loobkoob

Unfortunately for her, too. She might be successful, but she seems fucking miserable all the time.

I wouldn’t recommend ChatGPT for factual information at all (at least, not without validating for yourself afterwards), but I think it’s quite good for helping you mull over or develop ideas, and for finding “soft answers” to things.

I used it recently to suggest a font to use, for instance, and found it much, much better than trying to use a search engine. My font knowledge isn’t particularly high at all - I know what serif means but that’s about it as far as technical knowledge, and I wouldn’t recognise or categorise most fonts - but I was able to describe what I wanted to ChatGPT and narrow it down:

• “I want something more friendly than that”
• “less professional”
• “more wonky”
• “less rounded”
• “less uncomfortable”

And so on. I could be somewhat abstract with my requests and it still mostly seemed to understand what I meant. Eventually it suggested something that fit my requirements pretty well. Trying to find a similar suggestion via a search engine would have been very difficult, I think, and would basically have just relied on me stumbling on a “top 10 fonts for X” listicle that happened to cover my requirements.

ChatGPT is fantastic within its specific niche (assuming you know how to feed it prompts properly and how to interpret its outputs - it’s a tool thats usefulness very much depends on the operator) but I definitely wouldn’t want it to replace search engines.

It’s okay; I appreciate the apology! :)

I think it’s important to look for the nuance in situations and not treat everything as zero-sum. Both sides can have good points and be open to criticism at the same time (this isn’t an “enlightened centrist” take, I promise!). I think a lot of discussion online does tend to strip away nuance and take the position that if you show any empathy with one side then it means you must hate the other - I do my best to avoid that!

these people SHOULD be putting this negative pressure on them. It’s deserved

Was it not implied I agree with that when I said:

The angry customers and the state of the game are problems.

and;

• customers being disappointed and/or wanting a refund is perfectly reasonable
• people wanting the game to be better is also reasonable

I’m not going to defend the poor quality of the game because it’s obviously bad (from what I gather, anyway - I’ve not played it myself) and should be improved.

?

I don’t see why that would make my opinion stupid. Yes, the studio/publisher should be held to account for the crappy release. But a big part of holding them to account should be not giving them money for it in the first place; not just handing over money and then complaining afterwards. Complaining afterwards is reasonable for the people who did hand over money, but they should also hold themselves accountable for financially rewarding a company that puts out a crappy product - they’re part of the problem.

The angry customers and the state of the game are problems.

• it’s hard to feel sorry for people who pre-ordered because they got exactly what they paid for - a game of unknown quality and quantity of content
• it’s hard to feel sorry for people who bought post-release because they also got exactly what they paid for - a game where reviews detailed poor quality and quantity of content
• customers being disappointed and/or wanting a refund is perfectly reasonable
• people wanting the game to be better is also reasonable
• people abusing the devs is not reasonable

I’m not going to defend the poor quality of the game because it’s obviously bad (from what I gather, anyway - I’ve not played it myself) and should be improved. But I do think gamers could learn to be a little more responsible with their purchases and inform themselves before buying a game.

I’m pretty over the whole cycle of games coming out and not meeting expectations, people buying them anyway (through pre-orders or day-one purchases), people being unnecessarily rude/hostile/sending death threats to developers as if they were forced to buy the game as gunpoint. Yes, developers should try to do better, yes publishers should often give developers more time to polish up games rather than announcing the release date two years in advance and refusing to delay, but also consumers could really take some responsibility for what they decide to give money to.

The police didn’t actually arrest him, and I think the headline is a little misleading. Falter had been walking directly against the protest (and not attempting to cross the road like he claimed). The police stopped him and offered to escort him to his destination via a route that avoided the march. Falter refused and tried to push through the police officers and cross the protest march. The officers prevented him and told him he was free to go in the opposite direction, or that they would escort him past the protest, but that if he tried to go the way he was they would have to arrest him. It was clear they didn’t want to arrest him, and the officer offered probably a dozen times over the course of the ~15-minute interaction to escort him via a different route.

I think the officer did a good job of de-escalating, personally, and was incredibly patient in the face of Falter’s obnoxious, disingenuous antagonism. It’s a shame that there’s a single soundbite that, when stripped of context, portrays the officer poorly, but I think it’s clear to anyone watching the full video that the officer had no anti-semitic intent and handled the situation well.

The officer mentioned in the full video that Falter had been walking directly against the protest and wasn’t just trying to cross the road like he claimed. Which, “openly Jewish” or not, is a good reason to stop him, I think - for his own safety and the safety of the people in the march. And coupled with the fact that he very visibly is Jewish, it makes his actions seem a lot like a counter-protest - something the police generally try to limit or contain regardless of the protest subject.

The police officer had the patience of a saint, honestly. He offered to escort Falter to the place he wanted to go via a different route - so as to avoid the protest - probably around a dozen times. It’s very clear Falter didn’t really have any intention of getting to his claimed destination.

I think the case would be more on the supplier that provides the cups to Cinemark though

That’s a matter for Cinemark and their supplier to sort out (either through discussion or another lawsuit). This man had a contract with the vendor (Cinemark) which is why he’s suing them.

The Expanse is the first thing that came to mind for me as a counter-example when I read your first comment so I’m glad to see you mention it! It even plays on the exceptionalism idea in book/season 3 and 4 where Holden seems special because >!Miller is appearing to him!< and because >!he isn’t affected by the eye parasites!< only to explain those things away with reasoning stemming from events that already happened in previous books. And any exceptionalism that comes after that is largely due to the reputation or skills characters have built for themselves rather than because they’re “chosen ones”.

If you haven’t read the books, I really recommend them!

Dude, what the fuck kind of comment is this?! I have no love for spez whatsoever, and would happily see him lose all his money and landed gentry status. But your comment is just unhinged.

They’re both certainly people who know how to burn bridges when they see them.

Sweet?!

So I just had a look into it and apparently American tomato ketchup is one third sugar (corn syrup, obviously…). Ketchup is supposed to be savory, America; why do you do this?

conducting industrial espionage against the vape store

That’s something we should’ve been doing all along! Now there’s a mist opportunity…

Your assumptions aren’t true at all. It looks like it’s heading that way part-way through the film, when Barbie and Ken are at odds with each other. And then it goes ahead and empowers all the men as well. It’s certainly critical of toxic masculinity but I think it’s empowering for both men and women overall. Obviously your Ben Shapiro types were offended by it because it’s not trying to appeal to incels, and it is woke, but not in a bad, inauthentic way.

I don’t think it’s really supposed to re-popularise the line of toys either. Sure, people who liked the toys when they were young will probably find details they appreciate, but it’s not meant to sell the toys. It’s not aimed at the demographic (young girls, typically) who would want to buy dolls. It’s not an R-rated film, of course, but I’d say anyone under 12 probably isn’t going to get much out of it, and it’s probably much more enjoyable for adults overall. It’s pretty philosophical and thoughtful, and has quite a lot of metaphors and symbolism that would be lost on younger viewers.

Rather than aiming to sell toys, the film is the product; it’s a way to make money with the Barbie brand from audiences outside of the toy-buying demographic. And it achieved that (by being a good film).

There’s no inflation in space, just explosive decompression!

People can be angry or upset about more than one thing at a time. And you’ve no idea whether the person you responded to has been outraged about the US’ strikes or not. Just because a society as a whole has a viewpoint that trends a certain way doesn’t mean you can assume each and every individual you talk to has that exact viewpoint.

By all means, criticise society as a whole - it’s a very valid thing to be critical of. But making assumptions about individuals - and being rude to / critical of them based on those assumptions - isn’t the way to win anyone over.

Even if Starmer and the Labour party were pretty much the same except they kept the mask on, that would still be a step in the right direction. Normalising the racism, bigotry, corruption and general inhumaneness that fuels the Tory party is absolutely something we should try to avoid.

However, I don’t think Labour is like this. I don’t think they’re perfect, but I think they’re much, much better. They’re not going to fix everything overnight, but I do think them getting into power would be an important first stepping stone in moving the country and politics towards being a better place in in 10-15 years. They may not be your ideal party but, if you’re pragmatic and have any kind of long-term vision, you’ll likely vote for them (or the Liib Dems, depending on which constituency you’re in) to make sure the Tories are eliminated.

The Overton window is far too far to the right at the moment and Labour getting into power is important for helping to gradually shift it leftwards. People simply aren’t going to vote in a “radical” socialist in the current political or economic climate; they want someone they can see as a safe pair of hands who can work on stabilising things somewhat. Right now, that’s Starmer - the boring man who’s politically central (by current standards) with a fairly clean record and an air of competence. When, in most constituencies, the options are Labour and Tory, you working to put everyone off Labour is just going to benefit the Tories.

Stop letting perfect be the enemy of good.

That and “Suella de Ville”. And she’s fully deserving of either title. I mentioned elsewhere in the thread, but where other politicians I dislike feel like they’re either doing the wrong things for the right reasons, or they’re selfish, corrupt or incompetent, Braverman feels like she gets off on the cruelty and is a genuinely evil person.

I think calling her the “second coming of Maggie” really undersells Braverman’s cruelty and capacity for evil. I think Thatcher really fucked up this country, and we’re still feeling the effects of some of her policies to this day. But Thatcher did genuinely think she was doing things for the right reasons - that she was making tough but necessary decisions.

Braverman seems to get off on the cruelty. A lot of her policies and ideas seem cruel for the sake of cruelty. There are plenty of politicians I’ve disagreed with and disliked, but they’ve all tended to feel like it’s either because they were doing what I’d consider to be the wrong things for the right reasons (ie, they thought it would help, different approaches to what I’d want but with positive outcomes in mind, etc) or they’ve just been selfish, corrupt or idiotic. Braverman is a whole different thing entirely. The purpose of her policies is often the cruelty, with no tangible benefits that even she can list. She’s a genuinely evil person.

You’re right. My CEO deserves 118x my pay because I only work 8 hours a day, while they work 944 hours a day…

Yes, a CEO will likely have the most individual impact on a company, but that doesn’t mean what they’re doing is necessarily harder work than what someone on the shop floor is doing. They have more individual impact because they’re CEO; they’re not CEO because of their individual impact. Take that person from the shop floor and put them in the CEO position and they’ll then be the one with the most individual impact instead.

It’s a different set of skills, sure. But one of those skills is definitely “being good at persuading people who make the actual product / provide the actual service to work for far, far less money than the CEO who simply co-ordinates it all”.