivalent of the situation happening here.

Not LAMF.

Is there another more ‘generic’ German term that would fit when talking about this period of time in retrospect? So you could have one line that says the German equivalent of ‘he was the leader in Germany during this time period, commonly referred to by the title Fuhrer’, and then no need to keep using “Fuhrer” anymore in the rest of the article.

It was cringe then and is still cringe

The entire point of this community is to call out people that vote against their own interests and then whine about the outcome.

Incorrect. That is not what LAMF is. LAMF is advocating for a specific thing, baselessly assuming that thing will be done to others and not you, and then complaining when it’s done to you (or to you also).

What you described is ‘selfawarewolves’. Different.

i don’t think he has to specifically say ‘i wanted leopards to eat peoples faces.’

But he does. That’s the whole premise: that the ‘eating faces’ is a thing you explicitly supported. Hence the ‘I didn’t think they would eat MY face’ ‘punchline’.

The whole point of LAMF is to point out the foolishness of assuming that a particular action will be taken selectively, that was never actually ‘promised’ to be done selectively (notice that it’s not the “Leopards Eating [group’s] Faces”, just “Faces”). If the thing they supported is not the same thing that’s biting them in the ass, then there’s no connection. Some examples:

• Supporting candidate promise to “gut/cut government programs to save money”, then complaining when a government program you rely on is affected? Yes, this is LAMF.
• Supporting candidate promise to “gut/cut a specific government program X to save money”, then complaining when a different government program you rely on is affected? No, this is not LAMF.

I think some of the confusion also is that LAMF is about support/advocacy of the policy/campaign promise/etc., not about the individual espousing it—it’s the ‘eating faces’ itself that is the focus. This is why it doesn’t fit LAMF when the ‘supported thing’ and the ‘negative consequence’ are unrelated, despite coming from the same administration.

If a situation like the OP counts as LAMF, then literally ANY negative impact coming from ANY administration a person voted for, would count as LAMF, and that just renders the whole concept meaningless. Do you think anyone who complained about Obama’s drone strikes during his administration, who voted for him, should be considered ‘fair game’ for LAMF? I sure don’t.

Legitimately the point of democracy. Vote for your best interests.

I personally don’t disagree, but I’m just making the point that from what I’ve seen, it seems like the above virtue only exists for most people up until the moment the Other Person’s best interests don’t align with theirs, at which point they’re instantly considered scum for voting for their own interests.