Personally, I really enjoyed Bandersnatch as a one-off. Having the ability to choose what happens and trying to piece together the story by watching multiple endings.

But honestly, the story fell quite flat and it wouldn't have been a very entertaining episode had it not been for the gimmick. But what do you guys think?

Today I got into a conversation with my coworkers about how cursive is all but dead with our students. We adults all grew up learning it and were often forced to use it even when we didn't want to, but it has been out of vogue in American schools for a while now, so most of our students legitimately don't know how to read or write it. Opinions as to whether or not this was a bad thing were split. Some people considered the skill unnecessary and were happy to see it go the way of the dinosaur. Life moves on, they said--and the skill was inessential anyway because students could simply print instead. Some even took things a step further and argued that print was also going to become outdated with the prevalence of computers and phones. Nevertheless, others argued that cursive was important and valuable for kids to learn, particularly if they wanted to be able to sign their names or read documents written in script (e.g. old letters from family members, historical documents, etc.)

The discussion then continued to analog clocks. Being able to read them is still technically in the curriculum standards for many states, but it's the kind of thing that often gets briefly touched on and then discarded. Because digital clocks are so prevalent now, many students never practice reading analog clocks outside of those specific lessons, and thus they never truly master it. While more of our students can read analog clocks than can write in cursive, it too seems to be headed down the path to extinction. Opinions about whether this was bad were much stronger, with nearly everyone agreeing that it's a worthwhile skill rather than something inessential.

The conversation made me curious to hear what everyone here thinks--not just about these but about dying skills in general. What are some skills that you believe will fall out of widespread use in the coming years? Is their departure a good/bad thing?

If you've been following tech news somewhat recently, you've surely heard about Article 13- the one where the EU essentially requires all content hosts to have extremely strict copyright checking tools and have automated takedown of any potentially copyrighted works.

That got put on the backburner for a little bit, but now it's back with a vote being held in early 2019.

YouTube, being one of, if not the largest content hosts in the world, is greatly affected by this motion. In fact, they have a whole website designed to encourage their creators to talk about A13 in their videos. The page very subtly hints at massive service changes that will happen in the EU if this actually ends up passing.

The CEO of YouTube, Susan Wojcicki, has also written an op-ed for Financial times (linked to official YT blog since it's free there) about the issues facing YT if A13 passes.

I haven't heard anything from official sources, but I've heard on the rumor mill that YouTube will completely suspend creators in the EU, not allowing them to upload any content, and potentially even removing their existing content from YouTube.

What if this passes? YouTube is one of the biggest sources of free knowledge and entertainment we have today, and it's become engrained into the internet as it is today.

With all this, I simply ask, "what's next?"

From the environmental standpoint shrinking of human population is often quoted to have desirable effects, and that's reasonable. But from the point of view of our daily lives and functioning of the human society, what negatives could we then expect? (I mean a soft decline due to lower birth rates, not some abrupt events.)

For example, with smaller population fewer music albums could be made every year than some time before, and people would maybe feel less inspired and satisfied. Less scientific research, less choices for relationships... and maybe other things? Would being more technically advanced compensate for the issues? Won't we feel ourselves in oblivion and romanticize the "numerous" past?

TLDR at the bottom

I played Far Cry 5 some time ago, and remember it as a good, albeit conventional, open-world FPS which freshened up the Far Cry formula and simplified it, for the better of the game. I also remember that while I enjoyed myself through it's entirety, the endings (as I immediatelly replayed the final mission to see the other ending) left such a sour taste in my mouth that it ruined the rest of the game's experience for me. I immediately uninstalled it and promised myself to never touch the game again. Both endings had completely ruined it for me. I wasn't there for the story, I was there to enjoy myself while hunting and exploring in rural Montana and occasionally killing people who deserved it (the cult is evil, the game makes this very clear).

Then you get to the end, after dispatching of Joseph's lieuteants; Faith, John and Joseph in missions, that were started through terrible scripted sequences of you being hunted down. And as it turns out, no matter what you choose (engage Joseph in combat or walk away), you can't save your friends (in fact if you walk away it is implied that you kill them yourself because of sheer bad luck) or kill Joseph, for that matter. Your silent protagonist listens to his boring and frankly infuriating monologues after locking you into cutscene, even though you came to the mission wielding an array of very deadly weapons, ranging from assault rifles to rocket launchers to a shovel. But Far Cry 5 doesn't care, you get locked into a cutscene and you are disbarred from shooting the prime antagonist, the man that admitted to you personally that he smothered his infant daughter, the man who leads the cult which kills, kidnapps, tortures and most likely rapes the inhabitants of Hope County. And you don't even get to shoot him in his fucking arrogant face, you just get to listen to his monologue. You totally could! You still have your guns, actually, you pull them out immediately after the cutscene if you choose to engange in a boss fight! But it's a game and nothing makes sense.

So Joseph shows you that he somehow captured your allies again, even though, to even engage him, you have to liberate the entire county from the grip of Eden's Gate, so realistically, there shouldn't be anyone left to capture your friends. The cultists are all dead, killed by bullets or your shovel.

Ultimately, you get to pick between taking three of your friends, leaving the rest behind and driving away, only for the driver to turn on the radio, where it just so happens to play the song which was, during the story, implanted in your brain to send you on a murderous, uncontrollable rage. Or you fight Joseph, who, after the fight ends (WHERE YOU STILL DON'T KILL HIM) reveals, that he was right all along, just as atom bombs start falling from the sky. And even then, Joseph, on his own, manages to overpower all your friends and kill them, because for some reason he's the only one not affected in any way by the atom bomb that just detonated in the distance (it is implied that it was another country that dropped the bomb, not Eden's Gate, but then, who would bomb some random county in Montana in the US without any strategical value?), locks you and himself into a bunker (which had a very capable, armed to the teeth, inhabitant living in it, which Joseph somehow kills off screen even though he marched in there unarmed) probably to brainwash you. Of course, the only right choice would be to take the secret ending, but that means not playing the game at all, and still puts the atom bombs into question and if they would still explode, and all the inhabitants of Hope County at the mercy of an evil doomsday cult.

As it turns out, in the world of Far Cry 5, the world is on the edge of starting world war 3, however, no one tells you this, there are only tidbits you hear on the radio if you drive to areas you've liberated. So everyone who turned off the radio didn't hear those. You could say that the world itself is a bit of foreshadowing, considering that everyone and their grandmother were building bunkers, but I thought that was another jab at the classic US rednecks the game parodied a lot, I missed that entirely. Apparently when you take drugs in the game, the hallucinations also hint at a looming world war, but I didn't take the drugs at all, so, barring the bunkers, the hints were too small to be noticed and gave the player something to think about.

The ending sparked a lot of discussion and speculation(one even going as far as claiming that the protagonist is Jesus) on the internet, mutiple discussion on Reddit and other sites, most people seemed to very much dislike the ending because precisely it felt that everything you did in the game was for nothing, which is an ending you can pull off (See Spec Ops: The Line) but the game has to earn with a very good plot and fitting gameplay. My major problem with Far Cry 5 is that it didn't feel earned at all. There was too much of a disconnect between gameplay and narrative (narrative which on it's own wasn't good enough for such a conclusion) to warrant such a bleak ending and pull it off in a way that didn't send the player into a salty rage. There are also theories floating around the net saying that the entire atom bombs ending was one big hallucination, considering your (and your allies) exposure to Bliss at the start of the boss fight. Honestly, I think Ubisoft could've saved some grace if the post-launch content and the DLC were maybe more focused on apocalyptic content (perhaps one big DLC which turned Hope County into a Fallout-esque desert), I actually thought that such content was part of the game, considering that the main menu changes massively after the atom bomb ending. It would've really saved the game: A classic WTF into oh no you just did not! into Oh they actually didn't. You could've even had most of the characters survive, because there were bunkers everywhere in Hope County. Instead we got lackluster post-launch DLC and content, as all three of the DLCs had a very mediocre reception.

The pcgamer article I linked makes a lot of points about how to make the game better, and ultimately I agree with them. It would've made a lot more sense if the entire plot had more gravitas from the beginning, if it were pictured more clearly that the world is in fact going bonkers, but also if the characters were a bit more realistic, both the villians and allies. You can't make a parody of rural America, structure the entire thing as a fun, wild, action-packed ride and then suddenly start dropping atom bombs and declare world war 3 at the end. People will feal cheated.

I'm interested in what the community here on Tildes thinks of Far Cry 5 and if we could get a discussion going.

TL;DR: Summing up, I don't think Far Cry 5 did enough to pull off the ending it gave us. For me and a lot of other people, it even went so far as to ruin the entire game, as everything I did was completely invalidated, all the time I spent on the game and with the characters I've grown to like (they were caricatures, but lovable ones) felt wasted, because there wasn't a single thing I could've to save anyone (except get the secret ending and don't play the game at all and even then, everything is still open). What are your thoughts?

So I've just finished watching the new season. I had low expectations going in, given how the writers had to cut out their main character at the eleventh hour, but I still can't help but feel disappointed.

Soo many plot threads left open. No repercussions for any of the shit that went down over the last 5 years. The good journalist ends up dead, Claire Underwood commits murder literally in the oval office while secret service is right outside the door and then... nothing. That's it. That's what we get for series a finale. I mean, what?

I've also been quite pissed off how they tried to turn Claire into a feminist icon. Claire is a monster. She is at least as bad as Frank. She wanted to literally start a nuclear war to deflect attention away from herself.

Don't get me wrong, having a feminist message is ok. It's good. It's even timely. But not with Claire fucking Underwood for fucks sake! In the first episode where that female soldier asks her if she even has a plan so that more soldiers won't end up dead, Claire snarks at her with "you wouldn't ask me that if I was a man". Really? This fresh recruit, this soldier who you will be sending to her death is asking you - someone who never held any public office before - whether you have a plan and your response is fuck patriarchy?

How about that scene where she fires her entire cabinet and fills it with an all-female cast? Forget about real life, it's not even realistic in the show's world. Remember how hard Frank had to fight, how many people he had to cross, bribe and even murder just to replace a single seat in earlier seasons? Where was the senate? Did everyone else just roll over; how come nobody fought her on this? It felt like the writers really, really wanted to play out their deepest, guilty-pleasure Hillary 2016 fantasies out on the show and the script suffered for it.

If they just left things at the last season's finale where Claire looked into the camera with "my turn!" it would have been a much more powerful moment, certainly better than this disorganized, directionless mess we got.

So yeah, that's where I'm at. How about you?

Prometheus (2012), Alien: Covenant (2017), Life (2017), The Cloverfield Paradox (2018), you name it. Why is everyone in the team is a complete incompetent buffoon? Why is the science behind the films so bad? Why do the protagonists do stupid crap? The crew from Alien IV looks like geniuses compared to these people.

Am I the only one who is seriously disturbed by this trend?

Let's assume that they have full control over congress, so politics isn't an issue. I think looking at what a good global climate policy would be useful, because it allows us to see where we stand. It could also serve as a platform for future candidates.

It seems to me that the new president should take a wide-ranging series of measures to curb emissions in all the major domains: electricity, transportation, agriculture, manufacturing, etc. [1]. You might argue that measures taken in isolation from other countries are not sufficient. While that's true, someone has to start. The US taking the lead on climate change would have a profound impact on all other countries. The US could use its very strong diplomatic weight to pressure other countries to adopt similar measures.

So what should these measures be? The major one would seem to be a carbon tax, applied to all major sources of emissions: energy production (coal plants, ...), agriculture (cattle and meat imports), jet fuel (current taxes are very low), etc. Another one could be a tax on imports depending on how much the exporting country does against global warming. Maybe a new kind of free trade alliance among "climate-virtuous" countries could be created.

Any thoughts? Have any serious global policy proposals been made and studied in the past?

[1] : https://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/My-plan-for-fighting-climate-change

Link to the announcement -- Do read it, it's a short email.

I'm posting this here because I think it generated some good discussion over on HN, which unfortunately got .. flamewary. (Is that irony?)

I've myself created and moderated several large-ish communities over the years and my views on codes of conduct are mixed. I'm always trying to make an envi. They themselves can range quite a bit, with 'opponents' to CoCs often picking the worst offenders in terms of overreach as examples. To me, it's always felt like the software engineering world is rediscovering... forum guidelines?

This is a politically-charged topic now, where almost all discussion on CoCs being centered on black&white "if you oppose them then you're basically alt-right". This makes the topic of CoCs an interesting example, IMO, of how we ("we" as in "the internet") give loudspeakers to the most extremist voices, silencing nuance.

Reminds me of a post by @deadaluspark here discussing the effect that this increasing divide has on us.

Well anyway, I brought up the announcement in question because Stallman (someone who tends to usually be pretty radical and have clear cut opinions) positively surprised me. This seemed to resonate with people, especially the parts about replacing sticks with carrots. It felt pretty good to see someone ignore (probably by virtue of being shielded from it) the politically-charged side of the topic and simply focus on trying to improve communication. Sounds cliché, but I feel that this approach has gotten very rare the past 4-5 years, and its higher frequency on Tildes is part of why I've been enjoying reading the comments here so much.

It’s no secret that the Internet has significantly changed even from just a decade ago. I’ve been thinking about online communities - particularly forums - and I’ve really begun to miss the sense of discovery when finding a new one while browsing online. It was like lifting a rock and finding an entirely new collective of people writing to one another about anything (complete with graphic signatures). It was an internet subculture in progress. Something something Wild West.

Small forums like that did a number of things that I feel we haven’t been able to replicate. You got to know people over time. It wasn’t a feed you vaguely subscribed to, but a forum (in literal definition of the word) that you chose to participate in.

I often think about what probably defines a typical experience online for people these days and I feel that the smaller and more cozy feeling of actual community has been replaced by the digital equivalent of big box stores. Twitter, Youtube, Facebook, Twitch, Netflix. Big corporate places with portals and algorithms.

These aren’t necessarily bad things in and of themselves (aside from the chasing of a world in which nothing is left unplanned), but I’m trying to hone in on the idea that the sheer randomness of this medium has more or less vaporized. The concept that anything and everything you do on the Internet wasn’t aggressively being tracked and developed into digital profiles to be traded, used, shared, and sold by ad companies and an array of other organizations was a fart in the wind compared to what it’s like online today. Websites simply didn’t have 5 megabytes+ of Javascript whereas now you need a half a dozen browser extensions to make the internet a halfway decent thing to be on.

My hunch is that once upon a time, people (at least those that even had access to it) had a kind of amateur desire of wanting to create an account at a website (particularly a forum). Coming up on 2019, I think long and hard before creating another account anywhere. There even was an expectation to introduce yourself in some introduction subforum at many of these boards.

A theme that has become completely domineering is the inflated ego linked to tribalism. I see people being so serious about everything; there can be no reciprocal discussion about anything.

I think it’s probably trivial to dismiss this as nostalgia but I feel there are some real truths to this. The Internet is something you had the choice of actually logging off and disconnecting but today, everyone is constantly connected. We are in the age of distraction and preoccupation. Think about it: how many times have you picked up your (smart)phone purely out of reflex, not even to check something with purpose? You see it everywhere in public, certainly. The constant stream of brightly colored iconography, beeps, alerts, buzzing, push/notifications, and beyond are endless. Everything demands your attention, and it is never enough.

A lot of the time people will by default mark a game being buggy as a negative, and on the one hand I do understand this. But, at the same time, some of my most memorable gaming moments will be stuff like walking entering the wasteland to find an old barrel just spinning violently on the floor. Now, obviously a GAME BREAKING bug will always destroy an experience, but if you look at a civilian floating up a wall in spider-man PS4 and you're too worried about your immersion to find humour in it, I'm sure you're very fun at parties.

I was watching my favorite weekly space show on YouTube, TMRO, and I learned about Astro Live Experiences (ALE.) They will soon launch two test satellites which will be able to provide a burst of 30-40 man made shooting stars at a prearranged time and place, for a fee.

Japanese company ALE is the first "space entertainment" company of which I am aware. The only event in the same ballpark was New Zealand based RocketLab's Humanity Star which caused a large amount of controversy. ALE's initial technology will allow a 200km radius of earth to see their multi-color shooting star show. According to the interview on TMRO, in the long term, they are planning to allow image rendering and even artificial aurora.

This type of business seems inevitable as we advance into space. I can see some benefits and some downsides to this technology. What do you all think of this?

^{Maybe this topic belongs in ~misc}

hey everyone! found this interesting post on /r/6perks, and i wanted to share it here and see what ideas get shared.

You wake up in a chemist's lab. In front of you is a table with 10 different-coloured pills. You may only choose 3. A warning label notifies you that taking more than 3 will cause instant combustion.

Which do you choose, and why?

🔵 Future Pill 🔵

You can see 10 years into the future or any time sooner, whenever you want. You can see any part of the world.

🔴 Xray Pill 🔴

You gain the ability to see through anything as far as you can normally see. Works at any layer.

🔸 Fly Pill 🔸

You can fly. You start at a slow speed and require time to speed up to a maximum of 100mph (161kph). You are not immune to low oxygen or harsh temperatures.

🌿 Drug Pill 🌿

You gain the ability to automatically be affected by any drug that exists as much as you want, no bad side effects.

❤ Sex Appeal Pill ❤

Anyone you want is instantly attracted to you, you are cured of and immune to STD's. Anyone who you "do" also becomes immune, and son on. Cure the world?

💠 Disease Immune Pill 💠

Gives you the ability to become immune to all harmful diseases.

💰 Money Pill 💰

You don't become rich, nor have infinite money, but it's like you do. Every time you want to do or have something, your bank account/wallet has exactly as much money as you need.

💮 Wish Pill 💮

Gives you the ability to wish for one of two things: any existing object to be teleported in front of you, or for you to be teleported wherever you want. Can only be used once a week. You get a free return ticket if you teleported somewhere. You cannot wish for other pills.

♠️ Death Pill ♠️

Gives you the ability to have any person of your choice killed, with no risk of consequence. Can only be used once every 5 weeks.

🌟 Painproof Pill 🌟

You are tougher than Wolverine after drinking green tea or eating spinach. You can still get hurt but you have Olympian-like physique, the skills of the greatest martial artists in the world, you are twice as fast, and your wounds regenerate very quickly.

Has anyone else seen this show? It came out last October. I just saw it about a month ago, probably a little less. It has got to be one of the best thing I've seen all year. Top 3.

I love the entire theme, the atmosphere, how everything is done. The direction is incredible. And the actors are ridiculously good.

In the show the two main characters will narrate their thoughts as they are happening in the moment. There is brilliant joke where Alyssa is narrating her thoughts and she thinks something along the lines of, "If This were a movie we would probably be American." Because the show is set in Britain and she is thinking to herself, what if this is all a movie.

The show is a dark comedy. And it's just got this incredible motif for lack of a better word. Has anyone else seen it? What are your thoughts? I really like Alyssa's character. Just how she is so empathetic, and she thinks far enough into everything to weigh both sides in a way not a lot of people would do. She basically givea the benefit of the doubt and weighs both sides more than she should.

Adjustment Day is a parody, at least I hope it is, of a United States dystopia. The concept is rather ambitious, but the author rises to the task. The prime conspiracy theory behind the book is that throughout history, civilization has periodically weeded out young men of 18-24 through war and whatever other means available to keep society from returning to the dark ages. Who does this in the U.S? Why, your government, of course.

In this version of the conspiracy, the young men turn the tables. Most of the book is about what happens after Adjustment Day. I've only read Fight Club and Choke by Palahniuk before this. All I can say is the cynicism and nihilism of those two books seems increased tenfold in Adjustment Day. Do you have a conservative conspiracy theory that you think about from time to time? They're all in here. I'd even bet that the author comes up with some you've never heard before.

In a satire that is as biting as The Sellout, Palahniuk presents several characters who live through the aftermath of the event, including the originator of it. But instead of nobody talking about it, (like in Fight Club) everybody is talking about this new bizarre movement/social-political revolution. As you go down this rabbit hole of irrational rationalization, it's easy to lose sight of what is going on. Scenes and characters are switched at the beginning of random paragraphs, causing me to back up every few pages.

A good example of Palahniuk's treatment of infrastructure is given by a new form of money that comes out of the movement:

Officially, the order called them Talbotts, but everyone knew them as skins. Rumor was the first batches were refined from, somehow crafted from the stretched and bleached skin taken from targeted persons. People seemed to take a hysterical joy from the idea.
Instead of being backed by gold or the full faith of government or some such, this money was backed by death. The suggestion was always that failure to accept the new currency and honor its face value might result in the rejecter being targeted. Never was this stated, not overtly, but the message was always on television and billboards: Please Report Anyone Failing to Honor the Talbott. The bills held their face value for as long as a season, but faded faster in strong light and fastest in sunlight. A faded bill held less value as the markers along the edges became illegible.

Because the money had a shelf life, people had to work all the time. At the top of the hierarchy were the young men who had put their lives on the line during the Adjustment Day revolution. They would get the money from some source and give it away to their workers and people they knew, spending it all as fast as they could.

If that sounds ridiculous, you haven't even scratched the surface of this world. Chief among the topics are racism and prejudice toward everyone you can imagine. All in all I found the book a little tedious. Palahniuk puts the crazy theories in the mouths of people who voice them so convincingly that it becomes surreal. If you're a fan of the author you might like it. But practically every paragraph seems engineered to be offensive in some way, to someone.

Let's just hope Chuck is making all this stuff up.

For anyone who doesn't recognize Patience Phillips, she was Halle Berry's Catwoman in the most terrible superhero film - Catwoman (2004)...that I really enjoyed it. Probably because it wasn't well-received, it's often overlooked when talking about things like "the first female hero on screen" or "the first black hero..." sort of things. And technically, Catwoman's not a superhero.

Spoilers ahead. I'm also going to keep my points to the story and characters themselves. I honestly had no issues with any of the actors.

The good

• The theme and social commentary on make-up, beauty products, self-harm/addiction and image issues woman do face. The added layer of cooperate greed. The idea of what you see in the mirror vs. what others see (and if they're right), alongside what you want to present to the world or to specific people - honestly this movie has probably one of the best takes on "the cost of beauty" that I've seen in a while, and since.
• The scene where Tom thinks he's saving a jumper, but Patience is actually trying to save a cat. This random scene turns out to be a great storytelling scene when brought up again after Tom arrests Patience for murder and she asks him what he first saw the first time they met.
• Laurel is probably the most interesting character in this movie. There's a really well-framed shot of her photos being removed from her company lobby in favour of a younger model. I think it's one of the best scenes in the movie. Laurel is capable, powerful, rich and very accomplished, but somehow her relevance still fades as her beauty does. (I can honestly say I generally can't stand the evil step-mother wrestling with her fading beauty and taking out her bitterness on some young snow white-y girl, but this one worked for me.)
• I loved that Batman wasn't in it (but didn't really like that a love interest still had to be introduced).

The bad

• That she's call Patience Phillips...but honestly this is the warning to divorce this from any Catwoman or female superheros (or anti-heros) you know.
• Patience doesn't earn her "powers" - Selina Kyle (Catwoman in basically all other versions) works obsessively to perfect all her abilities. She's an insanely good cat burglar, not a magic cat.
• Patience doesn't earn or drive her own growth. There is basically no growth as a character. A magic cat ghost could have simply possessed Patience's body and the story would be the same.
• Oversexualization of Catwoman...which I didn't even know could be a thing until this movie. Black leather for a sexy Catwoman - awesome. Whatever the belt thing was - grossly missed the point while trying to copy Pfeiffer's patched up catsuit.
• I'm also not the biggest fan of make-over tropes in general.

The ugly

• The basketball scene - just everything about it.
• The hate that surrounded the movie because Catwoman wasn't blonde (or Michelle Pfeiffer), and that Batman's not in it.
• The physical punch-them-out fight scene between Laurel and Catwoman in the end - just why? This isn't a movie at all about physical strength, and having a "face like marble" isn't a real power. (To be fair, I don't like this showdown in really any superhero movie, with the exception of The Death of Superman.)

The cheesy

• The crazy cat-lady Patience goes too, and her tossing a cat toy at her
• The sushi eating scene
• The in case of date emergency kit her friends gave her.
• Laurel seeing her cracked beauty in the moment of a showdown fight
• The cat scratches on Tom
• Her best friend hooking up with her doctor
• The comparing signatures on the coffee cups
• Her Marvel-like comic book name

Final thoughts

So yeah...I would recommend this movie, and really hope that when they do make another Catwoman film that it might share some themes. Have you seen this movie? Did you hate it? Who's your favourite Catwoman? What would you like to see in a Catwoman movie?

I've been thinking a lot lately about the future of software and where native apps and the web will reconcile and I had the idea that what if "the next OS" had a OSS federated app store that people and organizations could host themselves, but the system still used the app store model that pull app/program listings from all the installations online? This could apply to mobile or desktop computing, or even any of the other platforms (see windows store system compatibility).

Video pitch: The world’s first open source AI | Mycroft AI | HT Summit 2017

Fast Company article: Can Mycroft’s Privacy-Centric Voice Assistant Take On Alexa And Google?

Kingscrowd review: Top Deal: The Secure Open Source Voice Assistant Of The Future

I'm not a techie by any means, but I stumbled across Mycroft AI some time last year, and I'm keeping half an eye on its progress. If ever I get myself a digital assistant, I think it's likely to be Mycroft. (I also love the name!)

I wondered if anyone else had any thoughts about this.

Maybe I'm just not very well versed in this sort of thing but I couldn't find anything online. I've always been sort of paranoid that a company might not be truthful in their privacy policy. Is there any sort of law to keep them honest or do we just have to take their word on it?

Old stories are always being updated for lots of reasons, ranging from trying to appeal to new audiences to correcting toxic depictions to fitting better to the current social or political climate and more. There's nothing new there. However, one thing I find a bit odd lately, as in the last five years or so, is that a lot of this modernization is actually done pretty poorly in main stream media. We see more forced diversity, queerbaiting, and generally bad storytelling. Not totally sure how I'll do this yet, but I'm thinking of posting stories that stand out to me for better or for worst, starting with a classic.

There will be spoilers for both movies.

Cinderella (2015)

This is one I honestly didn't think worked at all. To be fair, I believe Disney's goal was just to sell a beautiful movie, and not a good story. This whole movie was gorgeous. It was also really boring, which I honestly believe is the greatest sin in storytelling.

Cinderella herself is "smarter" in this movie than the old classic cartoon. She's well read and has some agency, which honestly makes her more a damsel than the original cartoon for me. In the cartoon, she was an abused child that had no where to go. Her being trapped made sense. In the new one, she's sort of a fighter...who doesn't fight. I didn't get it.

Another issue is that Cinderella was really the only character they modified, which is why the story is still shallow.

Ever After (1998)

This is honestly one of the best modernization of the fairy tale I've ever seen. What worked for me, is that they fleshed out all their characters. Danielle, Henry, the stepmother, stepsisters, everyone! This makes for a much richer story, where characters themselves can be modernized, but still fit the time of the period piece. It's not about dropping a fourth wave feminist into an aged story, but about adding the dimensions that would have still existed then. Danielle is strong, well read, and obedient. Her servitude is not without reason. She's seeking a "mother", and her relationship with her stepmother is more than simply being a slave. The audience is shown the moments of kindness Danielle seeks from her stepmother.

My quick two-cents. I also find it interesting that Ever After came out over 15 years before Cinderella.

So what are you thoughts? Any good fairy tale adaptations you can mention?

The Ottoman Empire ended in 1922. The Roman Empire, 476, though it was survived by the Eastern Roman Empire which lasted until 1453 and the Holy Roman Empire which stuck around in some form until 1806.

Obviously these dates are inexact, but it's a useful historical tool to pick two events and use them as bookends to describe the arc of a given empire or society.

So with the benefit of sufficient hindsight, say 500 or 1000 years from now, what do you think will be the generally accepted date printed in history books for "here's the event that signals the end of this period of history"?

Do you believe it will be some point in the past, or the future? If you think it's in the past, how far back? What event?

If you think it's in the future, how far in the future? What do you predict will happen at that time to be the historical marker?

^{p.s. don't say "all history will be forgotten because of nuclear war". I agree that's a distinct possibility, but the likelihood of it happening is best addressed as a separate topic from this one. for the purposes of this thread assume we haven't completely fucked ourselves as a species and at least some records of our current time period exist.}

If the cookies never stop being produced, then it is logical to assume that, if unchecked, uneaten cookies will eventually choke the earth, leaving us uninhabitable. What is your plan, and how long do you think we'll last in this cookie apocalypse?

As for some general rules, the machine is impossible to break, and it can inexplicably produce cookies infinitely without having to refill on ingredients.

Any Fantasy Football players on Tildes? Post your team here with your league rules and let's rate and discuss each other's teams!

Side thought: Are there enough NFL fans here to warrant a Tildes league? That might be fun. There's enough time to draft before the season starts if enough people are interested.

From start to finish I found the show totally engrossing, tense, and mysterious. It was excellently shot and written, and the twists in episodes 7 and 8 were hard hitting, even if you had an idea that they were possible as early as episode 4 or 5. Plus, those post creditn scenes were haunting. What did you guys think?

I'm currently reading the book so please, no spoilers for the novel! TV show discussion only

Anyone seen this? I heard about this movie on NPR and decided to check it out. Wow! It's a great, well told story that pulls a lot of discreet threads together. As an aside from the main story of a black cop infiltrating the Ku Klux Klan it also references racist media of yesteryear like Gone With the Wind and Birth of a Nation. There are several moments that wink at Donald Trump's talking points and policies. There was a lot of reaction from the predominantly black crowd I was in, the connection was certainly noticed.

And the end! Wow. Almost had me in tears, really brought me back to a year ago when I saw the Vice News on Charlottesville. I was in a theater in Richmond, VA about an hour from Charlottesville. You could have heard a pin drop right when the movie ended. I've never seen so many people get gut punched like that all at once. The timing of this movie was absolutely well thought out.

I recall recently seeing an article posted that was related to euthanasia, and I started thinking about the subject. I see both potential pros and potential cons associated with it. For example, there's the concern about family members or authority pressuring an ill person to opt for doctor-assisted suicide to ease financial burdens, for instance. There's also the benefit, on the other hand, of allowing someone who is terminally ill or guaranteed to live the rest of their life in excruciating pain the option to go out on their own terms. With proper oversight and ethical considerations, it generally seems to be an all-around ideal to provide an "opt-out" for those who would only continue to suffer and would rather not prolong it, as a merciful alternative to forcing them to live it out.

But then there are some trickier questions.

As a disclaimer, I spent nearly a couple of decades struggling through depression and have been surrounded (and still am surrounded) by people who struggle with their own mental illnesses. Because of this, I'm perfectly aware of the stigma and subpar treatment of mental illness in general. With that in mind, I completely recognize that there are certain conditions which are, at this time, completely untreatable and result in peoples' quality of life deteriorating to the point that they become perpetually miserable, particularly with certain neurodegenerative diseases.

Thus, the question occurred to me: wouldn't such a condition be the mental health equivalent of a terminal illness? Would it not be unethical to force someone to continue living under conditions in which their quality of life will only diminish? Shouldn't someone who has such a condition, and is either of sound enough mind or with a written statement of their wishes from a time when they were of sound enough mind, be able to make the same decision about whether or not to opt to go out on their own terms?

And yet, as reasonable as it sounds, for some reason the thought of it feels wrong.

Is there something fundamentally more wrong about euthanasia for mental health vs. euthanasia for physical health? Is it just a culturally-learned ideal?

More importantly, what makes euthanasia acceptable in some cases and not others? Which cases do you think exemplify the divide? Is there something more fundamental that we can latch onto? Is there a clear line we can draw? Is psychology itself just too young a field for us to be drawing that ethical line?

I'm genuinely not sure how to feel about this subject. I would be interested in hearing some other thoughts on the subject. The questions above don't necessarily have to be answered, but I thought they could be good priming points.

while its not the best star wars movie, it isn't the abomination that people make it out to be. its legitimately fun to watch and comfy with all its bad CGI.

Favorite star wars movies in order: IV, V, Solo, VII, I, VIII, VI, Rogue One, III, II

To summarize, I am annoyed that there are two different standard for 4-pole audio connectors. For those curious I mean this.

You have OMTP and CTIA, the difference is they swap the mic and ground pins. This is irritating because Apple vs Android use them differently. This becomes especially annoying when you want a feature like an inline mic mute switch (one designed for CTIA for example will disconnect the ground pin on OMTP instead of mic)

This has been an ongoing frustration for me for a while. I really enjoy a good pair of headphones because I use Discord and I work from home which necessitates using headphones for extended periods of time to listen to music, take calls, chat on discord.

I just want there to be a device that does OMTP/CTIA swapping AND include the ability to physically mute the mic. Like this but with something that will break the mic pin. Im currently designing something in fritzing that will allow both direction switching as well as selective muting.

/rant

Has anyone else had any similar experience or frustration with this problem?

I had a discussion today about the ethics of cloning your pets. It's a thing you can currently pay (a lot) of money for, but I don't really see much discussion about it, even though it's absurdly sci-fi and a little crazy to me that it's a real business.

So what are your thoughts? Is it ethical? Is it a bit weird? Is it perfectly healthy?

Just got invited here and looking at the content of the front page, Tildes is basically a "poor-man's version" of reddit right now. That's OK: it's a new community and I imagine a big part of users are coming here from reddit so they're doing what they're used to doing on social networks, that's only fair.

However, more than that, looking at the groups, they are set up pretty much similarly to reddit's default subs - if not on a 1:1 basis, at least in the general tone: pretty casual, daily life topics, big focus on entertainment media, etc. Maybe again this is, by design catering to the people who are bound to be incoming from reddit, so they can immediately relate to a similar user experience. Good.

So I think it's fair to say that it's proven that Tildes can be "like reddit". It kinda looks like reddit, it kinda feels like reddit. That part of the deal is covered. Now, what can makes us different? I doubt anyone here has no ambition besides being a soft-fork of reddit.

What topics make you tick? What sort of online discussion makes you go "that's the good stuff"? What subjects are you truly passionate about? I'd like to know what the community here is all about, whether the current ~groups represent their interests and passions or not and, hopefully we could come up with some less generic ideas for new ~groups out of the discussion.

EDIT I realize Tildes has a specific policy of "lesser active groups are better than a billion inactive groups" but at this point in time a good selection of groups would really help define the identity and content, not to mention promote quality discussion that actually aligns with people's interests. Hopefully seeing common trends in the replies would allow us to identify a few potential new groups, perhaps.

Basically, with groups being admin controlled rather than the reddit system of mods, will all bans be site wide or should group bans be possible? Let's say somebody is harassing or being an asshole on ~LGBT, should they be banned from ~LGBT or from the website?

Under the right inputs opinions and worldviews can be changed relatively easily, but what about the more subtle stuff underneath? Can a workaholic with a strong drive later in life become lethargic? Can an innately introverted person later in life become innately extroverted?

Those aren't the best examples, but that said my intuition would be that these tendencies are too deep rooted to be significantly altered and can only be superficially mitigated against one way or another.

If this is to a degree incorrect I'd love to hear some anecdotes.

I don't have a long write up for this or anything, mostly because I'm just confused...

I have to admit, watching season 7, I don't remember Adam if he was ever brought in before, and his part was so short and seemingly inconsequential, I honestly have no strong feelings for it. Shiro is all about burying his feelings and putting the needs of others above his own, so it's not at all out of character for his personal life to basically never show up. Still, we're finally getting more of his backstory, and I can't help but feel it's lacking.

So, I guess my question is - why? Why bring in a character they're not going to develop and kill off screen? Would it be better just to have a random mention of Shiro being gay and just moving on, which I guess is pretty much all that happened anyways? Guess they could have done it as part of his backstory with Keith. Does this count as queer-baiting?

Thoughts?

Correction: guess he didn't die off screen. I just didn't recognize the random pilot as Adam...

For most stories, when you have an evil or otherwise irredeemable character, death is the only form of satisfactory redemption. Anything less is simply not convincing for most audiences.

I'm sure a lot of people can write novels on Spike's character arcs, but I just wanted to discuss a little bit of his redemption arc.

Interestingly, his sacrifice at the end of Buffy season 7, is the beginning of his actual character. Sure, he's helped out Buffy before that, but he was far from "the greater good" until then. So death, and boom - character redeemed.

So how's the redemption arc when he's brought back in Angel. It's harder now because now he's up and walking and possibility doing things that negate his redemption. He now has to live the life he supposedly wanted to when he made his sacrifice.

Not saying that's what happened, but I think the writers went out of their way to show this.

(Going off memory now, so please feel free to correct me, if I get any details wrong...)

Not long after he's ghost-Spike, he starts feeling like he's pulled to "Hell", and develops a friendship with Fred, who ultimately saves him from that fate. This establishes his "goodness" for the rest of Angel.

Thoughts? Other characters that share something similar you want to talk about? How would Spike feel without this episode? Anyone just want to gush about Spike in general?

I'm curious to see what the public consensus towards the site is nowadays. They have been controversial since their inception, but no matter what you think of them, there is no denying that the information they've released has sparked massive debate around the world.

I'd like to start a discussion around collecting-based games, with the following prompt question:

What non-card-based alternatives to TCG/CCGs exist which satisfy the same criteria?

This "criteria" is my understanding of what makes TCGs/CCGs appealing, and includes but is not limited to:

• collectible/tradable (not necessarily monetized),
• portable/relatively self-contained (this could include apps, handheld consoles),
• the constant drive to expand the collection (whether it's through the randomness of distribution not ensuring particular collectibles, or an appealing reward system like in the Pokemon games).

I wish to divorce these criteria from the card format. Of course, the list of criteria not extensive and I am actively seeking a deeper understanding of what makes these card-based games so appealing. Discussions on the nature of gambling-addiction and the impact of secondary market values also very welcome.

The best example I can think of is the Pokemon games for handheld consoles. These games pre-dated the Pokemon card game and are a great example of the appeal of card games existing and thriving in a non-card format (which ironically led to the card game adaptation).

Another is Warhammer and the tabletop wargaming family. This is interesting to me but really seems to be in a completely different ballpark because it lacks agility and thus is far less appealing to many players.

Note: my reference point to what makes games like these appealing" is very biased by card games, specifically the current "big three" of TCG/CCGs: Magic: the Gathering, Pokemon, and YuGiOh. I'd appreciate suggestions of other relatively successful or simply well-designed games which employ collectibility as a core mechanic. They don't even have to be portable, as long as you're clear about that.

tl;dr: let's talk about alternatives to card games which depend on collecting as a core mechanic

Edit: formatting.

In France, we all need two identity documents to vote, a voter's card and a national identity card (or passport). It is not at all controversial, even at the far left of the political spectrum. In America, people say it's voter suppression.

New release today, Erra's Neon.

Apple Music
Spotify
YouTube

Currently the number one metal album on iTunes' chart, Erra's Neon is the latest release from the underground metalcore act. While they've attracted a cult following, Erra rarely gets headlining tours. Neon is their newest attempt at reaching the next step.

My personal opinion is that this is the perfection of the sound the band switched to with their last release, Drift. Just as atmospheric, with little less of the chug-chug-chug of most metalcore outfits, Erra may have finally found out how to make what some call "progressive metalcore" a bit more accessible. I personally enjoy how present the bass is in the mix. Metal and hardcore both seem to forget about the instrument and put it low in the mix as an after thought. The clean vocals have always been reminiscent of post-hardcore's darling Anthony Green, and Neon is no different.

It's a little bit of a shame that we have to wait until track three to really hear some of the noodling guitar solos they are known for. In a genre more punctuated by breakdowns, Erra is a breath of fresh air when it comes to lead guitar work. But when it does happen, it is up to the standard they've put out for themselves. They seemed to have moved even further away from the djent sound of their earlier work here. I don't mind that, even if I do like djenty sounds, as I think this crisper sound is better overall for Erra. While the uncleans do hit like a truck on first listen, they stay in a mid-range throughout most of the album and it would have been nice to see them go low, as JT has been known to do live.

Overall, I gotta say this is one my favorite albums of the year so far. Every song slaps a bit, gets the head bopping along at the very least.

Why?

Quick story: I was in an elevator with a coworker I didn't really know and he told me a story of when he asked a stranger in a restaurant if she were pregnant. She was not! And he said he was so embarrassed that he had to leave.

I didn't get a chance to ask him, so I'm asking you fellow tilderinos - why ask this question at all? Especially to a stranger? What motivates this question? Is it really asking why someone looks fat?

Have you been on the receiving end of this question? (If you're a women older than 25, I'm going to guess yes). What are your stories?

Something you see frequently on Reddit are subreddits that have developed their own slang, jokes and references. That's part of the reason why Reddit feels like a collection of communities more than one website divided into sections, which is what Tildes look like right now.
The question is, do we want that sort of stuff here?

Urgh, this is not amazing cricket so far. There's been some good play in parts but overall it feels fairly scrappy from both sides. How many catches have the English slips dropped so far? (mind you, the Indians dropped a few this afternoon too)

My cricket coach at school was a delightfully gnarly old Yorkshire dude who would repeatedly drill into us "catches win matches lads, catches win matches" before making us do more catching drills.

I feel like I've been defending Cooke's performance for too many years now, I can't believe we don't have someone else who can open the batting reliably. He doesn't need to hit out, just stay in. On the plus side, Sam Curran seems to be finding his feet. He's only 20 but I feel like he could go far. He might have saved this match for England today.

OK, so I started writing this post while watching the highlights, just as England's second innings finished and now, just a few minutes later India are down five wickets, 84 needed to win, and England's bowling attack are on fire. It's all got very interesting all of a sudden.

Non-cricket fans - the Test format is the one you guys generally seem to particularly baffling/frustrating. It's a five day match where nothing can happen for hours on end, and the game can end with no winner.