Hey everyone,

I've been thinking about this lately, and I think it might be something interesting to test.

The concept is that when we submit artists, albums, tracks, etc we may add an additional tag or two for "FFO" or For Fans Of, for example if I were to submit a link to "Scary Monsters and Nice Sprites" (if it was 2010, happy thirteen years everyone), then I might tag it as "ffo.excision", or I submit a new artist, such as "Robot God", and I tag it as "ffo.black sabbath". A more known artist in the genre.

Genre tags are helpful, but this is certainly something that helps inspire people to listen or become interested in an artist because of their relation in sound to others. We could add them to the comments, but that doesn't inspire someone to look at the topic if it's unknown to them to even check the comments for things like that. I think if we limited it 1 or 2 tags, it could work out really well.

Some normal everyday things have "premium" alternatives which are more high-quality and pleasant to use. Some examples of what I mean

Ballpoint pens -> Fountain pens
Cartridge razor -> Double edge razor
Nespresso -> Brewing coffee
Membrane keyboards -> Mechanical keyboards

Those things can be overkill, but if it's something that you use often, it can become a great investment.

What other similar improvements have you found?

Have you watched any movies recently you want to discuss? Any films you want to recommend or are hyped about? Feel free to discuss anything here.

Please just try to provide fair warning of spoilers if you can.

My RSS reader has turned up a lot of pessimistic articles about the state of EVs in the last few days, for example:

https://www.thedrive.com/news/gm-is-stalling-ev-production-because-demand-is-falling-off

https://www.thedrive.com/news/gm-delays-expanded-silverado-ev-production-orion-assembly-by-year

https://www.thedrive.com/news/mercedes-dealers-struggling-to-sell-evs-complain-eqs-isnt-aspirational-enough

https://techcrunch.com/2023/10/17/gm-delays-4b-ev-truck-factory-plan-by-another-year/

https://techxplore.com/news/2023-10-vietnam-vinfast-struggles-electric-cars.html

https://english.elpais.com/economy-and-business/2023-10-18/europe-is-looking-to-fight-the-flood-of-chinese-electric-vehicles-but-europeans-love-them.html

Caught this YouTube video also:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZlsZwcIgpc

Because of the car industry's obsession with XXL vehicles, Australia is thinking about increasing the size of the standard parking space

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/oct/15/australia-may-increase-standard-car-parking-spaces-as-huge-vehicles-dominate-the-streets

meanwhile, given a choice, consumers are snapping up the reasonably sized and highly efficient (40mpg!) Ford Maverick

https://www.thedrive.com/news/the-ford-maverick-is-outselling-every-midsize-truck-but-the-toyota-tacoma

maybe those American consumers might desire a bigger truck but they can afford that one.

When I read between the lines I'm inclined to think that there isn't any shortage of interest in EVs, but there is a shortage of interest in $80,000 EVs because very few people can afford them. What are you seeing in your neck of the woods? What intervention can you imagine that would help get the industry come to its senses?

I'm curious about people's thoughts/opinions on how a vet (or someone offering a pet service) should interact with a dog. It seems as though people have wide ranging and shifting opinions about how dogs should be interacted with and how they interpret the dog's behavior. Some people are extremely sensitive about their dog's mental well being. They do acupuncture and meditation exercises with their dog, speak about the dog's mental health and choose vets that take a very non-threatening and holistic approach to dealing with dogs.

On the flip side is the vet that, although kind and somewhat sensitive, takes a more treatment focused approach and are more direct (the "gentle but firm" approach). Although the dog may be nervous and scared, IME that's pretty common for many dogs. This more direct vet would acknowledge the nervousness but still do what they need to do, often saying "I know you don't like this buddy, but we've gotta do this".

I'm curious what people's thoughts are on this. I'm asking about this because I had an experience at a vet that took a more sensitive approach. And while I appreciate that, my dog was sick and needed treatment. Because of this sensitive technique, the vet didn't examine my dog. He did the "let the dog come to me" approach, which, heh, doesn't really work when you have a sick dog that needs a diagnosis and treatment. You kinda HAVE to put your hands on the dog, feel their vitals, chest, check for lumps, etc. The vet also did the "don't make eye contact" approach, which, heh, means you also aren't looking at my dog to see what their issue looks like. Basically the vet crouched down in the corner of the room, didn't look at my dog and didn't touch her. Because I'm very cuddly with dogs, my dog took his behavior as being uninterested and ignored him. When the vet pointed to her ears and said they were laying down because she felt threatened, I corrected him and said her ears were down because she was being submissive (she was calm, sitting with her ears relaxed, not flattened down against her head). I was getting frustrated because I just wanted my dog examined and treated. I'm fine with my dog being uncomfortable during a wellness exam because that's just the way it goes, even for humans! I do want a vet to be somewhat sensitive but firmness and directness can be done sensitively. Idk if it's because I'm older and have an older mentality about this. I grew up watching vets kinda manhandle dogs and saying "they're dogs, they're fine, don't worry so much". I don't treat dogs like hunting dogs (that's just too harsh imo) but I acknowledge that dogs are tougher than we think sometimes.

What are your thoughts and/or opinions on this?

(This is my first post, so please do add tags or tell me if I've missed anything. Thanks!)

I find stream-of-consciousness-style writing helps me wrestle with ideas and concepts, organizing thoughts into ideas from the chaos. To be clear, I'm a leftist agnostic (some might say atheist) who's been thinking about new atheism and skepticism a lot recently. I spoke to a friend who is a liberal atheist, and they consider themselves a skeptic first, and an atheist second. This seemed strange to me, not because I'm unfamiliar with the skeptical movement, but because it doesn't fit into my current mental model of skepticism. I don't really like the term skeptic. Below, I will attempt to work out my ideas into words, and hopefully have a conclusion.

A quick note: my view of atheism, especially from this era, was largely mediated by YouTube and limited to trends in the US.

Late '00s and early '10s: The Rise of Reactionary Skepticism

For me, no one embodies this era of atheism better than Christopher Hitchens. His videos were one of the many factors that led to me "converting" to atheism. He was a brilliant debater, and mastered the art of crafting rhetoric. Being successful in debate doesn't equate to having more accurate beliefs, but it does mean you can convince people of your ideas more effectively. Upon re-watch of these old videos, they are somewhat intellectually unsatisfying. A case that was impactful to me recently was that upon being presented with a fairly standard formulation of the moral argument, Hitchens feigns shock, and implies that Craig (his opponent) had implied that atheists couldn't act morally (which he clearly didn't.) This is why Hitchens destroys his opponents; he is far more effective at debate than Craig, who looks weak when trying to maintain philosophical precision by choosing statements carefully and hedging/qualifying his statements.

Being skeptical is a valid, often important epistemic tool for increasing the accuracy of our beliefs. For the sake of this post, I will oversimplify skepticism to something like "deconstructing big ideas" and "poking holes in overarching narratives". It starts from a position of neutrality, and seeks to determine if there is rational warrant in believing ideology "X". There are various reasons why one could use skepticism to shape their worldview.

There's a certain kind of skepticism that gained popularity during this time. It was the "'x' DESTROYS 'y' in debate" where "x" was often a new atheist and "y" was often an apologist. There's something both persuasive and cathartic about seeing someone representing your worldview deconstruct someone else's. For many, the reason for watching the content was nothing more than the entertainment value of seeing people get "DESTROYED" in debate. For some, the satisfaction of humiliating the opponent intellectually was the entire point.

Early to mid '10s: Seeking Out Other Ideologies to Destroy

There are only so many religious debates one can have before getting bored. There's basically a set list of apologetic arguments one can have these sorts of debate about before they either get too philosophically dense, or are just so incredibly silly that it isn't satisfying to DESTROY them (in the case of young Earth creationist apologetics.) How many videos can one possibly make debating the Kalam before viewers get bored?

It shouldn't necessarily be surprising that many skeptics turned out to be reactionary. Skepticism is, at least dialectically and sometimes politically, a reactionary position. It turns out there are a lot of ideologies and overarching narratives the left believes in: feminism, progressivism, and various beliefs relating to sexual and gender identity. Gender identity at this time wasn't really on the map, but feminism was. Many prominent atheist YouTube channels pivoted to "'x' DESTROYS 'y' with FACT and LOGIC" but instead of deconstructing religion, it sought to deconstruct feminism. If Christopher Hitchens embodied the previous era, though not an atheist, Ben Shapiro embodies this era.

It seems correct to me that these folks were "skeptical" of feminism. They, from a position of neutrality, sought to "poke holes" in feminist ideology. Of course, the new atheists weren't neutral on religion; they were strongly atheistic. So too were these feminist skeptics. They were strongly misogynistic. Of course, like the new atheists before them, only so much content can be made

2016 to Present: Reactionary Skeptics Abandon Atheism

Peter Boghossian, author of A Manual for Creating Atheists is the person I pick to personify this era (he was also partly inspiration for these weird person-on-the-street interviews of Christians where they just begin so-called Socratic questioning ("but WHY do believe that, and WHY do you believe that?"), similar to right-wing person-on-the-street interviews of feminists). He's had multiple interviews where he states that criticizing religion is unhelpful; that Christians can be powerful allies against a much worse religion in needing of deconstruction: Wokeism. (yes, he really does use that word)

Skepticism is now a mainstream component of conservative thought. While Climate Change skepticism has been around for awhile, in the COVID-era, skepticism of vaccines and masks is probably one of the more powerful pieces of evidence that skepticism is a core component of modern American conservative ideology. It's also applied to right-wing ideologies: once united on subjects like foreign interventionism and free trade, now there's greater skepticism among conservatives about once unquestioned conservative beliefs. Despite whether you think they are "doing skepticism the right way" they are certainly "doing a skepticism".

Jordan Peterson, famous reactionary, identifies as a Christian. His actual metaphysical beliefs, though he tries to squirm out of elaborating on them, are closely aligned with what the majority of people would describe as atheism. But, like Boghossian has already recognized, Christianity is a tool to be wielded for reactionary political aims, even if you are a de-facto atheist. In 2023, "Christian" implies "conservative" more strongly than any period in my living memory.

New, New Atheism

The movement that has been abandoned by who I call the Reactionary Skeptics has been left primarily with progressives, LGBTQ folks, and many suffering from religious trauma. Christianity more strongly maps onto conservatism in the modern era, therefore its negation isn't a merely reactionary process; it is a progressive, revolutionary one. In keeping with my cringe habit of anointing a YouTube creator for each era, I'd point to Genetically Modified Skeptic (there's that word) as the embodiment of this era.

Obviously these folks were part of "the movement" (if it can even be called such) the entire time. But they are largely who is left. Why did reactionaries decide to leave? Because they realize that religion structures power in a way that they find beneficial, and that atheism can be used to restructure power in a progressive or revolutionary way.

This movement, due to the aforementioned abandonment is far more profoundly progressive than any previous era. Folks like The Satanic Temple come to mind. It's hard to find an atheist creator nowadays that isn't an outspoken proponent of LGBTQ rights and feminism. Atheism has been ceded to the left.

What's the point of this damn post?!

If you are talking in earnest about atheism now, you're probably a progressive. And I don't think it's helpful to use term skeptic. Yes, what a dumb quibble. And yes, you are a skeptic of one particular largely right-wing overarching narrative. But the term is unhelpful. Its confusing. What is meant by skepticism, whenever I press my progressive "skeptical" friends is something along the lines of "having rational beliefs" or "'good' epistemology", which... like come on, that's not what skepticism means. Besides, most people believe they "have true beliefs", which leads me to wonder, what's the point of telling people you're a skeptic?

I get the point. It's about saying something more than "God's not real." But there are simply better, more impressive political projects with less baggage than skepticism.

Thanks for reading :)

Any advice should be suitable for a non tech person who knows how to google and follow instructions but not code in any way.

Can anyone suggest which firewall and or antivirus might be best? All suggestions for making life easier while dealing with a new machine are welcome.

I just finished this show, having waited for it all to come out before getting into it -- other Disney+ Star Wars series taught me the lesson that they are much better binged than watched week to week and I was not wrong.

Spoilers below

The endless references to a children's animated show that I have less than zero interest in viewing really drags it down, which is why my main take away as per the title is that it doesn't really work. Most of the premise of the show is finding Thrawn and Ezra -- two characters you have no way of knowing about unless you watched that cartoon. Yet these two characters are constantly referenced and for some reason important, but you're never really sure why.

It kind of works with Thrawn because there's a mysterious villain type of thing going on. But Ezra? Why do we miss him? Who is he? What did he do? Almost none of my questions are ever answered, even after we find him! Aside from simply being told by other characters that he is important, I am never told how or why. Nothing they say or do makes me care about him. They don't show me anything that makes me want to get emotionally invested in him. And no, I am not watching hundreds of hours of cartoons to understand the context. That is simply too much.

This show is in a very strange place between obviously trying to cater to a large audience (it is a Disney property after all, so $$$), but it simultaneously can only be fully understood by extremely hardcore Star Wars fans. I consider myself a fan. I have watched all live action movies and shows, even the laughably bad stuff like the Boba Fett and Kenobi shows. That they intentionally mix together animated and live action storylines though -- especially with any context lacking -- is a major misstep.

I like the Star Wars universe a lot. And while a lot of it is entertaining, it feels very bad to feel left out. It would be different if it was a small cameo or name drop once in a while. But the main storyline gets impacted by this, and it just kind of leaves a sour taste after finishing it.

I was decently entertained and it had some very good moments, particularly the Baylan and Shin duo was intriguing -- which is ironic as I understand that they are among the only original characters in this show. Regurgitating old canon is not the way.

7/10. Entertaining but unsatisfying.

What have you been listening to this week? You don't need to do a 6000 word review if you don't want to, but please write something! If you've just picked up some music, please update on that as well, we'd love to see your hauls :)

Feel free to give recs or discuss anything about each others' listening habits.

You can make a chart if you use last.fm:

http://www.tapmusic.net/lastfm/

Remember that linking directly to your image will update with your future listening, make sure to reupload to somewhere like imgur if you'd like it to remain what you have at the time of posting.

Have you watched any movies recently you want to discuss? Any films you want to recommend or are hyped about? Feel free to discuss anything here.

Please just try to provide fair warning of spoilers if you can.

The growing season here in southeastern Australia is just kicking off, so I'd love to hear (and see!) your successes and failures, what you will repeat and what you want to change, what your future plans are, etc.

I just got my Spider-Man 2 Platinum trophy and was looking through my trophy list, I wonder how many people will also obsessively chase the 100% or Platinum trophy and under what conditions.

My personal favorite 100% achievements recently and why:
Slay the Spire - I dumped almost 500 hours in this game and finally got Eternal One last year, it was an incredible journey and I definitely feel myself getting better as I play
God of War Ragnorak - I'm a lifelong God of War fan since the originals and getting through this game was definitely a journey. Finishing the final final boss was incredibly satisfying
Resident Evil 4 Remake - Another one of my personal favorite games of all time, I grinded a week for 50 hours to grab this over about 4 or 5 playthroughs
Spider-Man 2 - My fastest platinum, not too difficult but very satisfying (I do love Spider-man though lol)

I host a couple of very small websites for personal stuff and a Foundry server for my weekly RPG. Not exactly resource-intensive. And I've been paying for webhosting for a while for it, and it just feels unnecessary.

I always figured when I finally decided to do it, I'd just grab a Raspberry Pi and go to town. But they're... weirdly expensive. The Zero 2 W is sold out everywhere, they have insane resale prices, and you still need to essentially buy the 'kit' first time to have most of the stuff to set one up. So is it worth it?

I've been toying between that or just grabbing an old server off craigslist or Facebook Marketplace for $25-$30 and just going to town from there. What do you guys recommend?

This topic is part of a series. It is meant to be a place for users to discuss creative projects they have been working on.

Projects can be personal, professional, physical, digital, or even just ideas.

If you have any creative projects that you have been working on or want to eventually work on, this is a place for discussing those.