I don’t trust spotify not to fill those playlists with AI slop, now. I also personally prefer to go deeper on a band, rather than thoughtlessly drift through a bunch of stuff I’ll never hear again.
I do like bandcamp’s “people who bought this also bought this” recommendations, though.
I’ve been telling people for years to buy 1-2 albums a month, and then after a couple years you have a sizable library. Spotify is renting.
But spotify is easy and fast, and some people think they listen to way more music than they do. I wonder how many people are paying spotify $10/month to listen to the same 4 albums for years.
People gotta stop watching slop. But it seems impossible to get people to stop using tiktok, twitter, instagram, et al. They just don’t care enough.
Verbing weirds language, per calvin and hobbes
There’s some merit in what you’re saying. I’ve found that cooking with family can be quality time. A friend of mine has a toddler and they involve her in the kitchen (even when she was younger and her involvement was mostly “do you want to hold this potato?” tier)
So yes, time has value as well. 20 minutes cooking together can be pretty valuable.
I suppose. But have you tried to get people to care about things? It’s stupid hard. I can’t get most of my friends to stop using Twitter, which is a pretty low stakes change. Nevermind something like “eat less meat” or “walk instead of drive sometimes”
If you can make people care, you can solve a lot of problems
You can make that kind of thing illegal. I think “shrink wrap eulas” are dubious. Rule that fine print with a bunch of other stuff doesn’t count as explicit. Like there are rules now about cookie acceptance that has changed how the web works, and most sites don’t try to hide the cookie thing because that’s against the rules.
I think you’re under estimating what the law can do, probably because most of the time it’s used to bolster rich assholes.
You could probably make it illegal to alter people’s videos without their explicit consent. But also the Republicans have shown us that laws mean what the people in charge want
Keep track of your spending. Don’t just eyeball it. Dining out and delivery are very expensive.
Like a couple weeks ago I ordered dinner to eat with a friend realized the bill was like a whole week’s food budget all at once.
Rice, beans, vegetables, cheese, wraps? Like $5. Ordering two similar burritos? $30. That savings adds up.
Anyway, to answer your question and stop giving unsolicited advice: I almost always cook at home. I don’t have the income to do otherwise. When I had a high paying job I would order more food delivered.
Many people are illiterate. How many of them are trying to run Linux, I don’t know.
No. I’m not driving anywhere (walkable city resident) and I’m not eating that junk. I’m insufferable, sorry.
Seems like this should be illegal, Google should be broken up, and its leadership imprisoned
Well, there’s https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_literacy but that’s not written for children
I don’t think, of your examples, trackers and surveillance are a big part of it. Understanding subtext and credibility are more relevant. Like, recognizing when a newspaper always uses passive voice when cops do bad (eg: “man killed after violent police encounter” vs “police fatally shoot man waiting at bus stop”), but active voice for other people (eg: “Looters destroy small business shops” vs “Downtown shops damaged during anti-corruption protests”)
Also in fiction, being able to take away more than just the plot. Like you can read Dracula as just a book about a guy that bites people, but there are way more ways to read it. When someone makes a movie out of the story, notice what parts they keep, emphasize, and drop.
Easier and harder are not the goal posts being discussed.
Back when game design was an actual artform, having a boss who’s easy with one build but terrible against another up-to-then valid build indicates BAD GAME DESIGN
“easy”
easy
EASY
Are you kidding me right now? Is this a bit?
Your post was nonsense. “You can’t have a boss that is strong against something else that used to work” is a stupid design “rule” you made up. Like every game that has meaningfully different builds is going to have parts that are easier or harder for a build.
Yes, for example, famously pokemon with the elemental gyms was bad design. You should totally be able to use your fire pokemon to fight the fire gym. /s
And certainly no other game has something like a fire elemental boss that you can’t use fire on.
There’s just such a contingent of people who get off on hating from soft. It’s tedious as heck
Except for some optional bosses I found it pretty chill. Most of the optional bosses that are hard have easier ways of dealing with them, too.
Using a tower shield and poke weapon was the easiest playthrough of the game I’ve done. Easiest of all the from soft games I’ve played, even. The final boss went down in 4 minutes and I barely had to heal.
I think a problem some people get with these games is they have a sort of tunnel vision. They’ll have a scimitar and lose to the boss lose to the boss lose to the boss, and they don’t really consider trying something else.
I think that’s the nature of publicly traded for profit companies. The shareholders don’t care about the product. They just want their portfolio’s value to go up.
The leadership doesn’t care much about the product. Not in the long term. They get paid a big salary, and the higher-ups have equity they want to go up in value. So long as they cash out before the product dies, they’re golden.
The actual labor building the product might care. Some are just working for a paycheck. (I knew a guy who worked at spotify, actually. He didn’t personally care much about music. He was just a database guy). But the ones who do care don’t have any power.
So most of the forces that would push the company towards being long term good don’t have power. The forces that want more profits, now, do.