A recent thread has had its title changed due to the title being sensationalized. I'm not sure that this is the correct move, as the title in question was also the title of the submitted article. I think this does a disservice to the community as a whole, as it makes it appear as though we want to editorialize the content submitted here which seems to go against the ideal of fostering quality discussion.

"But wait!", I hear you say, "We have a topic log!" That will be ignored, easily, especially by those seeking to equate the community with something else. While we're busy misrepresenting content (because that's what changing a title does, it misrepresents), others will point at us and shout about how we're misrepresenting the content being posted. I cannot agree with this, and I think its detrimental to the community and the idea of Tildes as a whole. Note: Text-only posts obviously are excluded from this, I'm concerned with titles on submitted links that have their own title.

Now, what happens when the title of an article is already sensationalist and editorialized? The authors, editor, and publisher obviously have biases and platforms they want to support. It currently seems as though we are changing titles to something different than what the title of the article is, and I find this extremely off-putting. I can understand wanting to avoid bringing that bias over to Tildes, but I cannot understand a reason to deliberately misrepresent that bias by changing an article's title. I think this is going to be detrimental to the community and the mission of Tildes to generate high-quality discussion.

Where articles with sensationalized headlines are posted, I propose that we must retain those titles. The system of tagging is sufficient to indicate that a title is too strongly sensationalized. Deviating from this norm is antithetical with Tildes' mission to generate and foster quality content and discussion.

There are too many responses to really get into things individually, but I must say I feel as though there has been a breach of trust. I had no idea that altering the titles of submissions would go so far, and it has destroyed the image I had of the site. Maybe the site will evolve more as the experiment continues, who knows. In the meantime, I've been accused of making arguments in bad faith multiple times in this thread. I'm deeply offended by this, as I've tried to present my thoughts and feelings as clearly as I could. This is deeply troubling to me, especially since those accusations have been given strong support by other users.

unless we stopped editing titles

This is a misrepresentation, I only ask that titles match the article they're from. Edit away if the title doesn't match the article, or is a user's text post. Maybe I wasn't clear, but there it is spelled out.

Also, there was never an ultimatum, but Deimos and other users would smear me with such claims. Being unsure of whether or not a community is a good fit for yourself is not nearly the same thing as an ultimatum.

I am considering to start an educative podcast in a couple months (just considering, nothing certain). I want to monetise it with a freemium model where the most elementary thing---the audio---is free or very cheap (e.g. $1 on Patreon), but handouts (non-essential but very useful) are slightly more expensive. It will probably be weekly to begin with, and I mgiht add some extra material if it will be viable financially. I can't really afford pro or prosumer gear at this point, so I'd like to avoid that if possible.

My question is, what are your tips for a totally beginner podcaster like me? Either my case directly, or a more general newbie with little funds tobdedicate to this in the beginning.

Not sure if this is intentional or not, but I've noticed today that the first time I click on the new messages link at the top right, I cannot vote on any messages I read. I need to reload my inbox in order for the vote to stick.

Anyone else encountering this?

Another person said that s(he) can't form an opinion because s(he) eats meat, and it is almost the same thing. She feels it's wrong, but at the same time thinks it's prejudice against some religions if we are worried about a couple of animals and continue to kill millions just to eat.

I can agree and disagree with this point, but one thing being wrong doesn't give a pass to other things.

But if we agree that it's constitutional to sacrifice animals, then what certain religions do to women (or any person) should be at the same level.

That's why i disagree at the end. It shouldn't be allowed, period.

The animal being sacrificed didn't chose to be there, nor the human being mistreated.

What are your opinions? Can someone point what i'm thinking wrong here?

PS: Sorry for my poor wording because english is not my first language. I wanted to know the opinion here about morals or what is right or wrong, not the law itself. Of course that any discussion on that is welcome too.

What are you reading currently? Fiction or non-fiction, any genre, any language! Tell us what you're reading, and talk a bit about it.

Past weeks: Week #1 · Week #2 · Week #3 · Week #4 · Week #5 · Week #6 · Week #7 · Week #8 · Week #9 · Week #10 · Week #11 · Week #12 · Week #13 · Week #14 · Week #15

To clarify I'm not incompetent at computers, I'm sure people don't tend to install Linux if they aren't familiar with technology in a decent capacity. But for instance I can't code, can't operate the command line short of copying and pasting command, and don't really know what I'm doing with the technical aspect other than following online guides. I have used windows all my life. I'm Linux illiterate for lack of a better description.

I decided I wanted some form of USB bootable computer, i'm familiar with chrome books, enjoy the light weight OS, and am bed bound to the google ecosystem so I when I saw how you could plug in a USB and have the computer boot into Chrome OS running off the USB I thought that sounded perfect. But during my research of discovery I found that Linux seemed like a very good alternative, I had always had it in my head that it was very technical and finicky system where to do a simple google search you had to code in half a dozen lines into the control terminal in some bizarre 2018 text adventure to use the web, I do exaggerate of course but the image I had conjured up over the years was of a very non-user friendly experience and a system made for those running technical aspects such as web servers and system management.

I decided you can't knock it to you try it and besides turns out you can't get chrome OS on a 32GB USB it has to be 8GB or 16GB apparently. So I installed Ubuntu on my USB, no clue if this is some snooty distro, or a version of Linux that's mocked in the community, or the perfect distro but after minimal research it seemed the most popular and well received version to put it on a USB and booted into it.

Instantly all my preconceived notions we're erased. It's clean, modern, simple, light weight, and easy to use with a very intuitive and familiar UI. It's pretty much a more open and degooglified (That's a nice word) version of Chrome OS. Since Firefox Quantum was released I emigrated over to try break some ties with google for privacy reasons like it's some pervy conjoined twin of mine, I know it's not good for me, I don't want it there but I can't get rid of it without harming me.

It's got a simple UI that's familiar to windows albeit without all the bloatware and ads spread everywhere, it doesn't track you like window does (that's as far as I'm aware it did ask to collect anonymised telemetry data which I opted out of). With windows I'm so used to having to go through 3 different pop up windows to change a setting that in Ubuntu it feels like I'm missing features although I'm yet to find one that's not there. The best bit about Linux, is if theirs a setting you want to change and can't find, than someone online has wrote a guide giving you a command line code to copy paste into the terminal to fix it.

Although to me it feels more on par with Chrome OS than Windows as a bare bones OS with simple apps and a web browser to use the internet with, in this regard Linux wins easy, way more open, no profit based motivation, and more accessible allowing itself to be used anywhere.

All though that comparison holds up for the normal user and if you are someone who just browses the web and uses apps like Spotify than Linux is amazing it's not complex or difficult, truly wonderful.

What makes Linux even better is the fact it's not a fair comparison, sure to me it's like Chrome OS due to the simple purposes I use it for but what's truly great is all that nerdy technical stuff I thought Linux was for you can do, if you are hosting a web server than linux gives you a free platform to do it, it feels like you are directly modding the PCB of the computer it's that open.

In retrospect to typing all that I feel I've just blurted out a generic description of Linux and for those that use it I'm sure they just think I was naive, but this is more aimed at the average user, Linux, or at least Ubuntu, is great, it's: simple, easy, fresh, clean, open, modern, intuitive, versatile, multi-purpose, and free. It's not some difficult to use system, it's alarmingly simple, but infinitely useful

It's easy to learn and difficult to master.

I've been interested in meditation for some time now - tempted by the insight into the human condition that it purports to offer - but I haven't yet experienced any kind of 'breakthrough' moment that has brought any clarity, let alone insight.

I have read Sam Harris's Waking Up, and have done some of the course in his app. The most I've been able to achieve is to observe (and subsequently limit, control) getting angry. This has proven pretty useful but doesn't feel profound.

Anyway, I'm now about half way through D. E. Harding's On Having No Head, and I am struggling with it.

I keep telling myself to stick with it because what he's saying might become clear, but I'm finding the reasoning behind it to be wilfully obtuse at times. I fear I'm exposing myself as some kind of idiot in even asking about it, but can someone help me see his point?

He talks about looking at what you're pointing at. Makes sense. I can see those things, therefore they're there.
And then to point at your face. You can't see that. Ok. Makes sense. I can't see that, therefore it's not there?
I can vaguely see a blur of my nose, but that isn't anything worth worrying about?

But I can demonstrate that it's there. I can photograph it. I can look at it in a mirror. I can touch it and feel it (and it can feel).

I feel like I'm the fool staring at a metaphor and screaming about it not being real but I can't see the bit I'm missing!

Does anyone have any insight they can share?

What have you been watching and reading this week? You don't need to give us a whole essay if you don't want to, but please write something! Feel free to talk about something you saw that was cool, something that was bad, ask for recommendations, or anything else you can think of.

If you want to, feel free to find the thing you're talking about and link to its pages on Anilist, MAL, or any other database you use!

Inspired by discussion here.

Toxic players don't create toxic games. Toxic games create toxic players.

About a year ago, I wrote up a comprehensive report on why Overwatch's community is such a shitshow. Give it a read if you're at all interested in why game communities turn toxic, or if you're curious why Overwatch didn't stick longer as a phenomenon.

(At this point, with Overwatch now past its prime and usurped by other games due in large part to reasons I described there, I'd like to also offer a nice fat 'I told you so' to actiblizz. I didn't want to stop playing...)

The baseline question was this: Overwatch has great representation, an entertaining formula, and good messages. The game is super fun to play on the surface, and offers hundreds of hours of unique new experiences. So why is it so easily considered to have one of the most toxic competitive communities out there?

There's no explanation or reason for why naturally toxic players would gravitate towards the title, stick around, and infect the rest of the community. Nothing about Overwatch would indicate that it was going to somehow filter out the worst of the worst and keep them for itself, and that's because - bumbudaaa! It didn't.

Toxic players didn't infect Overwatch; Overwatch created toxic players.

The same things can be said for basically any other huge competitive game on the market, with CS:GO, LoL, and DOTA2 being the easiest examples. Their communities are all total swamps.

Despite this, there is virtually no game on the market which properly addresses the root cause of community-destroying toxicity: the game itself.

I'd rather not repeat myself because that above link will do a better job of going in-depth and can be applied to a lot of games, but the baseline problem is this: games catch and ban bad apples, but do nothing to stop those bad apples from forming. Failing to realize that parts of an otherwise amazing experience are fundamentally frustrating, the focus and blame is put on the players for reacting (see above thread) in exactly the way the games are designed to make them.

Chief among these issues? Games demand teamwork, cooperation and a community voice, but do nothing to facilitate them. Games that are designed to be fun casually will be frustrating competitively - and vice versa. Toxic communities will not form where every style of play is catered to, which is sometimes balance, but often a fundamental disconnect between what the game was built for, what's actually promised, and what the player's trying to get out of it.

So, I'd rather send the discussion in the other direction, which is why I posted this here. Rather than blame the community, it's time to look for solutions from the actual people responsible.

(To be clear: yes, there are assholes in the world, and yes, they play games. But the idea that the culture has only just now soured to a patch of racism and misogyny is laughable to anyone who grew up playing Xbox Live. It's been blown completely out of proportion by a fundamental discontent with games themselves, like further kindling on a fire, driven mostly by competitive culture.)

I'm not a dream person. I haven't seen one, nor do I care when someone tells me their nonsensical dreams. But I was always open to the prospect of experiencing one myself.

(And yeah, IknowIactuallyseethem andIjustcantremember and blah blah blah. Shut up already! I don't know why so many people feel entitled to tell you that, but it happens every time I mention I don't see dreams. I don't care: don't remember — didn't happen.)

The closest things to dreams I experienced are a couple of times as a kid. They seem like dreams, and I remember them vividly, but I don't trust my memories from so long ago. Plus, kids are stupid, I may've just been imagining things in bed or something.

I also have dream-like experiences sometimes. If I wake up from my alarm but don't get up and sleep again, then I may feel like I had a dream after I wake up. I'm pretty sure those aren't actual dreams because 1. I have a habit of fantasizing about being a hero in a fantasy world, or having a perfect job, or having a GF, while lying in bed. I don't feel like it was a dream when I wake up normally; but I figure when I sleep again for another hour, my mind still thinks up fantasies, which are amplified by drowsiness. So I remember them more strongly, especially since it's only an hour or so. And as far as I know, dreams only happen in REM sleep, which takes a couple of hours to get to. 2. I had similar experiences while driving in the back and on boring lectures. Except these times I was concious for the entire duration, so I knew I was just fantasizing, but it still felt more real because I was sleepy and bored, and it was very similar to what I remeber after that bad sleep habit.

So I'm pretty sure I don't have dreams, but I'm excited to see one, and I'm happy to talk about them. In general, of course. Nobody gives a damn what you saw in your dream, but I'm interested to know how you saw it, what helped you see it, what you felt.

Of course I'd like to hear about lucid dreaming, it's something I wanged to experience for a long time. But also about more general dreams, or if you also don't have any, or especially if you started to see them later in life.

So, what are your dreams like?

War of the Spark is the next MtG set, coming out on May 3.

They released an official trailer today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5W9t62t10I

As of the time of posting, there are 32 cards revealed so far, available here: https://scryfall.com/sets/war?order=spoiled&as=grid

They previously revealed that every booster pack will have a Planeswalker in it, so the set looks like it will have quite a few of these unusual Planeswalkers with no way to add loyalty counters to themselves.

So I really respect what can be done with the let's play format and think it can be great art in its own right, but I think it's in a bit of a rut. A lot of the older and more successful channels have gotten repetitive or otherwise stopped being worth watching, so I'd love some recommendations for creators who are currently putting out good work.

Who do you think is making good content or even pushing the format forward?