|
Traditional white wedding cake is literally the worst kind of cake. It isn't even a close race; that poo poo is garbage. America's holidays mostly suck. They've been transformed into festivals of gluttony focusing largely on material things thanks to marketing. I generally refuse to celebrate them.
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 18:35 |
|
|
Having a mental illness bad enough does too count as a disability. It may not get you a parking spot but asking for certain adjustments at work so you can do your job is totally reasonable.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
bad boy in the boy band posted:That's pretty much what I meant. I will never, ever understand people that feel the need to take pictures of their meals, either. I could understand it if it was something exceptional but most of the time it's just another sandwich or pizza or something. Granted that was also what turned me off of Twitter. 95% of the posts I saw were on the lines of "I just had lunch it was good!" or "my dog pooped and it was adorable!" Like yeah mundane poo poo happens to all of us all day every day. Please don't make four posts about the sub you had at Subway.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Also not all meat is exactly the same and can (or should) be prepared in different ways. The right way to cook your meat is how you like eating it. I have no idea why this opinion is so unpopular. I like my steak extra well done, burnt a bit actually, and then doused in a poo poo load of A1 sauce. I can't stand rare steak at all and think that an overcooked steak with a ton of steak sauce is really, really tasty. If I'm eating a steak I'm eating it that way and anybody that tells me it's wrong is a jerk. It's my god damned steak I'll eat it how I want to.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2016 09:20
|
|
|
Yeah "wheat bread" is generally whole wheat bread. "White bread" is usually heavily processed, bleached garbage bread full of high fructose corn syrup. Granted sometimes wheat bread is that stuff made with whole wheat instead of processed what but you know. Every other kind of bread is what you'd expect. Rye bread is rye, sourdough is sourdough, and so forth.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2016 09:05
|
|
|
Terrible movies are typically more entertaining that good movies. Low-budget, awful science fiction or horror movies are more fun to watch than current high-budget blockbusters. Almost all movies that come out these days are bland rehashes of old ideas that follow a set formula and rely on CGI and flashy visuals to wow audiences. Few of them are ever memorable. That or blatant nostalgia cash ins. I get that they make money but they're always dreadful.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2016 09:58
|
|
|
Television is stupid and bad.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Pick posted:Malt-o-Meals are literally the Post cereals. They're made in the same factory, I know someone who works there. That's true of a lot of generic or store brand things, actually. In many, many cases it's exactly the same stuff in less fancy packaging, maybe with slightly cheaper ingredients.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
Noisy, aggressive music isn't as popular as it deserves thanks to the social stigma surrounding enjoying it. It isn't OK to assume that every person that enjoys the heaviest metal they can find is a drug-addled loser who wants to spend his life being unemployed and getting into fights. I like nasty, abrasive, aggressive music. I also happen to be a boring rear end software developer that does no drugs. gently caress your stereotypes.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
Das Boo posted:I knew there was a Moore comic that it's based off of, but I've never read it. How "based" is it? Watchman, where it's real drat close, or Super Mario Bros, where there is a plumber? There are similarities. The setting is the same and V being a vigilante that fucks up a totalitarian regime in Britain using questionable tactics is all there. In the comics V is far more morally ambiguous and it isn't preachy. They movie screwed that up pretty badly, actually; the entire point of V is that you could see him as either a stalwart freedom fighter or a dangerous terrorist. Or both, really; in the movie he is 100% totally the good guy. The comics, like everything Moore makes, are way more complex than the movie adaptation. I thought V for Vendetta was a mediocre movie at best. It had its moments but it was pretty forgettable overall.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2016 07:09
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:All comics are bad. Only most TV shows / movies / novels are bad. Counterpoint: everything is bad.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
The thing that really bothers me about celebrity deaths is that most of them aren't all that shocking but you always see "I'm so shocked!!!" Well, you know, people aged 60 and older are, you know, old and die of old person things. It's shocking if somebody dies in an accident, especially younger than 60. Go ahead and be shocked about that. Go ahead and be shocked whenever somebody you like dies before 60. Go ahead! It's fine. Most people don't die before 60. But please don't be shocked, horrified, and surprised when somebody that is old dies of old. That happens every day. A lot. Humans get old and die. It's perfectly normal. It isn't shocking at all. We're living things. That's what living things do. They grow old and they die.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Well yea, you notice the bulk of the grief has been focused on Prince and David Bowie? Celebrities also have access to all of the best drugs and enough money to buy a bottomless supply of all of them. The other thing that isn't shocking is when a celebrity dies young of an overdose. Being famous is apparently pretty awful and famous people often find themselves consuming all of the substances to cope. It also comes with free access to all of the parties.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:And yet, Keith Richards. Some people are just inexplicably indestructible. Apparently English rock stars are just immune to everything. Lemmy died at 70 and Ozzie is 68 and still trucking.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
veni veni veni posted:I thought theaters were experiencing a resurgence. Sort of. They're also sort of on life support. The problem is that seeing something on a big screen with fancy surround sound is something that people can have in their living rooms now. You obviously can't set up an actual movie theater but you can do good enough for like $2,000. Watch whatever you want whenever you want, have your friends over, watch you favorite movie 500 times, don't have to go anywhere or deal with the public...hell yeah! In the long run it's also cheaper as theaters have gotten belligerently expensive about everything. Home theaters are only going to get cheaper, too, especially thanks to the fact that you can order a movie for like $2 on the internet now. Don't even need to head to the store to buy a DVD! So what theaters have been doing is focusing on exclusive new release showings and special stuff you can't properly do at home. You know, 3D movies and XD or 4D movies or whatever the gently caress they're doing now. They've been doing what they can to keep ahead of the home technology curve so they're not completely dying but once again that stuff as technology develops is going to end up in living rooms too. But seriously I have to agree; gently caress theaters. There's more drat previews every year and the last time I went so see a movie I got told to "make sure I have my popcorn and soda!" four times before the movie started. Getting popcorn and soda would have cost $10. No thanks. Movies I actually might want to watch also pretty rarely come out these days so I spend my time and money on other things. If I actually go to a theater it's to watch something in 3D anyway. I can watch 2D movies on my computer box at home in "good enough" quality.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
veni veni veni posted:100 seems steep by virtue of how many people you'd need to get together to make it economical (poo poo, 10 people in a living room would probably be worse than a theater) but if they ever did that it would probably need to be like a pay per view sporting event. Otherwise, if you could pay 10 dollars or whatever and a bunch of people could watch it, cutting massively into their profits. Yeah but then everybody could just record it with their VCRs/DVDrs/TiVOs/computers very very easily with good quality. Piracy would be rampant! There would be no profits for the movie industry and it would implode, destroying BILLIONS of jobs with it!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
Sic Semper Goon posted:As I previously mentioned, white collar crime is the way to go. Just don't steal from rich people. Bernie Madoff made that mistake and he's gone forever. The legal system doesn't give much of a poo poo if you own a company that bilks millions of people out of billions of dollars but as soon as you defraud a rich person...hooooo boy
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I know they make a ton of money on snacks because the mark up is insane but id legit go more often and buy more if it wasnt a $30 experience. Just the audacity they have to even ask that turns me off from even going. That's really the central part of my biggest complaint. Like I really, really like to see a good movie in 3D with a stellar sound system on a huge screen. I also like to munch on popcorn when I do it. I really dislike paying $20 to $30 to do that in a typical theater these days. Most of them have carpets that are older than I am that have been cleaned maybe once, uncomfortable seats bought as cheaply as possible, and no policies to keep obnoxious people out. If movies weren't so frequently ruined by screaming toddlers or people with cell phones I'd probably go more. Asking for courtesy doesn't do it; you need to throw people out if they ruin the experience for others but of course that involves paying somebody to actually do that. Theaters are also run on skeleton crews that are obviously not being paid enough to care. You'll hear stupid poo poo like speakers rattling because they haven't been maintained properly, broken equipment that hasn't been properly working in years, and horrifyingly bad food safety. The popcorn bin probably hasn't been cleaned in a decade and the bathrooms are filled with unspeakable horrors. Then thanks to the movie industry sometimes if you pony up for the fancy extras you end up not getting them. Aside from the fact that the last Hobbit movie was just boring and awful in general I went to see it in 3D. There were like two scenes of 3D in the whole movie where it was noticeable. It wasn't even that much of it either. It really speaks to the badness of the whole industry top to bottom that leaving the theater thinking "I'm glad I came here" has been the minority of times I went in the past like...decade. The quality of the experience has just gotten continually worse. I also enjoy cheesy, ridiculous science fiction but other than the Star Trek movies that doesn't seem to come out all that often anymore. Everything is just formulaic nostalgia-mining bullshit. I don't want to watch comic book movies but like 40 of them come out every year.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
Das Boo posted:The only movies I've seen worth seeing in 3D are all animated. 3D live action just draws my attention to the rift between CG and reality and yanks my suspension of disbelief right outta there. Star Trek: Into Darkness was very, very good in 3D. Then again I guess that also counts as animated because there was CGI to hell and back on that one. Fury Road was also pretty drat good in 3D. Then again the ones I enjoyed most in 3D were animated. Up and How to Train your Dragon were spectacular in 3D. I went to see both 3D in the theater twice. I very rarely watch a movie more than once.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
hard counter posted:it's pretty much airplane literature but a website, if you're killing a few minutes at work it's pretty alright but I guess that isn't high praise either Yeah, Cracked is an entertaining thing good for killing spare time. A lot of it is actually decently researched and I've learned some neat historical tidbits from it. Is it literary brilliance? No. It's just click baity bullshit that manages to not be terrible.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:Agreeing that VR is pretty much a failure. It's just not something that people really want. And the technology, as it exists right now, still kinda sucks. It's not very immersive and you're still standing in your living room with a dumb headset on. It's not the Matrix or anything like that. So it doesn't even deliver on its promise. I've tried to engage with pro-VR people in the VR thread in Games subforum, but theyre convinced I'm a troll and I get nowhere. I think the biggest issue is the price, really. That and it makes a lot of people nauseous. So you pay $800 on top of what you already paid for your computer for a fancy new peripheral that doesn't really improve the functionality of the game all that much. Oh also you might not even be able to use it because of the nausea. A monitor or two displays things in "good enough" quality so why bother? The price of a VR headset that can't play all that many games lets you buy a bunch of games instead.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2016 05:57
|
|
|
Mu Zeta posted:So it might be a cool product in 5-10 years? I'll be holding my breath I guess. It'll be like joysticks, flight sims, and what have you. Most people won't be that much interested in it. However, you'll have people that think it's neat as gently caress and want to play the hell out of it. For people that just want solitaire and click toys VR just isn't relevant but for fans of shooters and especially voxel games you'll see a bunch of adopters.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2016 11:04
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:People with weird fetishes should keep them to themselves. The problem is too many people, especially on the internet, think its a good idea to share them, completely unasked and unprovoked. It's like, goddamn i dont care if you and your SO are into weird poo poo, just don't bring it up for no reason. The best thing to do is to just accept that humans, as a whole, are weird and gross and we do weird and gross things. It won't bother you if you just shrug and go "meh, whatever" in the face of anything harmless. Most fetishes are just that: harmless.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
Sic Semper Goon posted:With the all-consuming, utter fanaticism that weed smokers have for a plant, I'm honestly surprised they didn't mob you and burn the heathen at the stake. I, personally, don't give a poo poo if people want to smoke week but boy howdy does that poo poo get aggravating. Not everybody is going to want to smoke weed and most people won't want to smoke it every day. It's like...some people smoke it, some people don't. Why do some people treat "get everybody to smoke weed" like some kind of holy crusade? The dumbest thing was when a hardcore weed smoker tried to convince me that we'd forever have world peace and no more social ills if we just got the whole world to smoke weed together for 24 hours. I'm like...no dude, that's a terrible idea.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
Standard, inexpensive desktop computer speakers sound just fine. Really cheap speakers sound like garbage but standard computer speakers do the job well enough. They can't get really loud of course but I never, ever need that and as an apartment dweller my neighbors would hate that. Audiophiles are the ones that can totally for real tell the difference between wires just by listening. Except that is provably bullshit. Audiophiles couldn't tell the difference between top of the line wires and a pair of metal coat hangers twisted into wires.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
veni veni veni posted:Headphones and speakers are like booze. You can tell the difference between the crap and something nice for sure, but after a certain point you are just a sucker. That and there's a certain point where you spend more just to say you spent more. That's true of all things, though; there are so, so many people who gauge their self-worth on how much money they've wasted on frivolous luxury. Sorry kids but the only thing you really got out of those $700 cables was some bragging rights most people are going to be unimpressed by.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2017 02:39
|
|
|
Mu Zeta posted:Same thing with those blind wine tests The best one was when they served professional wine tasters the cheapest white wine they could fin with red food coloring in it put in a really fancy bottle with an intricate label and the wine tasters were like "mmmm really really good red wine. The best stuff!" That might be a bit of exaggeration but I remember reading about that too. Wine tasters had absolutely no god damned clue what they were talking about. There were incidences where they would say that a white wine with food coloring added was totally a red wine, we can tell by how it tastes!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2017 03:00
|
|
|
If both people are 18 or older I don't give a single poo poo how far apart their ages are. If they are getting something they need from each other then like whatever, I don't care, make each other happy. Quite frankly it's none of my drat business.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2017 04:17
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:I think Sommeliers could probably tell the difference. But here, have a clickbate video showing whiskey reviewers trying different whiskeys: The thing that made me happiest about that video was that it turns out I'm not the only one who likes whiskey but loathes that honey whiskey. That stuff is dreadful.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2017 04:41
|
|
|
Tattooing and piercing are either older than, or as old as, writing. Humans have been modifying our bodies in various weird ways for ever. Acting like it's some kind of moral failing that only bad people get is absurd. We've always done it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2017 00:18
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:People have always been poo poo. Never denied it. We're all smelly, hairy, disgusting, selfish apes. I'm no exception.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
You are under no obligation to like your family. If they are lovely people they are lovely people and you are well within your rights to distance yourself from them.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2017 03:35
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:I'm still very confused how Frozen was such a huge thing. I didn't think it was bad but I barely remember anything about it, and I liked stuff like Inside Out and find that memorable It was a pretty good fairy tale with some funny moments. The animation was pretty impressive. It was good. Not great just good. It also kind of kicked a Disney trend away in that neither princess is married at the end of the movie. It isn't "they got married and lived happily ever after" like basically every other Disney movie.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
zandert33 posted:And yet several people of Latin American decent that I know loved that part and ate it up. I don't think I've ever run into somebody that's considered Speedy Gonzales racist nor have I seen that on the internet, ever. He's a mouse from Mexico that wears a big hat and goes fast. Big deal. I have, however, heard comments on his cousin Slowpoke Rodriguez being a racist character. He's slow, lazy, and carries a gun. Kind of matches some negative stereotypes. Then again Slowpoke Rodriguez is apparently very popular as well.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2017 06:07
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:I wonder why Americans are more boisterous and outgoing than Europeans. My guess would be that our country is bigger than their continent so we're only used to dealing with ourselves instead of traveling 80 miles and being in a totally different culture. Americans just have a culture that encourages being loud and obnoxious.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
Pick posted:Eugenics is evil. Also it's bad. Also it's not even a real thing because people can't identify or prioritize actual good. Anyway, it's a good way to identify lovely people. I've been overhearing a lot of eugenics conversations lately. Academia is poo poo. Eeeehhhhh the base idea of eugenics is fine in the sense of "improve humans but improving our gene pool." In theory we could genetically engineer higher disease resistance, faster and stronger bodies, better brains, and the like. That and remove genetic diseases. That would get rid of a bunch of different kinds of cancer as well as horrifying things like tay-sachs. In theory it's fine. In practice, well...Nazis. A common view at the time was that bad genes came from non-white people while pure white people already were totally perfect and awesome. The concept gets a bad reputation because most of the time it's brought up it's used to justify horrifying, despicable things. It wouldn't be a problem if, say, whenever a couple wanted to have a baby they could pick and choose sperms and eggs to remove genes that contained genetic disorders. That just becomes a problem when you believe "is X race" is a genetic disorder.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2017 03:22
|
|
|
Pick posted:Nope, see, even with that you've already come to the conclusion that you know the correct limits of human diversity. Actually notice that I didn't say I knew the correct limits. Really just "hey we can use this to make some improvements." Kind of the point of it is instead of making evolution totally about random chance nudging things in the direction we'd like it to go. Dog breeds are pretty much exactly what not to. I am not one to talk about the specifics because my education was in computer science, mathematics, and pottery. I'd leave that to biologists and doctors and whatever to figure out. Though the other side of it is Mu Zeta posted:Eugenics is going about it the wrong way. We need cybernetic implants to fix our human bodies. gently caress evolution it moves too drat slow. Take out these meat brains and staple machines on that poo poo these meat bodies suck.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2017 03:34
|
|
|
The other thing with eugenics is that it is used as justification to deny certain people the right to breed. From the standpoint of human rights that is in the category of "oh gently caress no." Same goes for mandated genetic screening. No; that crosses lines I'd rather not be crossed and leads to Nazis. Same goes for forcing certain people to have babies. That's just right out. "Make babies if you want to or, if you prefer, don't" is a basic human right as far as I'm concerned. I don't think it's unreasonable however to offer it as a tool to people who want it. I'm sure there are a lot of people who have horrible genetic diseases in their gene pool they'd rather like to not risk passing on to their offspring.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
The rich getting better stuff than the rest of us isn't exactly new. "But it will benefit the rich more!" is kind of a crappy reasoning for not doing something. The other thing is that, as time goes by, expensive thing exclusive to the rich tend to get cheaper and available to pretty much everybody. Luxuries are an obvious exception (we'll probably never have literally everybody living in a gigantic mansion or eating caviar all the time) but look at stuff like anything used for communication, cars, manufactured clothing...all sorts of stuff starts as exclusive to the rich but as it becomes increasingly common everybody gets it. Look at modern medicine; yeah only the very wealthy get the best cures but there's a ton of very useful stuff that costs pennies to make. ...though the pharmaceutical companies run by those rich people like to make 5,000% returns on costs but eh...
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 18:35 |
|
|
Collateral Damage posted:Doesn't Japan (like most of the western world) already have a nativity problem? I'm not sure letting people choose to only have male offspring would help that. The western world is generally at or slightly below the replacement rate at this point. Parts of Europe are pretty low. Japan, however, is far, far below it. I read somewhat recently that something like 45% of adults in Japan are virgins. That isn't like "we're finding that young Japanese people are starting to have sex later than before" but rather "Japanese people aren't loving at all any more." The Japanese, if they keep doing what they are now, are going to not breed themselves out of existence. It's a serious problem they aren't dealing with. Aside from the long term problem of ending themselves there's the shorter term problem of not enough young people to take care of the old people. Their birth rate is just crazy, crazy low. The other snag on eugenics chat is in China and India male babies are considered more valuable than female ones. Female babies are getting aborted or carried to term and hidden and/or abandoned. Women are being beaten for not bearing boys and the gender ratio is getting all out of whack. China in particular, partly thanks to its restrictions on birth numbers, is becoming increasingly male.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2017 22:49
|
|