@spujb@lemmy.cafe to 196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish • edit-21 year agoit could happen to you rulelemmy.cafeimagemessage-square146fedilinkarrow-up1698arrow-down10file-text
arrow-up1698arrow-down1imageit could happen to you rulelemmy.cafe@spujb@lemmy.cafe to 196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish • edit-21 year agomessage-square146fedilinkfile-text
minus-square@SwagGaribaldi@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglish22•11 months agoI probably wouldn’t use an instance if it wasn’t federated to Threads
minus-square@Trarmp@feddit.nllinkfedilink7•11 months agoSame. I’m glad the ‘default’ instances are federated, since I want to follow a bunch of folks on threads. And I’m glad that I dont have to give up my personal info to zuck to do that.
minus-square@ProgrammingSocks@pawb.sociallinkfedilink6•11 months agoWasn’t federated, or was federated?
minus-squareNeatolinkfedilinkEnglish3•11 months agoI’ve always got to invert the double negatives to parse crap like this: I probably would use an instance if it was federated to Threads. Not exactly the same meaning, but it gets you on the right side of the negatives.
minus-square@SwagGaribaldi@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglish5•11 months agoYup, that’s what I meant, but like you said, it doesn’t carry the exact same meaning if I wrote it like that
minus-square@h14h@midwest.sociallinkfedilinkEnglish1•11 months agoBest way to address this is to reword a bit: I probably would not use avoid using an instance that wasn’t federated to Threads Using “not” twice in a single sentence is generally something worth avoiding IMO.
minus-square@ProgrammingSocks@pawb.sociallinkfedilink1•11 months agoI understood the meaning. I was clarifying the point OP was trying to make because I 100% disagree with it as worded.
I probably wouldn’t use an instance if it wasn’t federated to Threads
Same. I’m glad the ‘default’ instances are federated, since I want to follow a bunch of folks on threads. And I’m glad that I dont have to give up my personal info to zuck to do that.
Wasn’t federated, or was federated?
I’ve always got to invert the double negatives to parse crap like this:
Not exactly the same meaning, but it gets you on the right side of the negatives.
Yup, that’s what I meant, but like you said, it doesn’t carry the exact same meaning if I wrote it like that
Best way to address this is to reword a bit:
Using “not” twice in a single sentence is generally something worth avoiding IMO.
I understood the meaning. I was clarifying the point OP was trying to make because I 100% disagree with it as worded.