I’m not sure that it’s possible to move posts but that would be funny. Maybe c/powerthoughts

We can’t keep everyone happy. I’ll agree that this post gave me pause. I think it’s better to error on the side of leaving things up.

Please report the post if you think it violates rules, and please specify which rules and why.

Stolen British Museum-ed

This was reported for breaking rule 1,4,5.

1 The votes seem to agree that it’s not a shower thought. I’m slow to remove a post for this rule, I would rather let the votes do the work.

4 I’m not sure saying this about Putin is saying anything about any people group. You can be hugely supportive of people groups while thinking their leaders are responsible for, or capable of, horrible things. At various times nearly every country could be used as an example of this.

5 I’m not sure what community rule it’s breaking. It’s not a very positive post but people should be free to be negative online if they that’s how they feel. Lord knows that many comment threads are negative. I may feel differently if the the majority of posts suddenly became negative.

As always I’m open to feedback.

That’s interesting, thank you. I didn’t know anything about Gujarati, this is a cool opportunity to learn!

Edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gujarati_numerals

Google translated it as “Nine days and seven days are tight”.

Does that sound like a good translation to you?

So when someone changes a light bulb, which direction to turn is just a feeling in their bones?

That’s fair.

The concept of a shower thought is annoyingly abstract, so I error on the side of leaving posts up, but maybe this is a good chance to get the perspectives of others:

1. Is the problem, or part of the problem, that the post is a question?
2. Or maybe the post is not whimsical enough?
3. Do people think a shower thought can ever be a question?
4. Is it something else that makes this not a shower thought?

This post was reported for breaking community rules. Its not obvious to me what rules would be broken. dm me if you feel strongly about it and would like to clarify.

This post was reported for being a news article not a shower thought. Also it seems like several of the comments are concerned that it is political.

There isn’t a rule against posting a link. The article does seem relevant and OP’s thought isn’t taken from the article, it seems unique, like something you might think of in the shower after reading the article.

There isn’t a rule against political posts. Many posts have some component of politics to them.

Thank you all for being civil with each other. Thank you all for commenting and reporting when think something is pushing the limits on what should be considered a “shower thought”, it’s an abstract concept, so social pressure is helpful in shaping the community. I try to error on the side of being permissive.

As always, I am open to feedback.

Edit: spelling, ironically

Sounds like an unpleasant shower… I’m sorry

Thanks I had no idea what it was.

This comment was reported. I’m not seeing any issue but the reporter can dm me and point it out if I’m missing something.

I’m certainly having trouble making sense of them.

Well if it doesn’t happen again, that means Linux isn’t doing well.

‘it’ being a handoff of ownership

Motorola still has them

Yeah, it’s interesting to look through the edit history over the years. With StreetComplete I recently fixed ~8 stores that were many years out of date, during an hour walk.

It’s fun to find a real hole-in-the-wall that even google maps doesn’t have.

I have found Organic Map’s search to be far better than OSMand. OSMand has far more features though.

Thank you! And thank you for being a part of this community!

This post was reported. I think the objection would be to the second paragraph where it sounds like you are making a claim about the character of the person.

We want this to be an inviting place where people can share what they are passionate about. Everyone is free to attack each other’s opinions and stances. However, there are rules against attacking individuals and groups of people.

Not only is it against the rules but there are much more effective methods of arguing. Ad hominem attacks are poor at persuasion.

Do you mind rewriting the second paragraph to focus on the arguments made in the prior comment, rather than the character of the person?