In this case, AllTrails has a perfectly functional website which they allow users to access from computer web browsers, but they force mobile phones (even when in "request desktop site" mode) to redirect to the app. If a site breaks in that mode it's on the user - I'm specifically requesting to get access to something they already provide and being denied.

This is especially egregious given how many "apps" are just websites in a wrapper anyway.

I think that sucks, and I'm entitled to my opinion. Now get off my lawn.

Had this happen yesterday when someone sent me a link to something on AllTrails. If the service was good and the website was usable, I might have even considered getting the app for offline features. Not anymore - screw companies that do this.

I get annoyed by some performative language games too, but I just don't see any evidence that your broader claim here is true.

> Also, from what I can tell, the issue of trans rights caused issues in the centre when it lept to kids' sports.

Most people are willing to acknowledge that the sports issue is a bit complicated, but it's also such an incredibly niche issue and so much lower stakes than everything else. People got off their couches for the sports thing because it's a "safe" environment in which to express hatred towards an out group. You can tell that it was never about sports by the actions taken by the loudest complainers on the issue (enshrining housing and employment discrimination, weird laws about forcing teachers to report violations of religious principles to parents, creepy nonsense like the bill to make lists of all trans people or mass cancel all of their drivers licenses etc.)

I don't see you responding anywhere to the general categories of criticisms I raised:

1. Climate change isn't one thing - it's a systemic problem in a system with lots of problems. 2. It seems ludicrous to assume that suddenly people will listen to us about climate change if we ignore other issues, ESPECIALLY because doing so would make us (or at least, me) moral hypocrites. We haven't even discussed direct causal issues, like political corruption. I honestly think no meaningful action is possible in the US on climate change until we have major reforms of our electoral and media systems - where does that put me in your oversimplified schema? 3. You're completely ignoring my argument about immediate needs. This is actually kind of funny:

> If your house is on fire, then put it out. But DON'T start a social movement that distracts from climate change.

The fire in this metaphor IS a social problem! Putting the fire out IS a social movement!!

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree, but either way - here's hoping we can do something meaningful about climate change. Have a good day.

You're using a very superficial argument and ignoring several of my points. If your literal home is on fire, is putting it out or running to safety less important than climate change? If you need to change an entire economic system to solve climate change, can you cavalierly ignore inconvenient members of that system that might be needed for a sufficiently motivated coalition? If you're worried about distractions, how can you blame the victims instead of the people committing the distraction?

> What does it matter what bathrooms we use

It ISNT about the bathrooms - that's the propaganda framing that you seem to have uncritically accepted. It's about random people trying to live their lives, and being denied housing and employment because of who they are. It's about the fact that we're talking about these people ONLY because of the propaganda machine.

> if the police are using violence too much

Must be nice that you apparently don't face the sharp end of this. To avoid triggering you with the "P" word, I'd suggest that your life experience is not universal and you should consider trying to understand a little bit about other peoples' lives.

> Our actions speak to people who don't believe that climate change is real.

And ignoring our values isn't going to convince those people, and those people will still think we're a bunch of woke idiots because their media has captured their minds.

> Every time we take to the streets for ANY OTHER ISSUE, we re-affirm their belief that climate change isn't something to worry about.

[all sorts of citations needed for unsupported reasoning]

"Those who turn hoses on water protеctors

Are those who cage "Stop Cop City" protеstors

And enforce the brutality of the border

Same ones who enforce bans on drag performers

Same ones who enforce bans

On crossing state lines for abortions

Some of those that work forces

Are the same that burn crosses

Are the same that burn everything

For the bosses"

I don't think we totally disagree, but I come down differently on where to point the blame.

> What it needed was for strong left-wing people to stand up and denounce the distraction.

I mean, that did happen.

> To claim loud and proudly that transgender issues were not important when compared to climate change.

That was said, along with housing prices/inflation/corruption.

> Instead, we took to the street for BLM, when it wasn't an important issue

Here's where you're really, really losing me. You're:

1. Pivoting to a totally different issue

2. Ignoring the role of the media in promoting the most controversial takes and presentation of both issues. It sucks to blame people for having values when the real problem is for-profit engagement-based media.

3. Ick - it really rubs me the wrong way to see people say "BLM wasn't an important issue when compared to climate change". That seems really easy to say if you're not under routine threat of state violence, but BLM was a reaction to a very real epidemic of state violence against black people. To those people, that kind of immediate threat IS as big a deal as climate change. If anything, criticize the branding of "defund the police" (which was so bad I half wonder if it was a psyop).

Moreover, part of my original point was that climate change isn't a separate thing - it's a problem because the same systems that use wedge issues to divide us all benefit from the unsustainable status-quo.

The realpolitik take on this seems so short sighted - it takes for granted that some progress can be made on climate change by ignoring our values, while also ignoring that alienating the affected groups makes it harder to change our society enough to do anything about climate change.

Ugh, I'm going to regret commenting here, but it really seems like this obsession is almost entirely on the right wing. In the US, the centrist Dems have been banging the appeasement drum for my entire political life, and it's gotten us nowhere.

Like... the right isn't going to wake up and start caring about climate change if everyone just shuts up and lets them discriminate against the hate group of the moment. The bathroom thing is also such a bait and switch, same as sports. In my state, we removed protections for housing and employment discrimination against trans people because... one trans athlete existed?

The real question we need to answer is why the right is so obsessed with other peoples' genitals, to the point that they have to make up stories and generate AI videos to get mad at.

I for one am sick of people focusing on a tiny fraction of the population and making them a scapegoat for everything. You're absolutely right that climate change is a bigger issue - so why can't we focus on it?

We can't focus on it because the anti-reality reactionaries are using trans people as a distraction. It's all one big malignant tumor on society, not a collection of unrelated issues.

How? Across multiple browsers?

> I think Android and iOS are safer platforms than PCs and that's why banks want you to use your phone.

This statement fills me with revulsion and rage lol. The only real "safety" involved here is the removal of user agency. I have a lot more trust in a machine I can actually control, secure, and monitor than the black box walled-garden of phoneland.

"Hey idiot, I'm storing your password in plaintext, don't know anything about password security, and I'm also going to make you pick something you can't remember for 'security'."

Incorrect - the requirements I mentioned make passwords less memorable and less secure (maximum length 12???). Obviously that's not as bad as authoritarianism, but I was trying to capture the arbitrary act being forced on us for no real justifiable reason.

Uh4zB4DP55WD!

Apparently I was a bit salty with the system when I set it.

The fact that she shouldn't have even been able to look up the password in the first place due to hashing was lost on her.

Pick up the can!