I've never got this either. I've been using Linux exclusively for over 4 years, multiple devices, tested dozens of distros, almost all Systemd-based and I havent ever experienced any problems that the anti-systemd folks talk about.
Or at least, they were so rare and minimal that I didn't notice.
Coming from an IT background dealing with 99% Windows machines and Microsoft products, maybe my bar was on the floor, but Linux has been soooo much more stable and dependable than Windows.
Been using Linux since 2004 and systemd has made my life significantly easier. People bickering about systemd are usually ultra nerds without arguments real people would consider important.
I agree. Coming from the Windows world, systemd felt quite familiar compared to other components in a typical linux system, I always liked it.
It doesn't really follow the unix philosophy though, so it gets a lot of hate.
fUcK sYsTeMd ItS fAsCiSt BuLlShIt If ThEAy PuT iT iN lInUx AnD tAkE oUr FrEeDoM i WiLl SwItCh To BsD uMmM IdK wHaT iT dOeS rEaLlY sOmEtHiNg WiTh SeRvIcEs I gUeSs FuCk SyStEmD!!11!!
I used Linux (and some Unix) before systemd was a thing and init scripts are jank. So much boilerplate and that was before things like proper isolation existed and other more modern features.
I don't understand why anyone would want that back.
A replacement of systemd with something else would be fine, but please no more init scripts and pointless run levels.
Systemd is awesome. I used to use init.d and was annoyed when I had to learn systemd instead, but once I did I’m so glad it exists. Declarative is the way to go.
Was a little bit of a hassle initially to convert various custom init scripts into systemd unit files, but it was worth it IMO. Now the init scripts feel kinda jank in comparison lol.
On a barebones or embedded system I can see a lightweight init having a very big appeal though
Streaming videos on my phone using speaker for audio while at the restaurant eating lunch. I figured for sure, everyone would want to get in on that awesome stand-up comedy action or zany talk show that I enjoy with my meal. It turns out that (gasp!) some people even think it's rude...LOL.
I'd rather a hundred of those than some kid with mommy's iPhone watching brainrotting Youtube Kids videos all day with the sound on. At least then I won't feel bad for the kid.
JFC. Sometimes people visit us with kids and it's just arrive > open youtube > commence rot > spice it up 9yo twerking.
My partner is pregnant with our first child. I get the convenience of free child distraction, I also get that I might find myself doing exactly this in several years, but honestly I really hope I can find ways to at least minimise this. It just seems so Orwellian or... wall-e-ian.
I swear my kids are probably going to hate me because I'll be the most boring dad around that forces kids to play outside instead of doing all the fun stuff.
I'm sure they only do this while "mummy is visiting" and it doesn't happen at home.
There's a generic thing with cilantro that makes some people think it tastes like soap. I don't have it, but my wife does. I hardly notice cilantro, but even a little ruins a dish for her.
What we taste is a specific chemical that you can't taste. There are a handful of these chemicals that can be tasteless or not based on your genetics. Drinking alcohols all have a chemical like that. If you ever see anyone hold their nose while taking a shot, it means they're a taster of that chemical, and trying nor to taste it.
For the longest time I didn't even know what cilantro tasted like. I thought maybe it tasted like nothing to me. The reason for this was once when my wife and I were at a Mexican restaurant, I got some green salsa. I dipped my chip in and complained to my wife that it tasted like nothing. She dipped a chip in and started gagging. She said it tasted like pure liquid cilantro.
One day I was cutting some cilantro for some tacos I was making at home, and I took a big bite. It didn't taste like nothing to me. I just always associated the flavor with lime because anytime I have something with cilantro, I always squeeze a lime over it.
Every little bit I eat them to see if I like them (or can force myself to) but I just haven't been able to yet. I really wish I could just get over my dislike but I can't seem to enjoy the taste.
I saw someone commenting how they specifically don't like "raw tomatoes". I was wondering why you'd be eating raw tomatoes to begin with but they just meant like regular tomatoes, ones you haven't cooked since for them the cooked ones were the norm. And it had so many people agreeing with them about how "raw tomatoes" are disgusting.
Is it much different from other savory food that comes with a sweet side dish? Just as cranberry fits to venison, the taste of pineapple fits the ham those pizze typically are covered with.
I played like 40hours of Cyberpunk 2077 before going on social media. I Thought it was going to get "mid" reviews, but I guess I got really lucky to not hit any serious bugs. Lesson being: If you wanna enjoy a game, don't look at any marketing materials, and don't seek out social media about it until you've had time to form your own opinions.
I read reviews before buying on day 2, basically. Sure, I expected some bugs, as the reviewers warned. I barely got any, just some visual glitches during cutscenes. Still, I would give the game a solid 8/10.
Came out of my playthrough to everyone raging about everything about the game. Couldn't even give an honest opinion about the game without being downvoted to oblivion because people who never even played the game refused to believe the game was playable at all.
It would be one thing if people were just overhyping things, but a lot of the outrage was over how much they just blatantly lied while marketing the game. They promised a lot of specific things and then released something that was aesthetically impressive but ultimately outdone in just about every other category by sometimes decades old games, and lacked all of the groundbreaking features they marketed.
Personally, even coming back to it much later and trying to enjoy it at face value with all of its updates, it still felt like a boring and shallow GTA clone with a neon glaze. That's not to mention the fact that it's still frustratingly buggy.
Yeah I think the same thing is happening with starfield as well. People expected skyrim x elite dangerous x the good parts of no man's sky and I think that just isn't realistic. That said I find starfield pretty meh in it's current state, I am waiting for the QOL mods to stabilize before I play much as I just ran into way too many issues.
Yeah I hear that's bad, I hate all driving in video games so it wasn't anything out of the ordinary for me, I think I drove a car like twice in 150hrs.
Same. I played it on stadia and it was pretty stable. When I went to that other site to see what people were saying I was absolutely shocked at the amount of bugs and hate it was getting.
I borrowed it from a library for a PS4. It was genuinely unplayable if you actually wanted to play it, but for laughing at the bugs and whatnot it was great.
Would've been pissed if I had paid anything for it.
To be it was truly bad, but not in a rage-y way, only in a "Wow, this is it?! All this hype, all this wait, and this tepid fart is all we're getting at the end?"-way.
I finished it - which granted isn't difficult given how brief the main quest is - then went through some specific side quests. I will give it credit, some of the side quests have really cool characters and are overall really well done. And the graphics can be pretty as hell in some if not most areas. But ~everything else, the main quest, the writing, the story, the city in itself, the software quality, the combat system, the upgrade system, it's all there, it's largely functional, but just barely so.
So yeah, just massively disappointing given how much work must have been behind it. I don't even want to know how often management yanked the team around and made them re-do massive parts of it, the bugginess and tonal disjointedness of the finished game hints at it plenty.
Special shoutout to the driving, which highlights how the game was clearly not meant to have this until relatively late in development.
I have driven one and despised it. It ran out of battery way too fast, so a 4 hour car ride turned into an 8 hour one because I needed to charge so often
fucking despise them, its disgusting that investing in renewables or green only became attractive to governments when it meant sending more money to fucking car manufacturers
My wife and I lived in Germany for 2 years. We went to Munich for a weekend and had an excellent historical walking tour across the city, provided for free by our hostel.
During that tour, we learned that pretty much every stereotype Americans have for Germans (lederhosen, yodeling, beer and brats, etc.) are actually Bavarian culture, not German. And Germans are actually quite offended at the confusion we have between their culture and Bavarian culture.
We also learned that Bavaria used to be quite wealthy and powerful, and intended to split off into their own independent nation at one time. But then Hitler set up shop there and made it his headquarters for the Third Reich. The city was absolutely decimated during WWII, and when the war was over, they not only had to rebuild from scratch, but also had to contribute to rebuilding the rest of Germany, as well as paying for war damages for Europe and all Allied nations, etc. Their wealth was pretty much depleted and their hope of being an independent nation was gone.
Bavaria was a very agricultural heavy state, that made a few things right in the last few hounded years. Bavaria has like every over German state a long and rich independent history. Only Bavarian nationalists dream of an independent Bavaria.
Hitler joined the NSDAP in Munich and it was one of it's early strongholds.
Most German cities were destroyed in WWII. Germany did not "pay" reparations, because they still had a lot of open dept from WWI. They paid with land, factories, infrastructure and forced labor.
What the guide meant was probably the so-called "soli". It is a special tax that was levied from former Westgerman states to support former GDR states, which did not develop as much under the socialist rule. That tax was and is controversial and was changed to nowadays only applie to richer people.
Bavaria was always a big state in german, that tries to play a special role. Especially their main party the CSU participated in German politics, while enforcing predominantly Bavarian Interests. These methodes were obviously anti democratic but only borderline illegal and forced the government to restructure the parliament.
So yea. I grew up in Bavaria and I get why most Germans are quite annoyed with bavarians.
During that tour, we learned that pretty much every stereotype Americans have for Germans (lederhosen, yodeling, beer and brats, etc.) are actually Bavarian culture, not German.
So for lederhosen, it's mostly true, although they're traditional in Austria too. Yodeling is Alpine culture and not specifically Bavarian, meaning it exists in Bavaria, in Austria and Switzerland. For beer, only weissbier is truly Bavarian; e.g. pilsener originated from Czechia, lager originated from Austria [til!]. And although there are Bavarian bratwurst variants, bratwursts are not specifically Bavarian. However, veal sausage (weisswurst) is exclusively Bavarian.
And Germans are actually quite offended at the confusion we have between their culture and Bavarian culture.
That is true. I think to some degree this confusion comes from the fact that so many Americans were stationed in Bavaria after WWII, so they only got to experience this part of German culture.
[...] when the war was over, they not only had to rebuild from scratch, but also had to contribute to rebuilding the rest of Germany, as well as paying for war damages for Europe and all Allied nations, etc. Their wealth was pretty much depleted and their hope of being an independent nation was gone.
I am not particularly versed in Bavarian history, but note that some Bavarians have developed a bit of a fetish portraying themselves as victims of injust decisions from on high. I would take that info with a grain of salt.
Antisemite Aiwanger, extensive preventative jail, attempts on dismantling state equalisation payments, lack of secularisation, decades-long opposition to queer legalisation, abortion, social security, asylum in general et cetera
Don't forget being the german state for beer and alcoholism, and being staunchly against legalizing cannabis because "OMG drugs", apparently. The CSU needs to be dismantled. Period.
"I've had an idea... Lightning has just struck my brain..."
"Oh, that must of hurt!"
It's in that part of my brain that was written before I understood media being 'good' and 'bad', so my memory of it just is, I've never stopped to think about its quality.
Yeah part of why I liked Halloween was those bags of black and orange jelly beans. The only jellybean flavors I liked as a kid. I love licorice, anise, fennel. My kids do too. They ask for fennel instead of onion in a lot of foods.
I do understand people not liking it though, it's a strong and odd flavor. Like cantaloupe.
I always assumed that was a joke, because they're just kind of bland generic rock and roll that it seems like it would be comical to pretend to have any really strong negative reaction to it. Then I met a few real people who actually despise them, and realized it's not a joke.
I was shocked to discover the hatred the old live action Mario movie gets. I enjoyed it when it came out when I was a kid. I rewatched it as an adult to see if my memory was faulty… still enjoyed it. It’s a little campy, but it’s a fun romp! I unironically enjoy it, as a good movie and not as a “so-bad-it’s-good” movie. And yet it gets so much hate…
I'm kinda with you. I didn't hate it as a kid. However, if you were expecting a MARIO AND LUIGI movie it just didn't come even close to delivering. I wish they'd just made that movie as something else, because it wasn't Mario.
While it's true that the writers made a point to learn nothing about the franchise before writing it, there's an argument to be made that at that point there wasn't really much lore from the games. It came out in 93. If today they made a game where Mario and Luigi from our world follow Princess peach through a portal to save her from being kidnapped by Goombas, only to find Dinosaur New York and get jump powers from technology, then you find out Bowser has usurped the Mushroom Kingdom power structure by de-evolving the king to the point of him now being a fungus who spends the entire game gently helping Mario occasionally... That would be an amazing modern day Mario game. Forget Galaxy, that would be the most complex and interesting game in the franchise.
Plus, it's got the funniest joke I've heard in any movie.
Desk Sergeant: Name?
Mario: Mario.
Desk Sergeant: Last name?
Mario: Mario.
Desk Sergeant: (rolls eyes) Okay, what's your name?
Luigi: Luigi.
Desk Sergeant: (exasperated) Luigi Luigi?
Luigi: No. Luigi Mario.
The whole movie is a masterpiece and the twist that the king was the fungus that's been choking the city is great, and on re-watches you notice all the times the Marios are saved or helped by the fungus. It also implies that the convergent evolution of this parallel world includes both dinosaurs and fungus turning into basically identical people, and the mushroom people managed to become the ruling class.
I was an older teen when it came out and didn't see it until just a few months ago. I don't think it's great but I was more entertained watching it than the new animated movie. It's totally bonkers.
It's a texture thing I think. If I take a bite with mushroom in it, my like animal hind brain just straight up rejects it. Gagging spitting, the whole tottler experience. No conscious thoughts, no tasting, just reflex
I grew up hating mushrooms. It wasn't until I was an adult that I learned that my mom was a bad cook. Now I eat them, and many items I hated as a child, all the time.
The last thing I just can't get behind is olives. And I keep trying in the hopes of something clicks, but it hasn't
Along with a lot of people preparing them improperly, people just can't get over the whole fungus thing. I slowly acclimated my wife, and after years of encouragement to try them, mushrooms are now one of her favorite foods, which kind of sucks because now I have to share my mushrooms. All it took was her trying them one single time.
I hated mushrroms my whole childhood. Ate magic mushrooms when I was about 19, and they changed my opinion of mushrroms in general.
Like I suddenly appreciated their earthy, woody, umami beauty.
Large Language Models (such as GPT) and AI image generators.
I follow certain AI related post tags on Tumblr and sometimes I see people expressing pure hatred towards these tools, as they only see the AIs as content thieves.
I don't mind the tool itself if you use it as such. I do mind when people use its output as the final product. See: the lawyer who used chatgpt for a legal brief
The lawyer fuck up is what happens when someone doesn't know or understand the limitations of a LLM.
If you want a GPT model tailored and specialized for a specific task, you have to train it with custom data, fine tune it and tweak the model's parameters. You cannot do that from the ChatGPT web/app, you need a custom implementation coded in Python or some other language.
As an artist I think it's a more complicated issue than a lot of people are making it out to be, and all the fearmongering some popular artists are promoting really doesn't help.
I think it's a more complicated issue than a lot of people are making it out to be
Agree.
Also. People are pissed that what they have taken years to master others can now get close to replicate with little effort and time.
I've just realized that although they call the AIs "content thieves", what they really feel is that as AIs are able to replicate their skills quickly, it makes them feel their own merit diminished.
If an artist creates artwork inspired on some other artist eveyone's cool; if an AI does the same, then it's stolen work even if the generated image is a unique new one.
There was this uber hype around it, then we started using it ... and it just makes so many errors, it's literally just generating more work. Scrapped it after less than a week. It's modern snakeoil.
Bard is the same, I asked it questions about two of my favourite bands whom I know a lot about. It omitted facts and invented things that were not true!
What! I have the opposite experience.
Im a tabletop roleplaying gamemaster and it has helped me immensely with translations, formatting of text, compiling and keeping track of my players character backgrounds and even coming up with plots and scenes that are suited for each player.
What did you use it for? I helps me a lot with coding, scripting, translations, terminologies... Sometimes it makes mistakes, but other times it produces working code that accomplishes what I asked for.
In any case, ChatGPT is just a demo that uses the GPT-3.5 Turbo model. Many people is being misled assuming that the ChatGPT research preview is all that the model has to offer. You can also try the improved model GPT-4, but it's not free.
If you really want to get its full potential you need a custom implementation in Python that works against the API and do things like fine tune the model, embeddings, feed it custom data or give it access to tools with LangChain.
Of course that's not something easy to do, but don't think that the ChatGPT web/app is GPT models' full potential.
LLM is way overhyped. So if your boss bought into that hype you're gonna have a certain amount of animosity towards it. I'm a developer and it can be helpful at times, but managers seem to think it can write software on its own.
It's basically an iterative improvement over a search engine, but unlike a search engine it cuts off the people creating the content it's scraping from any kind of revenue stream.
And yeah there's some real problems with it stealing content. Which isn't being addressed at all. And bringing up these issues tend to get treated like Luddites by those that have bought into the hype.
I wouldn't say "hate", to me it's more... so what? They're really bad at what they do, only impressive at first glance. Not bad for some brainstorming, but then you end up with a facsimile of what the actual result would be, and now have to use that as a guideline to create the result.
IMO they're not bad, but they require a lot of tweaking and trial and error.
I've learnt some Python thanks to ChatGPT's help. When I say "some" I mean that I was able to create a custom implementation that uses a web interface and custom tools. The more lI learnt, the less I needed ChatGPT, but I always require some more coding help.
However, these LLMs are not sentient super smart AIs.
Ahh, I hate Snap so much. It actually what drove me to switch to Arch (btw). It was just so annoying going to install something and having it try to pull in snap and all its dependencies... And of course, if you don't want Snap you have to deal with the inconvenience of finding another way to install the app.
There are reasons to dislike Snap on principle and also very practical reasons. It liked randomly preventing the system from shutting down. Installing a new OS on a slow or unreliable internet connection and want a browser? How about we install Snap and then tell to download that thing and maybe a bunch of random internal dependencies with no visible progress and unreliable error handling? Get it away from me.
I love the first one as a proper horror film, and love the second one as a great action film. Alien 3 always seemed to stand well with the other two by returning to the horror genre, and expanding on Ripley.
In the third film, Ripley has lost everything that she fought so hard for in second film, and it’s her against this alien that has taken everything and she knows it’s finally going to take her life in total.
The setting in Alien 3 was very original as a penal colony that’s just hot and dark, and the design of the alien is entirely different since it burst from a dog (or, a bull if you watch the Director’s Cut). The alien moves faster and more haphazardly and the cinematography reflects this as well. The final scene with Ripley’s sacrifice is the fitting end to what was a trilogy at that point.
I don’t know whether people confuse Alien 3 with the 4th one or what, but Alien 3 is a fantastic film that holds up well decades later. I’m always confused by the fact that people slam it so often, and it wasn’t until I saw people crapping on it online that I realized that there was even a consensus that it was bad.
My take on that was it made pedantry about nostalgia into a superpower and I knew too many people that act like it's that way IRL to like the characters.
I loved the book and the movie. It's one of the few times I was glad the movie changed a lot from the book. It wouldn't have translated well and they were aware of that. They both stand well on their own. I'm looking forward to part 2.
The book wasn't horrible. It was cliche, although that was sortof the point. I think there's a reason people had issues with representation or something in it too, but I don't remember. It's been a while. The movie was aweful.
The novel is already fairly modern, and they just totally reworked the story in ways it didn't need to be while also making the protagonists get into trouble by doing stupid shit instead of making the villains more intelligent or one step ahead, so that's always a net loss for me.
Huh?! I've only discovered transition lenses a handful of years ago, but once I tried them, I've never looked back. I used to have a problem with glare and too much sunlight when out and about. I can't wear sunglasses either (since I already wear prescription eyeglasses), and thus transition lenses were a great help.
I tried to like Rush. I like a lot of similar artists and thought it was a sure thing. I can appreciate their skill. Their music just does nothing for me :/
I couldn't stand Rush in the 80's as I was listening to Zeppelin and Hendrix and they seemed pop-py to me. Then I started listening to them again in the 00s and really enjoyed them. Tastes change I guess.
VR headsets with an external battery pack and/or other heavy components on a cable to put in the pocket (as is now a feature of the Apple Vision Pro).
The first time I tried any VR headset I immediately thought why on earth do they not put all the heavy lifting electronics out of this device into my pocket. That would be way more comfortable. But for some reason it was never done and when it was rumored that the Apple headset would do that I noticed people apparently hated the idea. Everyone keeps saying modern headsets are well balanced it’s not a problem, but my experience is different and it’s one of the reasons for me why I don’t like to use it often.
My current headset is the PS VR2 which everyone says is so comfortable and balanced. I just find it annoying after a few minutes.
Idk about other males/models, but people with the meta quest headsets actually took advantage of this. The device is a bit front-heavy, so what they did was design an accessory that lets you strap a battery pack to the back. Better battery life and the weight of the headset inls balanced, all in one go.
Well, granted my sample size is extremely small, but I've only ever known 2 polyamorous groups of people well enough to visit their home. And in both cases, there was always 1 person who wasn't as happy as the other two and was tolerating the scenario due to pressure from the person they considered their 'significant other'.
The dynamic was: A & B would be considered spouses to each other, A wants to bring in additional person C and create a trio under the banner of "polyamory" and B consents (because they are willing to accommodate anything A wants to make A happy). So person C enters the relationship and they form a polyamorous-trio, but instead of it being a true trio, it's more like A & B still have their relationship (now burdened) and A & C have a relationship, but B & C don't engage much. This is the exact scenario I have witnessed in the only 2 households I've ever known doing it.
That's given me the impression that arrangements like that usually serve the needs of one or two people but often leave at least one party secretly unhappy. Maybe if more people actually witnessed polyamory working as it's been proclaimed, there would be higher opinions of arrangements like that. But I sure haven't seen it - my current conclusion is that it's just not within the bounds of human nature for this kind of relationship to work.
I think they can work, the problem tends to be people going into it not realizing that it's more demanding than monogamy, one person feeling pressured into it especially when the relationship started as monogamous, and/or it being done as an attempt to "fix" a relationship that clearly isn't working out, the latter of which happened with someone I know.
I think there's a bit of thing where the less toxic the people, the more discreet they tend to be. I certainly wouldn't let anyone who had only visited my house a handful of times know I'm poly. That's only something people I would call friends would know. I also have pretty strong boundaries around not having secondary partners who aren't specifically looking to be a secondary partner (usually because they already have a nesting partner themselves).
It's also one of those things where most of the people I interact with IRL are all cool chill and reasonable people and then I go to nearly any online space and everyone is freaking insane with really toxic dynamics.
I've been in poly relationships most of my adult life, around 15 years now. I'm certainly familiar with the type of relationship you describe, but the long term, stable poly relationships are the ones that have been poly from the get go.
I don't tend to date people who are "opening things up" in a previously monogamous relationship, because being someone's learning experience is a bummer.
So person C enters the relationship and they form a polyamorous-trio, but instead of it being a true trio, it’s more like A & B still have their relationship (now burdened) and A & C have a relationship, but B & C don’t engage much. This is the exact scenario I have witnessed in the only 2 households I’ve ever known doing it.
That is in fact common, but would also not result in "moving in" or "forming a polyamorous trio". That's exactly not the point, it's just one person having two relationships and - hopefully - each of the partners is fine with not having 100% of their partner. Which many people actively enjoy mind you, not spending all the time sitting on top of one another.
In fact I would say that from all the poly couples I've know over the years, very few are trouples and want to move in together.
A "V" is a perfectly legitimate arrangement. In fact, those who demands the two other sides of the V to have any kind of relationship, even mere friendship, are considered toxic. And living together is forcing the issue.
My wife has has a boyfriend for more than five years. I'm not attracted to him like she is, but nobody is unhappy in or about our arrangement. We met each other really young, and it stuck. But neither of us wants to have only one great romance in our lives. It really is what works for us.
Yeah but if you see monogamy as bad and immoral and try to explain why ... somehow I expected at least some understanding. I thought other people were afraid to say what they really think.
I just don’t get it. Having a relationship with one person is hard work (anyone that says otherwise is either very lucky or their partner is making all the effort). Why on earth would you want to make your life even more difficult?
For some of us at some times in our lives, having a relationship with two people is less work. It requires much more communication, better scheduling, and much more attention to your partners' feelings ... but that might be a good investment of time anyhow, and often gets overlooked.
I find that having multiple partners helps me appreciate each partner much more, for themselves -- it's easy to mix up how much you love just having a partner and being loved, with how you actually feel about that person. Poly gives you the distance and contrast to see your partners clearly, and that can be really special.
Yeah that's indeed something. I had a sex partner on top of my romantic partner for a few years, and that worked okay - since you only meet for shagging - but wow would two romantic partners be too much for me. Still, I was perfectly fine with my romantic partner also having another partner in addition to me. They could handle it fine!
I've been in poly relationships for years. They work really well for me and my significant others, but we are pretty discreet about it because folks tend to be huge assholes about it.
Generally, you don't see the poly relationships that work great; mostly, people see the type of scenario one of your other commenters described because the stable relationships are less visible.
This is so strange to me. Not the polyamory, the weird hate of it. I'm in a monogamous relationship and polyamory just doesn't appeal to me. But I don't really give a shit about what other people do or who they fuck as long as it's consentual.
To me it always feels as if people are just loudly signaling their own unhappiness in their existing relationship when they hate on polyamory. It's a weird form of surpressed and internalized envy.
No hate from me but two is almost too many people for me. I love my SO, I just have a really hard time being around anyone for any length of time. Different strokes for different folks.
I've not met many poly groups but my experience was strained. First time meeting these people and the only thing they spoke about was them being poly and how much sex they were having. It was a bit odd for a first meeting with strangers. Not usual dinner conversation I felt.
Here I am surprised that a person is surprised that non-preferred sexual acts would trigger visceral disgust.
I mean, sex is actively disgusting unless your partner just happens to have the right combination of signals to transform it into something non-disgusting.
The wonder is that any sex ever is seen as non-disgusting.
Same. I thought it was actually quite enjoyable. Too long in the opening parts in particular, but once it gets going it has a lot of really funny moments.
Plus, as much as I could say "It could have been better", I will also have to concede that given the modern Ghostbusters, fuck could it have been worse. 😅 Overall, pretty damn good.
That was such a weird one to me. I think partly they leaned too hard into trying to leverage controversy for attention, but still, the movie was fine. Like... except for the first one, they've all just been "okay" movies, in that context it's probably one of the better ones.
They introduced afternoon care at my elementary which meant getting food socially; I was baffled when the others groused over tortellini - I got like three free meals or something that day.
What really surprised me is learning how much people hate it when I drink tonic water. I'm not going to spit it directly in your mouth, friendo. I just want a drink of interesting water.
Yeah I get what you mean. It feels like Here, look! They've shown their true colors! They're the reason this thing is for sale, here, we found one, right here!
I don't like cilantro. I don't hate cilantro. Everyone shouts that it's a genetic thing, so apparently it's not possible that I can have a distaste for a common food while also not thinking it tastes like soap.
Every time it comes up, somebody wants to feel smug and tell me "well you know..". It's the one food where if you don't like it, it has to be a genetic thing. Maybe I can just not like how it tastes as much as others. Maybe I don't mind it in salsa but don't like it in my soup. Just because I don't mind a finger in my butt doesn't mean I want a dick in my mouth.
I’m the opposite. My sister and dad hate it, so it’s very possible I have the gene, plus it tastes like soap to me, but only mildly and I kinda like it. I don’t want to eat a tabbouleh made with cilantro instead of parsley, but a sprig or two freshens a dish up nicely.
Mango (only fresh ones and more so near the stem and pit) and rosemary also taste like soap to me, but I also enjoy them 🤷
Same. I'm surprised when people hate me because I expect to be completely ignored. I have a very mild version of self loathing. I think I'm boring, unremarkable, etc. So, when people hate me (or are interested in me) it surprises me.
I don't really mind if people don't like me though I do kind of find it interesting as I keep to myself and not cause conflict with others.
I am completely thrown if someone takes interest in me though. It's like, why? Does your lack of information about me make me mysterious or something? Because what you see here is what I am.
Really? You're surprised at that? I can't watch most movies of that era, but I couldn't even finish watching the original Dune movie, and I've read the entire main series including the final ending in the Brian Herbert books.
Soggy cereal. That's how I ate is as a kid and how my siblings did as well, mostly. No one ever said it was gross or the "wrong" way, until I got a bit older and found out that pretty much everyone hates it.
I had to look him up. I know the character (live-action pirate from SpongeBob SquarePants), but I didn't know he had a name. I was barely an adult when that show started airing, so I haven't seen much of it.
I also found out that the actor who voices SpongeBob plays Patchy. Had no clue it was the same guy. I've never heard of any hatred for Patchy, though. Is there any reason in particular people hate him? Or is it just "enough with the live-action; let's get back to my cartoons!" mentality?
In line with the inspiration for the question: Cars 2
I liked the first one and thought the second one was also lots of fun. I liked the visuals / in-universe elements, and thought it was decent for a kid's spy movie. It was one of my favourite family movies at the time.
I never got this either. My niece would rather run around and play games while it was on so we never really sat and watched it all the way through, but she would play it on repeat and I thought it was fun
Compassion and empathy for animals. Yeah, they say they like it if you don't have any follow-up questions, but things go downhill real fuckin' fast after that.
I think the hate Last Jedi receives is overblown BUT it was trash. I was semi hopeful after TFA (in hindsight it set the groundwork for a lot of the bad parts) and forgave it some of its flaws due to being the forst movie in a while and having to restart the franchise when it came to theaters but I walked out of TLJ and wanted my time back.
I think there is a lot of hate for Rey that's actual misogyny hidden behind the legitimate criticism. But the characters writing doesn't help that situation. I don't think any of the other characters are written much better so the fact Rey ends up getting most of the hate boils down to her being a woman and her being the main character (I cannot even guess which of these two weighs more into that equation, which is a shame. Her being female really shouldn't factor into this). The entire movie just felt very silly to me. It makes for good eye candy but if you think deeper about anything that could be construed as a message in that movie it just falls apart imo.
Tl;dr: I don't think it should come as a shock that the movoe got hate, it was pretty bad all things considered, but the amount sure was shocking
Every five minutes I had to stop myself from going "What the fuck?!" Out loud in the theaters.
Like the story is nonsensical, characters go full stupid in every possible scene, there are multiple massive issues with time and character location, the plot breaks the previously established rules of the universe, character development on old and new characters is just dumped for plot convenience, Rey becomes even more of a Mary Sue than she already was. I could go on, it's just a massive shit on the previous films.
Watching it feels like you let a freshman film student direct a plot that was written by a committee of toddlers. I don't see how it's a good movie let alone a good entry into the Star wars franchise.
The ending of How I Met Your Mother. Like, it was certainly no cinematic masterpiece, but I felt like it was a very logical build-up and delivery. I don't get the impression that they really stretched the story for more seasons either (yes I know they did add more things to stretch it, I just mean I think it doesn't show story-wise). But even a few days ago I saw people complaining about how bad the ending was, and it's a rhetoric I see almost every time the show is mentioned. And, again, it is not a cinematic masterpiece by any stretch, but I wouldn't expect that from a sitcom anyway.
I watched that for the first time sometime in the last few years that have blended together and I actually really enjoyed how it was one giant love letter to Adam West's era.
That's because it's actual cult propaganda. As in "it's literally made by the church of Scientology, based on the founding literature of Scientology as written by Scientologist leader L Ron Hubbard, by Scientologist actors"
In a vacuum? Yeah it's cheesy sci fi. With context? Hoo boy...
The catch is that it's white polenta. Some people here in the southern parts of Brazil look at it like it's some sort of abomination, like "polenta is supposed to be yellow! This stuff doesn't even taste like real polenta!" (For me it tastes like childhood. And it pan-fries so better than the yellow one!)
They do. Mostly because it's offal and offal is supposed to be yucky. /me rolls eyes
For me this is actually great because it means that chicken liver is really cheap, so if I want to treat myself I just toast some bread and prepare garlicky livers. Cheaper than all my other comfort food types (Emmenthaler, chocolate, uszka [mushrooms are expensive here]).
Other people. Individualism is taken to it extreme limit where nobody else matter is the norm in the West. Why should "I" improve the life of any other people?
Religion. I don't mean extremist right-wingers trying to ban abortions nationwide or extremist Muslims trying to blow up their enemies. I mean people who quietly feel and have the convictions of Faith. Atheists will clamber over themselves to tell people (who believe they have received irrefutable proof of their faith) that they are wrong, they are stupid, they are backwards, and they are bad. Again, I'm not referring to people who act or vote to impose their views on others, but only about people who have personal, private convictions... yet any and all Faith is wrong?
EDIT: Aaand, as predicted, I'm already getting downvoted. This world is allowed to have Furries, and neurodivergents, and Flat-Earthers, and Bronies... but NonGod-forbid anyone ever believe there's more to our existence than what we can see! (For clarification, those are simply examples of groups diverging from cultural norms, no judgement should be inferred.)
Game collectibles as NFTs. I thought being able to trade/buy/sell a game skin for example sounded like a cool idea since it would allow users to trade freely without the game company having full control of the collectibles. The idea was massively hated and I’m not sure how something like Overwatch 2 is preferable when people that want to get skins need to buy a battle pass to grind or pay for an overpriced skin where 100% of the profits end up with the game company.
I still don't understand how you people expect this to work. Your skins aren't going to do anything unless a developer adds them to their specific game.
What incentive does, for example, Epic have to do all the coding and modeling they would need to do in order for you to use the pickle Rick skin that you bought from a someone else, in Fortnite?
I’m merely saying that if you earn a shiny skin for X game then you would be able to sell it to someone else that wants to use it on that game. The Steam Community Market already does this except it’s not called NFTs there.
Those things don't HAVE to be NFTs for it to be done. I've also seen some devs say they're wary of adding such a feature when it was brought up to them due to concerns of potentially encouraging hacking, which could be part why you don't see it very often?
I'm kind of surprised that you feel like NFTs are a better option, but at the risk of giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'll explain my opinion. I hate the thing you're describing, a marketplace of tradeable whatever, because it's completely the opposite reason I play games. I play games to experience mastery and get rewards for skilled achievements. If I can just buy them, they mean nothing. So, at best, NFTs have zero value to me. Secondly, another reason I play games is to get away from the nickel and dime-ing of real life. Games start everyone at the same point and give you challenges. Marketplaces like NFT auctions or whatever just reinstate the real-life scenario where rich people, who usually don't deserve their wealth, get disproportionate power over everyone else.
I agree with you if a game has 0 micro transactions then that’s the one that I want to play but sadly some of the most popular multiplayer games are riddled with them already.
On these games you’re already able to buy a shiny gun or a skin for ~$25 and if that’s not going away I would at least prefer to be able to trade or sell the items.
Par for the course. I’m no longer surprised by this because now I know that people are content to simply read about a thing instead of reading that thing itself.
It think it’s nuts, but it doesn’t surprise me any more.