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 remember in my coding class when the prof claimed the language we were learning didn’t have GOTO, but it also didn’t need it because anything that could be accomplished with GOTO could be accomplished with loops and conditionals.
Now looking back I can’t believe what a tech debt nightmare goto is, and I’m glad I weaned off it.
Startup scripts seem more powerful because they’re code you know will be executed sequentially. For a developer that feels nice.
But a declarative system like systemd is so much more predictable and stable, specifically because it does NOT allow for sequential execution of code.
Once I made that switch I was a fan. It’s so much more predictable and standardized.
Exactly my sentiment. Why would you want something with more moving parts than systemd which is also slower? :D
There are some good alternatives to SysV init.d scripts nowadays which only came to fruition after systemd existed and people noticed it's possible to write something like this.
I used OpenRC and s6 and both of them worked better and were easier to configure than SysV init.
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.
It's a very useful guideline. There are times when those rules should be broken - systemd may be one of those - but by and large the UNIX philosophy has served us well.
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.
I almost forgot it existed. It was a slight improvement, but with a whole bunch of new problems (most notable race conditions which were never fixed) and it was made obsolete by systemd.
It was a good evolutionary step only used by Ubuntu iirc. It was better at that time than the previous init system, but not more than that and it never found wide adaption.
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
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.
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.
Was at dinner with my partner's family. His sister acquiesced to his niece when she demanded her phone 5 seconds after finishing her meal, and said nothing while the girl sat there watching loud videos. Nothing about 'hey we're in a restaurant' or anything about being polite and making conversation. She's 13. Has no concept of boredom or how to act around adults. Because there's zero requirement to.
I think it's fine in moderation and when it's some manually curated service like the children's section of streaming platforms (but even then it's not perfect considering Cocomelon exists), or in the case of YouTube you're watching it WITH your kid to avoid running into anything weird (though I think any platform meant for content aimed towards children should be 100% manually curated). The problem is when it's excessive or it winds up sending your five year old down a bizarre rabbithole of pregnant Spiderman twerking videos because you didn't bother to moderate what they were watching.
You got some good answers but remember too, you're only seeing a fragment of those kids at your place. The screen might for example be a special rare reward for them to keep them quite so your friends can visit you... doesn't mean they're on scree s all the time.
My kids aren't particularly screen born most of the time, but when we're out I often relax the rules to keep things smooth. The fact that it's a rare treat makes it even more effective
There's a segment on a podcast I listen to that is all about conversations without context, and half of phone conversations are a common feature.
The hosts will mention some they've encountered over the week since their last recording, and people will call in to share the ones they hear. Always a good chuckle.
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.
I'd call "raw" tomatoes, as in regular eatable ones as just regular tomatoes. Raw to me sounds like unripe. While prepared, I guess that is self-explanatory. But I guess that's more about cultural or language differences.
What do you not like about "raw" (I guess it is now warranted since there's ambiguity, so fair enough) tomatoes? I think they're the tits! First time I hear the term "heirloom tomatoes" btw.
Raw means uncooked, not unripe. They taste sharper and have their skins on, and the seeds are with their gel and juice, between the firm fleshy parts. When tomatoes are cooked, often the first step is to drop them in boiling water for a minute, take them out, and slide the skins off. Because the skin gets tough when cooked. The other thing that happens in cooking is that the flesh softens and the seeds migrate so it's all more or less the same texture. The flavor gets sweeter too.
Personally I like raw tomatoes and cooked equally, but they are different.
Just sounds so weird, people calling regular tomartoes "raw" lmao. Is that a thing somewhere in the world, maybe the US? They like their stuff factory done lol
Raw cherry tomatoes or grape tomatoes would go along with raw carrots and raw celery and raw cauliflower and raw bell peppers and other raw vegetables on a crudité platter. Guess what "cru" and "crudités" means in French?
The point being that these are all vegetables that can also be served cooked. (Unlike lettuce which is ruined by cooking. I tried it once, blech.) But when dipping, you want that firmness and fresh taste.
It's not a US thing, or anything special, you just seem to have an exaggerated idea of what the word raw means. Maybe you're confused because it can also mean naked ("in Equus, he appeared on stage in the raw") or chafed/chapped ("his nose was red and raw from the snowstorm") or unedited/unfiltered ("the raw data suggests Hillary Clinton will win the 2016 election"). But in this case it just means uncooked/unheated. It could be sliced and spiced and still be raw.
Btw, we don't default to cooked or canned tomatoes, we would specify those as well, for instance in a pasta or chili recipe.
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.
Of course people can have whatever they want, but it's not a traditional pizza combination for the same reason why no other fruits are found in a pizza except for tomatoes!
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.
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.
My biggest (not only) complaint so far is that entire planets have maybe 8 or 9 species of plants and animals. Hopefully biodiversity mods will pop up. It seems like a decent platform to build future content into.
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 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.
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.
I said Quebec because of the victim complex and all the chest beating about independence that goes nowhere (Quebec at least has a better reason than Texas or Bavaria.)
I wouldn't go so far as to call it the German Texas, if the kids can still go to school without fearing for their life. Sounds more like the German Ohio.
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.
It's not like the northern states don't hold this hypocritical position themselves though. CSU just had powerful positions in drug politics lately, I guess.
"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.
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 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…
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 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.
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.
Look into magnetic sunglasses, Zenni sells a few pairs if you buy online. Best decision I've ever made.
No longer do I have to yolo changing glasses while going 120km down the highway to work during that stupid 2 month period where it goes from pitch black to blinding sun during my commute.
I've had them for about 3 years now and I wish they would catch on faster so I could get new styles. The sunglass part is pretty thin but I've yet to break it in 3 years of accidentally leaving it in my back pocket while sitting down.
You mean clip-ons? They're neat in theory, but my glasses are already relatively thick by virtue of my bad eyes, even in lightweight. So whenever I had a clip, the weight + bulk of the glasses started to annoy me. Pricey as it is, I'd rather just have two sets of glasses then.
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.
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.
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've known quite a few people/groups that are poly and I dated someone who was poly for a while too. I did it because I didn't feel like I had to deal with 100% of my partner because that would have crushed me.
My info is purely anecdotal but two super common threads that kept on appearing is there were people who were poly, but were never actually poly and just said it because their partner wanted to be so they said they were too and that the people who were super committed to poly all were trying to fill a gap in their lives and had a lot of insecurities in general.
Most hated the idea of ever being alone, not just in 'a relationship' but actually just being by themselves.
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 think this point about being discreet is huge. My husband and have been open/poly for a decade (ie from the start). We don’t keep it a secret by any means, but most people I know have no idea — it just doesn’t come up in conversation very often.
We had a very bizarre situation recently where one of my closest friends saw my husband holding hands with his girlfriend at the beach. She texted me frantically, saying she just wants to support me and is here if I need her and she hoped she was doing the right thing by telling me. It was pretty trippy to tell this friend who is close enough to know super specific details about very private parts of my life “oh cool thanks but it’s chill.”
Non-monogamy isn’t for everyone, but it’s for a lot more people than you might think.
Yeah, this is my dynamic as well. My partner and I have been together for a decade and poly from the beginning. It's not at all a secret, but people are so used to monogamy as a norm that they often just think our other partners are super close friends that hang out at our house a lot.
I wouldn't say that I'm discreet, but I don't make a point of telling people about it or anything. It eventually comes up in conversation naturally as I'm getting to know people. If I talk to you about my personal life, it's gonna come up.
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.
Would you consider it a perfectly legitimate arrangement if one end of the "V" resents it and is unhappy? Because that's the only way I've ever seen a polyamorous arrangement working in practice (and as I said earlier, I've only seen two, and both were like that).
I’m on one end of a V and super happy with the arrangement (the “primary” end, so the one most likely to harbor resentment). The other end of the V is too. And so is the middle lol.
Actually now that I think about it it’s actually a W. The other side of the V is in another V with her primary.
A resentful V is unhealthy and not going to end well, but there are plenty of happy functional Vs around.
Although I am not interested in doing it myself, I consider myself a student of psychology and sociology and am very curious. I hope I have the privilege of meeting a success-case such as yourself in person, who's not shy about discussing it candidly, because I have a lot of curiosity about it and how it works.
I'm glad it's working for you. If you don't mind me asking, how long have you been participating in this relationship, do all 3 live together or separately, and have you always been an end or have you also been the middle of the V?
My husband and I have been together for 10 years. He currently has a girlfriend he’s been seeing about 6 months. She lives with her husband (who also has a secondary partner) and two children. I have dated a bit but am not currently interested in anything outside our marriage. We also had a relationship a while ago where a close friend of mine had a purely sexual relationship with my husband for a little while, and for the next three years, we went through periods of being a triangle, a V, all just friends, she lived with us for a bit. She moved across the country and now is in a monogamous relationship, and we are all good friends. The most drama that has ever happened is that a guy I was into slept with a girl my husband had slept with. That kinda sucked. Thankfully I had my husband to cheer me up.
I hope I have the privilege of meeting a success-case such as yourself in person, who's not shy about discussing it candidly, because I have a lot of curiosity about it and how it works.
Not the person you're asking, but given your categorical prior assertions, I cannot help imagining a mocking tone in your question.
Not sure how you are misingerpreting what I've said, but you are way off here. My previous experiences (don't know how you got 'assertions') are based on an already disclosed small sample size.
I have no judgments and no expectations but I am genuinely curious to learn more about the psycologies and dynamics involved, because it's completely foreign to me. Are you confusing me with another poster?
Would you consider it a perfectly legitimate arrangement if one end of the “V” resents it and is unhappy?
That's just called cheating, not polyarmory.
Mind you, I've been in this setup you describe for a long time. My previous partner had female partners on top of me after ~7 years of only having me, and while I was friends with some of the women - good friends with one, even - I wasn't ever "close" to most of them. Worked perfectly fine for me.
And this wasn't a short thing either, we were together for ~10 years after that point, and the longest "third" partner was for 6 years.
Because that's the only way I've ever seen a polyamorous arrangement working in practice
And we know that the only things that exist are the one you have personally seen, so neutrinos, ultraviolet light, Greenland and the dark side of the moon don't exist. Right?
It's more like: I've only ever seen two unicorns, and both were white. Someone is trying to convince me that pink unicorns exist and I am saying I would like to see a pink unicorn.
Seems like you are intentionally trying to start a conflict where none exists.
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.
I’ve never been polyamorous but I have been a player before and a period during which I had lots and lots of casual sex with lots of different women actually gave me a better appreciation of women as individuals.
There’s something about not having one person be your everything that allows them to be a real person instead of a symbol.
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.
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.
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.
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.
ehhh bodies are pretty gross. teeth in places mashin up stuff, grimy bacteria in all the folds and crevasses, stinky sweaty fluids and excretions, there's tons of stuff in the human body that is either conceptually quite horrifying or that we are downright neurologically programmed to be disgusted by. the eroticism of it all really just allows us to look past the disgust and see desire, joy, pleasure. that's the subjective element.
that dude was dumb for thinking polyamory is a sex act though lol
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.
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!
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.
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.
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
🤯 I frankly never thought of just asking. I figured they were under the gun to deliver so quickly that they wouldn't do that. This changes things. I may have to visit In-N-Out again.
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.
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.
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!)
It's basically polenta made with white maize. It tastes milder and definitively different, but the biggest difference for me is the texture - once it cools it gets more "gelatinous" (dunno if this makes sense), but firmer. I also have an easier time deep-frying it.
My grandma prepared it almost every day. Often as "hairy polenta" (polenta, mozzarella, polenta, sauce - the "hair" was the cheese strings), so I spend a good time in my childhood thinking that yellow = instant polenta.
[Vou manter em inglês para incluir os outros usuários, OK?]
I've seen the domain but it's the first time that I actually checked it. First impression: holy fuck the art in bolha.io looks amazing. Content on its Lemmy instance seems focused on games, so I'll probably subscribe to a few comms there.
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]).
My favorite is fried liver, and it's easy to prepare. Just coat them with flour, then whisked eggs, then breadcrumbs and finally fry in hot oil. Don't salt them before frying as they'll turn bitter.
In my region we also prepare them with onions and chicken blood. I know how it sounds but it tastes amazing.
Glad you found it interesting, when my grandma used to butcher (I think that's the right english word for it) chicken she always made it from fresh blood and liver, it tasted amazing. When it was a rooster she also added the testicles.
The recipe seems legit, google translate only makes one mistake. You should pour the blood into boiling water with a pinch of salt, not a pinch of blood into hot water. Otherwise that's how I'd prepare.
Or we just don't like the taste. I'm not picky about what part of the animal I eat (except chitlin's... the smell put me off those forever). I'll eat gizzards all day. Chicken liver tastes like dirt to me.
I don't criticise cases like you*, but usually people saying "I don't like the taste" are far less than the ones picking on it for being offal. At least from my experience.
*or my mum - she's no fan of chicken liver, but give her chicken gizzards or beef liver and she'll happily devour it
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.
It's not called NFTs because it's literally not using NFT technology in Steam. I've never seen anything suggesting using NFTs for video games that couldn't be accomplished with a database and a store page like what Steam does.
It's not about "accomplishing" something that couldn't be done with a database. It's about making these items tradeable on a platform that doesn't belong to a single entity, which is often the original creator of the item you want to sell. As good as the Steam marketplace might be for some people, every single sale pays a tax to Valve, and the terms could change at any moment with no warning. The changes could be devastating for the value of your collectibles that you might have paid thousands of dollars for. This could not happen on any decentralized system. It could be something else that isn't NFTs but it would absolutely have to be decentralized. Anything centralized that "accomplishes the same thing" doesn't really accomplish the same thing.
It's worth noting that this sort of market control would never be considered ok on any other market. Can you imagine a car manufacturer requiring every sale to go through them? Would you accept paying them a cut when you resell your car? Would you accept having to go through them even to transfer ownership of the car to a family member? If a car manufacturer tried to enforce such terms on a sale they would be called out for it and it would most likely be ruled to be unlawful. But nobody questions the implications of the same exact situation in a digital marketplace.
That one part of the NFT idea that actually sounded good would never see the light of day. If blizzard implemented NFT in their games they would store data in the blockchain but would not accept anything from the blockchain that didn't have a matching receipt in their servers.
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.
Systemd apparently. Every time someone brings it up, the thread devolves into a religious flame war.
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 remember in my coding class when the prof claimed the language we were learning didn’t have GOTO, but it also didn’t need it because anything that could be accomplished with GOTO could be accomplished with loops and conditionals.
Now looking back I can’t believe what a tech debt nightmare goto is, and I’m glad I weaned off it.
Startup scripts seem more powerful because they’re code you know will be executed sequentially. For a developer that feels nice.
But a declarative system like systemd is so much more predictable and stable, specifically because it does NOT allow for sequential execution of code.
Once I made that switch I was a fan. It’s so much more predictable and standardized.
Exactly my sentiment. Why would you want something with more moving parts than systemd which is also slower? :D
There are some good alternatives to SysV init.d scripts nowadays which only came to fruition after systemd existed and people noticed it's possible to write something like this.
I used OpenRC and s6 and both of them worked better and were easier to configure than SysV init.
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.
F*ck the Unix philosophy, this is Linux, not Unix.
Ditching the UNIX philosophy is a bad idea.
It's a very useful guideline. There are times when those rules should be broken - systemd may be one of those - but by and large the UNIX philosophy has served us well.
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.
Upstart was fine. It does the parallel init thing without taking over the whole OS.
I almost forgot it existed. It was a slight improvement, but with a whole bunch of new problems (most notable race conditions which were never fixed) and it was made obsolete by systemd.
It was a good evolutionary step only used by Ubuntu iirc. It was better at that time than the previous init system, but not more than that and it never found wide adaption.
Yeah when systemd came out it was over a decade since I touched an init script. So the only difference to me was my computer booted up faster.
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
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.
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.
To those people who say you can't express sarcasm over text.
Fucking really? Can you not see it here either?
Or just get pissed because you included the "/s"
Are you telling me that people do like it when play videos out loud during my lunch?
Only the ones so dense that they're unable to sense sarcasm in text format.
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.
Was at dinner with my partner's family. His sister acquiesced to his niece when she demanded her phone 5 seconds after finishing her meal, and said nothing while the girl sat there watching loud videos. Nothing about 'hey we're in a restaurant' or anything about being polite and making conversation. She's 13. Has no concept of boredom or how to act around adults. Because there's zero requirement to.
I think it's fine in moderation and when it's some manually curated service like the children's section of streaming platforms (but even then it's not perfect considering Cocomelon exists), or in the case of YouTube you're watching it WITH your kid to avoid running into anything weird (though I think any platform meant for content aimed towards children should be 100% manually curated). The problem is when it's excessive or it winds up sending your five year old down a bizarre rabbithole of pregnant Spiderman twerking videos because you didn't bother to moderate what they were watching.
I guess so. Everything in moderation.
You got some good answers but remember too, you're only seeing a fragment of those kids at your place. The screen might for example be a special rare reward for them to keep them quite so your friends can visit you... doesn't mean they're on scree s all the time.
My kids aren't particularly screen born most of the time, but when we're out I often relax the rules to keep things smooth. The fact that it's a rare treat makes it even more effective
No, I hate that. Standup comedy is so overrated, what I want to hear is your phone call!
I really only want to hear 1/2 of a phone conversation
There's a segment on a podcast I listen to that is all about conversations without context, and half of phone conversations are a common feature.
The hosts will mention some they've encountered over the week since their last recording, and people will call in to share the ones they hear. Always a good chuckle.
Cilantro and onions. Y'all wouldn't last a day in Mexico.
Unfortunately I have the gene, but onions are great though.
Abolutely with you. I fucking hate cilantro and I fucking love onions.
Cilantro is one of the best things in life.
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.
I have it. It makes eating at Chipotle impossible.
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.
I always thought that was mildly interesting.
lol I have the opposite, anything with lime tastes like cilantro now. not complaining though, it’s a great combo.
I hate both, and I lasted a week in Mexico city, but learned how to request those things off, if I could.
Oh I'm quite aware, tomatoes too.
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.
It's a weird world out there.
I also don't like raw tomatoes, but cooked ones are okay.
I'd interpret 'regular tomatoes' as something non-heirloom.
I'd call "raw" tomatoes, as in regular eatable ones as just regular tomatoes. Raw to me sounds like unripe. While prepared, I guess that is self-explanatory. But I guess that's more about cultural or language differences.
What do you not like about "raw" (I guess it is now warranted since there's ambiguity, so fair enough) tomatoes? I think they're the tits! First time I hear the term "heirloom tomatoes" btw.
Raw means uncooked, not unripe. They taste sharper and have their skins on, and the seeds are with their gel and juice, between the firm fleshy parts. When tomatoes are cooked, often the first step is to drop them in boiling water for a minute, take them out, and slide the skins off. Because the skin gets tough when cooked. The other thing that happens in cooking is that the flesh softens and the seeds migrate so it's all more or less the same texture. The flavor gets sweeter too.
Personally I like raw tomatoes and cooked equally, but they are different.
Just sounds so weird, people calling regular tomartoes "raw" lmao. Is that a thing somewhere in the world, maybe the US? They like their stuff factory done lol
Raw cherry tomatoes or grape tomatoes would go along with raw carrots and raw celery and raw cauliflower and raw bell peppers and other raw vegetables on a crudité platter. Guess what "cru" and "crudités" means in French?
The point being that these are all vegetables that can also be served cooked. (Unlike lettuce which is ruined by cooking. I tried it once, blech.) But when dipping, you want that firmness and fresh taste.
It's not a US thing, or anything special, you just seem to have an exaggerated idea of what the word raw means. Maybe you're confused because it can also mean naked ("in Equus, he appeared on stage in the raw") or chafed/chapped ("his nose was red and raw from the snowstorm") or unedited/unfiltered ("the raw data suggests Hillary Clinton will win the 2016 election"). But in this case it just means uncooked/unheated. It could be sliced and spiced and still be raw.
Btw, we don't default to cooked or canned tomatoes, we would specify those as well, for instance in a pasta or chili recipe.
Pineapple pizza.
Fucking war criminal
Canadian Bacon and Pineapple is my favorite!
Pizza and Toast Hawaii are both nice.
I've also had pineapple kebab.
That's interesting!
Anything else omelette with pineapple?
Same. Kebab pizza in general is the tits
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.
Works well with some salty ingredients. Chicken is specifically good
Yes it's too sweet to fit a regular type pizza.
Of course people can have whatever they want, but it's not a traditional pizza combination for the same reason why no other fruits are found in a pizza except for tomatoes!
Pineappe raclette.
The Italians will find you, your days are numbered
It's not good, fight me
Almost like taste is subjective
For real??? 🤯
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.
The hype backlash was a serious issue for that game. People expected it to be something it never could have been.
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.
I've seen a lot of people complain that "It's just fallout in space." And I'm just wondering what the hell they were expecting.
My biggest (not only) complaint so far is that entire planets have maybe 8 or 9 species of plants and animals. Hopefully biodiversity mods will pop up. It seems like a decent platform to build future content into.
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.
Might be because they marketed it as such and then the devs failed to live up to the marketing.
I still laugh thinking about how it ran "surprisingly well" on PS4. Lmao
Cyberpunk 2077 was an incredible game until I tried to drive a car.
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.
It’s horrible
I used motorcycles or rapid transit everywhere.
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.
I played it on Stadia, completed it within like two months after the release, never encountered any bug
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.
Electric Vehicles.
There's this strange resentment the rest of Germany has for Bavaria that I didnt realize was serious until I moved to Hesse.
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.
It is the German Texas.
To me it sounds like the German Quebec. Then again, I wouldn't exactly say Quebec "isn't" the Canadian Texas.
Alberta is the Canadian Texas
I said Quebec because of the victim complex and all the chest beating about independence that goes nowhere (Quebec at least has a better reason than Texas or Bavaria.)
I wouldn't go so far as to call it the German Texas, if the kids can still go to school without fearing for their life. Sounds more like the German Ohio.
But damn the beer is good. I don't like beer or alcohol really, but I make the exception for Bavarian or most German beers.
Pf Bavarian only drink Weizen and Weißbier. For good pilsners you have to go somewhere else
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.
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.
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.
Weisswurst looks very similar to the Swiss St Galler style bratwurst, but I've never had Weisswurst to compare.
At least it isn't Bielefeld, amirite?
Until I started working for a bavarian company (I live in Hamburg), I didn't realize how warranted much of this resentment is. 😅
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.
It's not like the northern states don't hold this hypocritical position themselves though. CSU just had powerful positions in drug politics lately, I guess.
Nah, those are too recent or too political, the resentment feels more cultural. Maybe the CSU fuckery when fielding ministerial positions counts.
Pineapples on pizza
Rick Astley. I never really got the point of people getting mad at Never Gonna Give You Up, if anything getting rickrolled is a nice surprise to me.
1991 Hook with Robin Williams. I love that movie, but it seems that most people I encounter that didn't grow up with it think it's lame and boring.
So maybe not hate, but not love either.
RUFIOOOOOO
Didn't realize people didn't like it.
This is news to me. I was too cool for everything at the time and still enjoyed it.
For those of us who grew up with it, it was amazing! I saw it in the theater on release.
Nice!
"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.
This is one that I liked as a kid but doesn't hold up as an adult.
Creepy Tinkerbell was very, very weird.
Android
Black Licorice
My mother likes black licorice and so my sister and I grew up eating and enjoying it every Easter. Turns out most people hate the stuff.
Nickelback
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.
Mushrooms
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…
Snap on Ubuntu. I totally did not comprehend that it was proprietary; I just thought it was convenient, like apt.
I didn't know that, but I already disliked it because installed apps don't really integrate in the system (eg: file system access, themes).
Even Ubuntu installs this way something as basic as Firefox, what the fuck? At least I managed to get rid of the snap version and install it properly.
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.
The third Alien movie, Alien 3.
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.
Agreed... except for the cgi at the end 😬
Agreed. It's in 2nd place behind the orginal, in my opinion.
Alien 3 is decent, alien 4 is an atrocity
Fucking what!?!
Ready Player One. It wasn't the best book I've ever read but I enjoyed it.
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.
Same. It's clearly by an inexperienced author but the story and moment-to-moment storytelling was neat.
Even the movie was great IMO, clever way of modernizing the components of the novel for the audience the movie was intended for.
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.
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.
Yeah, that was the movie trying to sell that Olivia Cooke was not attractive because she has a small birthmark in one eye.
Idiots.
Ready Player One is, without a doubt my favourite book of all time.
Ready Player Two, however...
Didn’t like the movie but I actually enjoyed the book and all the 80-90’s references in it.
I enjoyed the references, but there was virtually nothing besides them.
It was a hollow book.
If you haven't already go get Reamde by Neil Stephenson. Slightly similar but less campy vibe - also enjoyed.
Transition Lenses for blocking out sun. So helpful but people think they're nerdy 🤷 with the right frames they look good imo
Look into magnetic sunglasses, Zenni sells a few pairs if you buy online. Best decision I've ever made.
No longer do I have to yolo changing glasses while going 120km down the highway to work during that stupid 2 month period where it goes from pitch black to blinding sun during my commute.
I've had them for about 3 years now and I wish they would catch on faster so I could get new styles. The sunglass part is pretty thin but I've yet to break it in 3 years of accidentally leaving it in my back pocket while sitting down.
You mean clip-ons? They're neat in theory, but my glasses are already relatively thick by virtue of my bad eyes, even in lightweight. So whenever I had a clip, the weight + bulk of the glasses started to annoy me. Pricey as it is, I'd rather just have two sets of glasses then.
They are still transitions, tho
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 had a pair in high school and loved them, but they don't really darken enough when driving, which is unfortunate
Maybe the technology is better these days, but I've never seen any that completely clear indoors.
They always look dirty.
How so?
other races
Hawaiian pizza
Me
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.
Rush. The band. Almost nobody in my high school liked them. In the 80s even.
Polyamory. I knew a lot of people didn't understand, but the visceral disgust at the idea that a lot of people have is surprising.
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.
My belief that they can work will be the day I actually see one that works. The score is still zero for two so far.
I've known quite a few people/groups that are poly and I dated someone who was poly for a while too. I did it because I didn't feel like I had to deal with 100% of my partner because that would have crushed me.
My info is purely anecdotal but two super common threads that kept on appearing is there were people who were poly, but were never actually poly and just said it because their partner wanted to be so they said they were too and that the people who were super committed to poly all were trying to fill a gap in their lives and had a lot of insecurities in general.
Most hated the idea of ever being alone, not just in 'a relationship' but actually just being by themselves.
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 think this point about being discreet is huge. My husband and have been open/poly for a decade (ie from the start). We don’t keep it a secret by any means, but most people I know have no idea — it just doesn’t come up in conversation very often.
We had a very bizarre situation recently where one of my closest friends saw my husband holding hands with his girlfriend at the beach. She texted me frantically, saying she just wants to support me and is here if I need her and she hoped she was doing the right thing by telling me. It was pretty trippy to tell this friend who is close enough to know super specific details about very private parts of my life “oh cool thanks but it’s chill.”
Non-monogamy isn’t for everyone, but it’s for a lot more people than you might think.
Yeah, this is my dynamic as well. My partner and I have been together for a decade and poly from the beginning. It's not at all a secret, but people are so used to monogamy as a norm that they often just think our other partners are super close friends that hang out at our house a lot.
I wouldn't say that I'm discreet, but I don't make a point of telling people about it or anything. It eventually comes up in conversation naturally as I'm getting to know people. If I talk to you about my personal life, it's gonna come up.
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.
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.
Would you consider it a perfectly legitimate arrangement if one end of the "V" resents it and is unhappy? Because that's the only way I've ever seen a polyamorous arrangement working in practice (and as I said earlier, I've only seen two, and both were like that).
I’m on one end of a V and super happy with the arrangement (the “primary” end, so the one most likely to harbor resentment). The other end of the V is too. And so is the middle lol.
Actually now that I think about it it’s actually a W. The other side of the V is in another V with her primary.
A resentful V is unhealthy and not going to end well, but there are plenty of happy functional Vs around.
Although I am not interested in doing it myself, I consider myself a student of psychology and sociology and am very curious. I hope I have the privilege of meeting a success-case such as yourself in person, who's not shy about discussing it candidly, because I have a lot of curiosity about it and how it works.
I'm glad it's working for you. If you don't mind me asking, how long have you been participating in this relationship, do all 3 live together or separately, and have you always been an end or have you also been the middle of the V?
My husband and I have been together for 10 years. He currently has a girlfriend he’s been seeing about 6 months. She lives with her husband (who also has a secondary partner) and two children. I have dated a bit but am not currently interested in anything outside our marriage. We also had a relationship a while ago where a close friend of mine had a purely sexual relationship with my husband for a little while, and for the next three years, we went through periods of being a triangle, a V, all just friends, she lived with us for a bit. She moved across the country and now is in a monogamous relationship, and we are all good friends. The most drama that has ever happened is that a guy I was into slept with a girl my husband had slept with. That kinda sucked. Thankfully I had my husband to cheer me up.
Not the person you're asking, but given your categorical prior assertions, I cannot help imagining a mocking tone in your question.
Something you should work on.
Not sure how you are misingerpreting what I've said, but you are way off here. My previous experiences (don't know how you got 'assertions') are based on an already disclosed small sample size.
I have no judgments and no expectations but I am genuinely curious to learn more about the psycologies and dynamics involved, because it's completely foreign to me. Are you confusing me with another poster?
That's just called cheating, not polyarmory.
Mind you, I've been in this setup you describe for a long time. My previous partner had female partners on top of me after ~7 years of only having me, and while I was friends with some of the women - good friends with one, even - I wasn't ever "close" to most of them. Worked perfectly fine for me.
And this wasn't a short thing either, we were together for ~10 years after that point, and the longest "third" partner was for 6 years.
The trick is to make sure neither end of the "V" know about each other
/s
And we know that the only things that exist are the one you have personally seen, so neutrinos, ultraviolet light, Greenland and the dark side of the moon don't exist. Right?
It's more like: I've only ever seen two unicorns, and both were white. Someone is trying to convince me that pink unicorns exist and I am saying I would like to see a pink unicorn.
Seems like you are intentionally trying to start a conflict where none exists.
Nah, just pointing out that the plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
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.
Is it really surprising? Monogamy has been essentially socially enforced for millenia at this point.
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.
Edit: it was a while ago, I was young and naive
In some cultures only.
Perhaps the ones where people feel viscerally disgusted by its alternatives.
In most. And effectively all of any serious size.
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.
I’ve never been polyamorous but I have been a player before and a period during which I had lots and lots of casual sex with lots of different women actually gave me a better appreciation of women as individuals.
There’s something about not having one person be your everything that allows them to be a real person instead of a symbol.
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!
"Or their partner is making all the effort"
OR their partners aren't super needy and insecure ;)
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.
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.
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.
Polygamy and polyamory are different things.
Yep. It's almost always the boyfriend/husband pushing for it.
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.
Polyamory is not group sex.
Actually, if you don't take care of yourself in polyamorous relationships, you might have less sex than in monoamorous relationships.
Also, no, consensual sex is not disgusting. You might not want it, but then sex is not consensual. Bodies are not inherently disgusting.
ehhh bodies are pretty gross. teeth in places mashin up stuff, grimy bacteria in all the folds and crevasses, stinky sweaty fluids and excretions, there's tons of stuff in the human body that is either conceptually quite horrifying or that we are downright neurologically programmed to be disgusted by. the eroticism of it all really just allows us to look past the disgust and see desire, joy, pleasure. that's the subjective element.
that dude was dumb for thinking polyamory is a sex act though lol
The 2016 Feig-directed Ghostbusters film. Like, it's not a masterpiece but it's still an enjoyable film.
It has a 49% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes, so about half of people seem to agree with you.
As a stand-alone film, it is probably fine. As an entry in the Ghostbusters franchise, I did not enjoy the film.
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.
Tortellini
Tonic water
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!
People in general are so weird about other people eating stuff they don't like.
Listen Karen, you don't have to have a slice of my pizza.
Plain? Yeah that's disgusting! But add in some gin and a squeeze of lime.... ambrosia ❤️
Plain
You are a monster!
I know, but... But I deserve to be loved :(
I'm proud of you. You sir get a pass because you added lemon sour to it (but also stay sober dude :)
Fuck off Mothra! Nobody wants your bugshit in these parts.
gin and Squirt
Eeeew, gin. 😛
Although, I found gin to be suitably tasty if, right before consumption, I replace it with something else. Water, rum, anything really.
probably bad gin
gin is like scotch, they might hold a similar sense of flavor at times but if you compare them side by side they are worlds apart
Cilantro
Non white people,sadly.
The original Dune movie
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 can't stand dry cereal lol.
Me
I don't hate you, my dear.
Why do you sound like a fairy tale creature wanting to eat them, poison them with an apple, or some other some such when you said that? ;)
I'm certainly a creature, but not one with nefarious intentions. I'd let you know if I was. I'm not very good at hiding that kind of thing.
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.
Bananas and olives.
I was surprised to find out that Patchy the Pirate is pretty hated, which is what inspired this thread.
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?
Some people found him and his segments annoying. I thought they were fun and iconic.
I didn't like those bits as a kid, but I do find them nostalgic now
I didn't know people hated it either
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.
Turns out almost everyone hates it?
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
I maintain that Cars 3 is a better sequel to Cars, but Cars 2 is such a good movie.
I can agree with that :)
Cars 2 does feel more like a spinoff movie
The fries at In-N-Out Burger. I really like them. They actually taste like potatoes, which are delicious.
Soggy cold fries are gross.
I won't order them any way but animal style. They're just not as good as they could be, IMO.
Interesting. Tell me, what other potato-flavored items do you enjoy?
I do appreciate the taste, but I wish they weren't so soggy. I would love them to be fried and crisped up a bit more.
You can ask them to do that when you order.
🤯 I frankly never thought of just asking. I figured they were under the gun to deliver so quickly that they wouldn't do that. This changes things. I may have to visit In-N-Out again.
Order them well done, or if that's too much you can order light-well.
Gay/trans people
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.
Jar jar binks. I found him actually funny as a kid
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 was shocked to go online and see mountains of hate for The Last Jedi. i thought it was amazing
Eggs
Sinterklaas.
Ugly people.
Batman and Robin.
Battlefield Earth. I saw a schlocky sci-fi movie. The internet has since informed me it's the modern Birth of a Nation or something.
The movie Licorice Pizza.
Yeah I’m on the other side of that… as a PTA fan I didn’t feel it was his best.
I thought it was good.
I did, too. Solidly in the middle of my PTA rankings.
Communism and empathy for other creatures (humans included.)
Autostereoscopic 3D.
@[email protected]
White polenta. Apparently plenty people have really, really strong opinions about it.
Also chicken livers.
What!? I get liver isn't everyone's cup of tea, but, polenta? In which country you encountered polenta haters?
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!)
Huh! Well I don't think I've eaten white polenta either. I lived in Argentina and all my polenta memories are yellow. I'll look it up, I'm intrigued!
It's basically polenta made with white maize. It tastes milder and definitively different, but the biggest difference for me is the texture - once it cools it gets more "gelatinous" (dunno if this makes sense), but firmer. I also have an easier time deep-frying it.
My grandma prepared it almost every day. Often as "hairy polenta" (polenta, mozzarella, polenta, sauce - the "hair" was the cheese strings), so I spend a good time in my childhood thinking that yellow = instant polenta.
Mmm sounds yum
Another Brazilian in the wild! Conhece a nossa instancia? Tem também a lemmy.eco.br
[Vou manter em inglês para incluir os outros usuários, OK?]
I've seen the domain but it's the first time that I actually checked it. First impression: holy fuck the art in bolha.io looks amazing. Content on its Lemmy instance seems focused on games, so I'll probably subscribe to a few comms there.
lemmy.eco.br has more users though
Why do you kids eat that stuff? It doesn’t even hue like polenta!
People hate chicken livers?
They do. Mostly because it's offal and offal is supposed to be yucky.
/me rolls eyesFor 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]).
My favorite is fried liver, and it's easy to prepare. Just coat them with flour, then whisked eggs, then breadcrumbs and finally fry in hot oil. Don't salt them before frying as they'll turn bitter.
In my region we also prepare them with onions and chicken blood. I know how it sounds but it tastes amazing.
I might actually give this a try, I used to eat another chicken blood dish. (Perks of having rural relatives!)
Reverse image search for your pic found this site. Is the recipe there good?
Glad you found it interesting, when my grandma used to butcher (I think that's the right english word for it) chicken she always made it from fresh blood and liver, it tasted amazing. When it was a rooster she also added the testicles.
The recipe seems legit, google translate only makes one mistake. You should pour the blood into boiling water with a pinch of salt, not a pinch of blood into hot water. Otherwise that's how I'd prepare.
I'll take a look into what you linked also.
Or we just don't like the taste. I'm not picky about what part of the animal I eat (except chitlin's... the smell put me off those forever). I'll eat gizzards all day. Chicken liver tastes like dirt to me.
I don't criticise cases like you*, but usually people saying "I don't like the taste" are far less than the ones picking on it for being offal. At least from my experience.
*or my mum - she's no fan of chicken liver, but give her chicken gizzards or beef liver and she'll happily devour it
Facts.
Me.
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?
Biomutant.
America and American democracy, after all what have they ever done to anyone? /s
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.)
Conspiracy theories. I think they are fascinating and often has foundation in truths, and then spun out of control.
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.
It's not called NFTs because it's literally not using NFT technology in Steam. I've never seen anything suggesting using NFTs for video games that couldn't be accomplished with a database and a store page like what Steam does.
It's not about "accomplishing" something that couldn't be done with a database. It's about making these items tradeable on a platform that doesn't belong to a single entity, which is often the original creator of the item you want to sell. As good as the Steam marketplace might be for some people, every single sale pays a tax to Valve, and the terms could change at any moment with no warning. The changes could be devastating for the value of your collectibles that you might have paid thousands of dollars for. This could not happen on any decentralized system. It could be something else that isn't NFTs but it would absolutely have to be decentralized. Anything centralized that "accomplishes the same thing" doesn't really accomplish the same thing.
It's worth noting that this sort of market control would never be considered ok on any other market. Can you imagine a car manufacturer requiring every sale to go through them? Would you accept paying them a cut when you resell your car? Would you accept having to go through them even to transfer ownership of the car to a family member? If a car manufacturer tried to enforce such terms on a sale they would be called out for it and it would most likely be ruled to be unlawful. But nobody questions the implications of the same exact situation in a digital marketplace.
That one part of the NFT idea that actually sounded good would never see the light of day. If blizzard implemented NFT in their games they would store data in the blockchain but would not accept anything from the blockchain that didn't have a matching receipt in their servers.
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.
Jordan Peterson. It just blew me away to discover he’s hated.
Though I have yet to encounter anyone who hates him who can accurately describe anything he’s ever said.