I’m not going to watch this show and I think it’s stupid that, out of the entire world and timeline, they picked something that clashes with a game.

People get mad when things make them feel bad. They don’t want to fix anything they just don’t want to feel bad.

Yeah if AI was actually good you wouldn’t need to mandate it. No one was like “everyone here must use Google search”.

On the one hand, omnipresent surveillance is bad and ripe for abuse.

On the other, I feel like the haphazard and selective enforcement of traffic laws by police officers is also really bad. Cops can selectively enforce laws so poor people or black people or whatever out-group suffers more. A machine should be impartial.

On the last hand, no traffic enforcement is probably going to get people killed. So that’s not desirable.

Also, fines are problematic. Fines should probably scale with wealth, but also it shouldn’t be a revenue source because that’s a perverse incentive.

Companies fill up with idiots and parasites. People who are adept at thriving in the role without actually producing value. Google is no exception.

I believe there was an entire episode that was just Beatles references and jokes. The villains made a group called the “beat alls” I think.

There are dozens of us reading rock paper shotgun!

But yeah, the modern web sucks. It’s all soulless algorithms and profit/rent seeking.

Even if someone tried to make forums again, they’d probably fill up with AI slop.

Weird that it’s unsupported on steam deck. Doesn’t look that demanding technically.

I really liked CrossCode’s art and vibe and everything. The puzzles are good, too. But the puzzles are kind of hard in a way that tires me out.

I guess that’s how some people feel about dark souls. “Oh, I’m glad that’s over”. That’s not quite the vibe I’m aiming for.

Maybe I’ll play it with a friend who’s good at puzzles so I can just do the fighty parts.

Assuming what you’re saying about the harms of consuming pornography, is it the state’s responsibility? Is it a top priority? Do we trust conservatives to implement a solution in good faith?

The answer to all of those I think is no.

There’s no analogous ID check for violent media, so far as I know.

There could be a raging wildfire and I would hesitate if a Republican said “let me deal with it”. They are fundamentally untrustworthy.

That’s on top of the deep irony of the same party that goes on about “small government” and “parents rights” is typically the same one pushing draconian anti-porn laws. It’s a joke. “A government small enough to fit in your bedroom”. Their motivations are so corrupt I am extremely skeptical of anything they propose.

The us is really stupid for many reasons. 50+ patchwork systems for stuff everyone needs, like ID, is one of them. Using a driver’s license for ID is another.

I saw her give a talk once. Someone asked her about the environment or climate change, and she said something like “There’s like 100 people responsible for most of the problem, and we know where they live.”

The crowd loved this answer. The guy moderating the event made nervous noises.

For some people, their entire world view revolves around “there must be in-groups to protect and out-groups to bind”. That’s it. Everything else is a polite fiction on top of that.

These people are, generally, bad people. Like, a child reading about them in a book would point out that they’re not good.

Many conservatives adhere to this world view.

This has negative appeal for me. I don’t want to buy slop in games. I don’t even want to use discord. It’s the children who are out of touch.

Now excuse me, I have to go yell at some clouds.

It’s do-gooder derogation. People get upset when they see someone else being more moral than them. Instead of trying to either grow themselves or accept their own imperfections, they lash out.

And some people just like being part of the in-group, and see vegans as an easy out-group to mock.

One of the first times I took the path train (it’s a light rail in NJ/NYC. Basically another subway line). I sit down, and an older guy in a suit sits down next to me. He’s got like a box in a plastic bag in his lap. No big deal.

This was in like 2002. He didn’t have a cell phone or earphones. Just sitting quietly, waiting for the train to leave.

He started to giggle. Little chuckles. And then escalated to full laughs. It rises and rises until he’s like cackling. And then he calms down, reverses all the way through giggles and back to silence. Never said a word.

I don’t know what was in the box. I didn’t ask. I assume he just got away with a killer heist.

Will anyone learn from this? Will any of the people who were wrong lose credibility? Doubtful.

I assumed they meant in the “build vs maintain” sense. Builders add to the conversation by telling their own stories. Maintainers instead focus more on “wow what was that like for you?”

https://haileymagee.substack.com/p/these-three-communication-differences

But that’s a guess.

Mostly specific to online dating, but: People who dead end a conversation. Like, their profile says they love the author NK Jemisen. I write, “oh, I love her books! Did you read The City We Became? It’s a total love letter to the city”.

They response with, “no”.

Friend, that’s not an effective way to play this game.

If you are not interested in dating, just unmatch. Maybe you swiped by accident or when drunk. I don’t care. I’m not going to remember.

If you are interested in dating, you should put some effort in. If you don’t throw the ball back, you look like you’re either uninterested or incapable. I don’t want to date someone who’s not interested, nor someone who can’t carry a conversation.

You might be thinking, “Well they asked a yes/no question and I answered as such”. Technically true, but not productive. What do you expect them to do? Ask another first-message-tier question? This isn’t supposed to be a one sided interview like you’re applying for a job. You’re supposed to be a full participant. Ask a question (preferably related to the topic). Or, if you’re not interested anymore, unmatch.

You might also be thinking, “well I don’t have time for a whole conversation right now”. Ok. Do you ever have time? If not, delete the app because you don’t have time to date. If you do, answer when you have time. These things are asynchronous. If you’re afraid you’re going to forget, I don’t know man write yourself a note. That’s a life management problem outside the scope of dating advice.

This whole thing peeves me because it feels like people want “banter” and witty conversation, but they don’t want to do their half of it. They want to be passively entertained, but this isn’t some podcast you can listen to when dozing. These are (hopefully) real people looking for connection.

My therapist told me that people have different styles of communication and that’s okay. Maybe some people would be happy where their conversations are no deeper than “Did you hear the new slothrust album?” “No”. Doesn’t seem like an effective way to get to know someone to me.

A drink and food at a local spot. Wasn’t a black Friday sale or anything, but we stopped in.

Didn’t chase any sales or buy anything of note. Don’t need much.