Count Regal Inkwell@pawb.social to 196@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 5 months agodeath of the ruleternetpawb.socialimagemessage-square106fedilinkarrow-up11.13Karrow-down10
arrow-up11.13Karrow-down1imagedeath of the ruleternetpawb.socialCount Regal Inkwell@pawb.social to 196@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 5 months agomessage-square106fedilink
minus-squareCount Regal Inkwell@pawb.socialOPlinkfedilinkarrow-up85·5 months ago“You shouldn’t do [y] either, you idiot, you absolute fucking buffoon. You should instead do [z, which costs a fortune and/or requires you to restructure your entire life]”
minus-squareBirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up56·5 months agoThread closed [x] already answered please go to link: completly unrelated topic actually about [a]
minus-squarertxn@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up33·5 months agoAnd the link points to a solution from 2006 using a method that’s been outdated and unsupported for a decade.
minus-squarepewgar_seemsimandroid@lemmy.blahaj.zonelinkfedilinkarrow-up1·5 months agosomebody replies to it “Here’s everything going wrong with [x]”
minus-squareTheFriendlyDickhead@lemm.eelinkfedilinkarrow-up5·5 months agoBut it will be slighly more efficient
“You shouldn’t do [y] either, you idiot, you absolute fucking buffoon. You should instead do [z, which costs a fortune and/or requires you to restructure your entire life]”
Thread closed [x] already answered please go to link: completly unrelated topic actually about [a]
And the link points to a solution from 2006 using a method that’s been outdated and unsupported for a decade.
somebody replies to it “Here’s everything going wrong with [x]”
But it will be slighly more efficient