Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

And not allowing them kinda sucks for people who want to talk about smaller, less popular games (or niche topics/interests in general), because any posts on an overarching all-games-including community about a small niche indy game is almost certainly just going to get swallowed amongst the flood of posts about other games, and even if there’s people in that community who would’ve engaged with the post, most of them are likely to miss any given post, because they only make up such a tiny fraction of the total members.

For example, I love discussing the Eragon book series, but there’s no Eragon dedicated community on Lemmy (at least I didn’t find one), and I don’t really want posts about every other fantasy work ever in my feed, so I don’t really want to subscribe to overarching fantasy book communities.

And sure, if I explicitly feel the urge to talk about it, I can browse a big sub and filter for Eragon content (though the fact that niche topics posts on big communities are likely to get low engagement probably also discourages people from regularly posting about it in the first place, so there’d be fewer posts to even find), but this still robs me of the ability to see Eragon Posts Show up in my feed when I’m not explicitly looking for them.

Also, even if you do decide to try it with a partner who wants to try your scheduled sex idea, I would definitely not start with sex.

Start slowly, by for example offering to jerk him off, or allowing him to masturbate to your naked body. Try it out slowly, and then see if you’re both comfortable with, and (at least he is) actually enjoying this type and level of intimacy, before jumping straight to penetrative sex.

It’s a very delicate affair, not just for you, but for the man as well. Having sex with a woman who is unresponsive, and just passively accepting, has a potential to make your partner subconsciously feel like they’re abusing, or even raping, you (even if you explicitly give consent, the subconscious is rarely swayed by rational arguments), which has the potential to lead to serious sexual trauma.

Scheduled sex is itself fine, however most men (at least those worth considering as a long term partner in the first place) derive much, if not most-all, of their enjoyment of sex of the human connection, and feeling the desire, arousal and pleasure of their partner.

Sex with someone who isn’t enjoying it, and just passively accepting does not sound appealing at all to me, and I’d be weary around men who are open accepting such an arrangement, because imo it strays into areas of ambiguous consent.

At that point, it’s probably similarly enjoyable, and much healthier, if your partner takes of their urges by masturbating. You could potentially even support a future partner in that, by e.g. gifting him solo male sex toys like fleshlights. It shows that you genuinely care about his pleasure, even if you’re not into actively participating in sex. This is for example a relationship I (as a cis man) could exist in perfectly happily.

And whilst it’s obviously not for everyone, and it can be emotionally challenging, and requires a high degree of emotional maturity and communication, I would also at least consider the potential for an open relationship, where your partners urges could be satisfied without your participation.

“They’re extradonarily narrow” whilst literally talking about an apple patent that covers ANY type of digital display device whatsoever that has rounded corners.

That’s not even close to “extremely narrow” in scope.

Extremely narrow in scope would be defining a certain radius of curvature (within a small +/- range), in combination with an aspect ratio (again, with a small +/- margin) and for a specific class of screen.

That would be an adequately and acceptably narrow design patent.

And on top, there needs to be a limitation on design patents (any patents, frankly) that makes them unenforceable if the holder of the patent hasn’t had a product matching the patent on the marker for several years, and isn’t currently and actively working on R&D to develop such a product. (With some common sense clauses to prevent abuse, such as ordering one employee to spend 5 minutes a month working on a concept so that you’re technically perpetually engaged in R&D, or listing a depreciated product for an absurdly high price that no one will ever pay, so you can say technically it’s still on the market without needing to actually still manufacturer/support it).

Though I’d be happy to hear counter arguments for why this would be a bad idea.