celluloid_dream
No bio...
User ID: 758

I don't think it's that difficult to drop Hammerlock-style hints and not treat it as a big deal, especially if it wouldn't be a big deal in-universe.
Example, minor spoilers for Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous, also tagging @TowardsPanna , who asked about it in the Friday thread.
There's a NPC character who is a "trans" woman. I put that in quotes because this is a universe where you can literally take a magic potion and permanently transform into the opposite sex (or, presumably, like, a giant spider if that's more your style). You only find out if you pick up some random junk item, then ask the character's spouse about it (spouse wants to keep it private and won't tell you the details), then ask the character about it again much later in the game. You could easily finish the game and not come across that detail.
That seemed totally fine? It respects the worldbuilding and doesn't come off as unrealistic, or in your face.
Contrast with the Hogwarts Legacy character that stood out like a sore thumb, not so much because she was a non-passing transwoman, but because the HP universe has transformation magic, and if that exists, why would any transwoman not avail themselves of it?
You could also do ambiguously-trans, like this character in the recent pokemon games. When I saw this market, I was pretty baffled - hadn't even considered that when playing through the games - but reading the evidence, it does seem plausible.
Think that's just a general Hollywood problem. We want our actors to look youthful, but also be famous and well established. By the time they reach that point in their careers, they're pushing the limits of what their natural genetics plus plastic surgery plus vfx can hold. I cannot confirm or deny that Vin Diesel gets certain parts of his face edited in post.
A duvet is the superior bedding. It sports a number of desirable properties:
-
Puff - What you call giant and heavy, I call comfortable and reassuring. It's like a pillow for your whole body in just the right thickness. It neither restricts your movement (like a tight blanket), nor is too light to do hold you (like a sheet). It is the perfect middle ground. A big floofy hug from Duvet-chan!
-
Cleanliness - A duvet cover is always washed. You needn't worry about accidentally waking up to find your face has wandered from the safe haven of a clean sheet and found its way to uncharted territory of a scuzzy blanket. Hic sunt sordes
-
Simplicity - Just toss it on the bed in roughly the right orientation. What could be simpler? No tucking, no tensioning the corners or messing up the folds
With languages, I find the absorption style often leads to embarrassing situations.
It's the awful realization that the person you're talking to has no idea what the word they just spoke actually means. It's clear that they heard it in a similar-but-importantly-different context, made incorrect assumptions about its meaning, and are now re-using it liberally. Or worse, they haven't even guessed at its meaning, but are merely using the word or phrase because they want to sound impressive or charismatic, and other impressive/charismatic people say it so... ugh.
And what's even worse than THAT is that it's socially forbidden to correct them! It's insulting to point out their error - especially if they're a native speaker and it would make them look foolish.
I don't think that's quite right. The "them" you are telling is a tool, not a person. It shouldn't be expected to exercise any more discretion than your paintbrush does. It's more like they're letting you rent their super-cool paintbrush that can paint whatever you want, including Mickey Mouse and Hillary Clinton.
At no point does another person's discretion come into it. I don't see the argument that they should be made to prevent you from painting those things any more than a brush manufacturer.
The government says they're targeting 500k a year, but should we believe them?
- 2016-2019, yes.
- 2020 was covid, okay.
- 2021 was on track.
- 2022 made up for the pandemic year. No problem,
- but 2023 .. hold up.
- 2024 .. um . guys? .. stahp
In flagrant violation of the first law of holes, they have not stopped digging. There is a massive housing crisis in the country, and immigration is the first and most available lever the federal government has on the problem. Ottawa (mostly) can't build homes directly, at least not on the scale the country needs. Trudeau's "ambitious housing plan" is a paltry 2 million additional homes across 8 years, with half of that covered by the provinces and municipalities, and that's if it actually goes to plan. If you're bringing in a million people every year.., the math ain't mathing, as the kids say. Even at their target of 500k, it seems like not quite enough.
As for temporary vs permanent, I'm not sure. I've known many temporary residents, all waiting around for PR, some staying long past their expired work permits: my friends and coworkers - good people, for sure, but they have to live somewhere. It also seems like no one really ever gets deported. Famously, you have to kill 16 people, but less anecdotally, the country is only deporting a few thousand a year, equivalent to a few days worth of immigration.
Vancouver, Canada
I'm sure that works as you describe - cultivating a reputation, social proof, all of it, but doesn't it feel dishonest to its core? Like, the whole edifice is built on wanting to be seen as the kind of person who is a sociable regular at a fancy cocktail bar and not actually being that person. If you were that person, you'd already have such a place in your back pocket.
Decent probability this is fake, but there was a short viral video recently of a "social experiment" where you see the target pause, consider what's going on, and conclude that "no. There's no possible way this is genuine, not even as a real pick-up line. I must be on camera."
Funny, sure, but also a bit sad.
I feel the same way about most unprovoked social interactions in public, except it's almost always about money, not entertainment. One time, someone waved at me, gave a smile and said they liked my hair. This is extremely rare. I never get compliments, and this one brightened my day. Immediately, my brain screamed "scam. They're lying. They want money. It's not real", and I told my brain to shut up. Just this once, we will give this person a chance. They said something nice. There are nice people in the world. Reciprocate. So I stopped, we introduced each other. They were about my age, seemed interesting. We talked about school or something for five minutes. It was pleasant.
Then they got to the part where they just needed fifty bucks to pay cab fare across town to meet their sister. They normally wouldn't ask for money but..
I walked away mid-sentence.
Often overlooked: test taking speed correlates with writing speed, like actual physical putting letters to paper. I think in my school days I probably spent 90% of the time writing and 10% of the time thinking of the answer. My penmanship was just that poor.
It's not just advice columns. People do this in real life for some reason!
The speaker almost always has a common gendered relationship in mind - daughter, boyfriend, wife, etc. - but are deliberately choosing not to reveal that info when it would be harmless, and help the listener understand the situation better.
Honestly, yes.
I also live in Vancouver, and while parts are bad, they're not that bad compared to what I've seen in other cities. Overall, I feel safe except for perhaps a few blocks in a few areas. That's not to downplay the deleterious effects of shambling fent zombies, A&W pikemen, and other baddies from the medieval monster manual, but in my opinion, the disorder is usually more of the theft/streetshitting/nuisance variety.
Anyway, here's a fine specimen of a methhead light skirmisher attempting to fell an Amazon truck (not pictured) with an improvised javelin.
I assume "cruise people" means the crowd that retires to the ships and moves on to the next sailing when they finish?
I did a 2-week to Alaska, and distinctly remember being on deck watching this stunning scenery go by and being utterly perplexed by the sight of multiple tables full of people instead fully engrossed in their bridge/cribbage card games and pina coladas, not even looking up out the window. Like, why did you come here if you don't want to see this?
I wanted to ask them, but it's not my place to ask nagging parent-questions of people twice my age, so I let it be.
This sort of characterization in writing has been bugging me a long time. I agree, it must be persuasive or enjoyable to some people, given how common it is, but I just can't get into it, probably for the same reason I don't like political cartoons. They feel condescending, the author either not trusting their readers to come to the right conclusion and trying to hammer it home with an egregious caricature, or else the author feeling insecure in how they might be perceived and doing the same thing to signal the right tribal allegiance.
As an aside, specifically with the case of calling things "misinformation", I think authors should almost never do it. It immediately stakes a claim that the author 1. knows in some cosmic sense, that the alleged misinfo is false, and 2. knows that the intent of the alleged misinfo was to deceive or bullshit. Even if they know the first, how could they know the second?
I have a sort-of nuanced view of this. I try to keep my nice things nice, but if they suffer wear in the course of fulfilling their purpose, that is fine, or even ideal.
Eg. I like the fading scar on my right wrist that reminds me of getting swept onto some rocks on a beach in Costa Rica. That was a good time. I dislike the fading scar on my left arm where I carelessly walked into the side of a cabinet when I was tired at work one day. That was stupid. My car looks good (to me) with some nicks and scratches from difficult mountain roads, but I hate the key mark on the side from some asshole in the alley where I park.
What a frustrating quiz. Is there some reason these are always left so ambiguous? Does Marl give up and close the tab the second he's forced to read more than 50 words in a row? Eg.
- "Scott is hosting a dinner party. For dessert, he serves chocolate cake, shaped to look like dog poop." - I'm supposed to make a call about whether this is "morally okay or not" given no other information. Does this not obviously depend on who's at the dinner party, and their preferences, temperaments, etc? Scott is hosting a dinner party for his football buds who find it hilarious. Laughs are had, poop-cake enjoyed, etc. Fine, yeah, morally okay! Good even. Scott is hosting a dinner party for his in-laws, who he knows don't appreciate his twisted sense of humour. They are disgusted. Scott knew they would be disgusted, and did it anyway just to see the looks on their faces. That's bad.
- "Some men have a private, all-male club and feminists take them to court, demanding that they open it up to women." - What is even being tested here? Is it having a private all-male club in the first place or taking the club to court to open it up? Presumably the latter. From the perspective of the feminists, they likely have a sincere belief they are doing the right thing. I'm just not sure what I'm supposed to say about this. I personally think people should be able to have exclusive clubs, but also think you should be able to oppose exclusive clubs if you feel that way. I guess I'm neutral? Again, if the question was more specific, I could come down stronger on one side or the other.
- "A group of parents, concerned about their children's risk of obesity, demand that the local store stops selling XL sized candy bars and soft drinks." - Again, what is being tested? The parents have a reasonable concern, make an unreasonable demand, which they are entitled to make, and the store is entitled to reject. "Is this morally okay?". Is what morally okay?
- "Sarah's dog has four puppies. She can only find a home for two of them, so she kills the other two with a stone to the head." - a little more information please? Could Sarah not afford to house the puppies herself, or does she simply not want them? Does she have any other options? Is that the most humane way she could have killed them, or is she just trying to avoid a vet bill?
I don't think I'm being pedantic here.
Charitably, these comments are less self-deprecation and more praise for the heroics or achievements of others. If there's any narcissism, it's in the need to be seen as publicly signaling one's respect, and inability to just say it plainly.
Rambling half-formed notes that never get posted are basically all I write. Example of a fun thread one whining about pokemon:
(Pokemon games are poorly designed by their own stated principles)
-
games constantly tell you to bond with pokemon, not only use them as tools, but then make you use them as tools, sometimes literally
-
and the stats/moves/types are unbalanced, encouraging you to only use the overpowered ones
-
the game doesn't teach the real game - doesn't play like a human trainer would, switching based on type matchups, having inter-pokemon synergy, having strategies.
-
(later pkmn games): raids .. - this is a terrible thing to put in as a game mechanic in pokemon. It makes sense in fantasy because coming together to take down the giant/dragon is sort of the thing. Pokemon is absolutely NOT that. It's .. cute cockfighting. It's low-level. It's gym training. It's person vs person, poke vs poke at their normal power levels. No super saiyan, no magic. definitely not supposed to be fighting some giant pokemon inflated like a balloon
- can just imagine some lazy game designer coming up with this. "players like raids in MMOs right? very social, much enjoyment. let's just copy that!" instead of coming up with something more creative that fits the world & game they actually had
Cities speak saith Paul Graham.
-
Devon Zuegel thinks Miami says "Be entertaining and flamboyant"
-
Sasha Chapin thinks that Joshua Tree invites you to slow down and take the long view, that Las Vegas is a damned liar
-
Isaac Simpson thinks we should pay attention to what Montana is cursing under its breath
What does your city say? I'm interested in more articles that try and convey the vibe of a place.
It can't only be laid at the feet of some exec imposing norms on the masses below them. Advertisers cater to their customer base, and their customers are us: people, weak humans with stone-age psychology insufficient to the demands of liberal modernity.
It should be possible to separate the content from the advertisers, the art from the artist. We should understand that when le_edgy_tuber6969 drops N-bombs, says "fuck" every two words, and giggles "Kanye was right", scoring hundreds of thousands of views, this does not reflect on the politics of the company that pops up in the ad box for two seconds before the average person hits 'skip'.
In practice, people either can't do it, or disagree that they even should; that, yes, the company in the ad box is to blame for platforming/supporting le_edgy_tuber_6969.
I view this as a societal problem, not just an individual problem with me. I saw a family of three at a restaurant the other day, mom and dad and a young boy, and all three of them were glued to their phones, ignoring each other. That made me very sad.
My excuse in these situations is that we're satisfying our preferences better this way. <Sibling> is reading about the latest sports happenings (don't care). <Parent> is playing an ad-ridden slot machine game (ew!), and I'm reading culture war insight porn (which would horrify them).
If we all tried to have the respective conversations that interested us, it would be awkward. I didn't see that ludicrous display last night. Neither <sibling> nor I want to talk about grandkids, and my family doesn't appreciate abstract argument the same way I do. They get *annoyed* at disagreement. They are allergic to contrarianism. They don't like philosophy. They're low decouplers. We can't even discuss pop culture: "Ugh. Must you overanalyze everything?"
So .. phones.
It's frustrating to me, and I think other Canadians, that our government allowed this to happen. I can't stress enough how much it didn't have to be this way. We had a good thing going. We were a pro-immigrant country. We liked newcomers.
You see bar charts like this and it's just baffling. Even at the vastly increased rate of immigration over the last 4 years, you'd see less backlash if those bars had been kept more even.
For every fixable homeless person in a city with expensive housing, there is likely a responsible homeful person living within their means in a cheaper city who would jump at the chance to move, if only housing were affordable.
I don't think you get to (fairly) keep the fixable workers while pushing the dregs out. You either build more housing or you don't, but the current homeless in your city probably all have to go.
I would highlight something I noticed in a few conversations recently.
- Louise Perry & Bryan Caplan (mentioned by @raggedy_anthem yesterday)
- Agnes Callard & Robin Hanson (basically any episode with just the two of them)
That is, the ability to really listen in a discussion, the humility to integrate what the other person is saying in real time, and offer thoughtful responses. Louise and Agnes are outliers in a lot of ways, but they're extremely good at this.
I relate to this post hard.
There's a fundamental personality dichotomy that I'm quite sure I'm on the wrong side of. I deeply envy the kind of person for whom the glass is already broken without having to meditate on it. Meanwhile, I struggle to convince myself every time.
I remember a girl showing me her tattoo of .. I think it was a Jigglypuff smoking a joint covering most of her calf and it was like discovering she was a different species.
More options
Context Copy link