Hi! In the past (in my 20s and early 30s) I played a LOT of video games. I realized at some point it felt pretty damn close to addiction. At the very least it was a problem. I have since managed to reduce and embrace moderation. I’m now entering my 40s. However, I can’t help feeling a certain sense of lingering guilt when I do play. It’s as though a voice inside my head tells me “you should be doing something else with your time.” My rational mind thinks that with moderation, some gaming is not that bad. It’s not conflicting with responsibilities, work, relationships. Helps my brain relax and I prefer it to something like TV which is far more passive. I play mainly rogue-like games. No online games, no loot boxes, no fictional currency. Think Dead Cells, Balatro, Hades, small(er) games. Wondering if others feel this way and what do you tell yourself or do to mitigate the guilty conscience? Am I just too strict or mean to myself?

It’s before 5am CT, and I’ve been awake since… 2:30am. Most nights, I can feed my newborn and fall right back asleep. I believe that some work stress has kept me awake. It got me thinking about some questions to ask the group:

1. For those of us who would rather be productive than lie in bed awake for an extended period of time, how long before you decide to just get up and do something? I’m a little surprised I haven’t just gotten up yet. I think I will here in a few minutes.
2. What are some fun activities you like to get up to when it’s the middle of the night and everyone is asleep? I’m a software engineer by trade so I tend to work on a side project. Maybe a music project if it’s something quiet.
3. The age old question: how can I fall back asleep? I can usually count backwards from 100 and by the second time through I’ll be out. Does anyone have anything more interesting?

I’m sure variations of this topic have been posted before, so I apologize if this is less than novel. Retitle as necessary, I couldn’t think of a good one.

I recently found myself on the other side of what might be a generational divide:

I was talking with two younger family members, and they were talking about being mildly annoyed at sharing their location with the friends via their phones -- as in they could mutually see where everyone was at any given time.

My husband and I were utterly baffled. Giving friends permanent access to our current locations felt unbelievably invasive.

They felt that way a bit, but they also mentioned that it was a way of keeping up with one another and seeing what people are up to. They'd often see they were at a bar and send the other a text telling them to "enjoy the drinks!" or "have a good time!"

I can kind of understand the appeal of this, especially as a step away from the pressures of social media. Instead of having to take pictures at the bar to put up on Instagram, you can just be at the bar, and if someone thinks that's interesting they can let you know. In a weird way, that does actually feel healthier?

They also said that not sharing your location can be seen kind of negatively -- as being aloof or closed off. This gave me even further ick, because it made it seem like there was a strong social pressure to share (similar to the "if you have nothing to hide..." argument).

So, my question is basically: what's the social landscape of location-sharing like these days? Is what my family members do common, or is that an oddity specific to their friend group? Is it actually a generational thing, or am I overgeneralizing based on my one conversation?

Have you watched any TV shows recently you want to discuss? Any shows 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.

For reference, I have next to zero knowledge of building electronics. I've replaced the joysticks on two Nintendo joycons (which I actually found pretty fun), and that's it. I also have no experience with 3D printing or designing specific products.

I am also sick of touch screen keyboards on phones, do not like any of of the phones that do have keys or the Clicks phone case (why is it on the BOTTOM—), and currently have a lot of free time.

So my question to you: how would I go about designing my own slide out case with its own keyboard?

Because that is my ideal solution at this point. And in fact, it turns out someone DID make a 3D printed "slider terminal" this year. Except it's for the Note 10 (I have a Galaxy S9), and seems to be used as a full-fledged replacement for a desktop experience with a trackpad. That's neat and will probably appeal to a lot of people here, but personally, I just need physical keys.

Along with the keyboard used for that terminal, I also found this other tiny keyboard which doesn't have the trackpad and is about the same dimensions as my Galaxy S9. Actually I found that first and was trying to figure out if there were any cases that could store and pop that out. The biggest issue is that it would cover my camera except maybe when it's slid out, but screw it, I want a damn physical keyboard.

I do have access to 3D printers (yay public libraries!) and I'm willing to learn Blender in order to make this thing. I just need advice on where to begin and how to tackle this. In particular, I have no clue how to go about the slide out part. I feel like I should be able to figure out how to make a case that fits the dimensions of my phone and the keyboard fairly easily, but no idea where to begin with researching the sliding component.

Besides that, I also know that I'm not alone here in my frustrations with phone keyboards, so I'm hoping we can pool together ideas on how to do this. As far as I can tell there's not really a "one size fits all" solution that would work for all phones (well, except perhaps a foldable case instead of slide-out), but maybe we can at least share decent starting points for people to design their own. For instance, the slider terminal uses a keyboard that came with a remote, and it would never have occurred to me that could be used for this sort of project. And there are a lot of potential workarounds for the camera placements, so Person A may have an idea that doesn't work well for them, but does work better for Person B than their own original idea.

So yeah. Advice, ideas and general brainstorming are welcome!

Tildes is a very serious site, where we discuss very serious matters like websites.niche, consumerism and association of research libraries and public knowledge. Tags culled from the highest voted topics from the last seven days, if anyone loves this kinda thing.

But one of my favourite tags happens to be offbeat! Taking its original inspiration from Sir Nils Olav III, this thread is looking for any far-fetched offbeat stories lurking in the newspapers. It may not deserve its own post, but it deserves a wider audience!

TL;DR: I’m interested in your thoughts about this the current problems in UK higher education, and how they can be fixed.

I recently read an opinion piece in the Guardian about the problems currently faced by UK universities and their students. These problems aren’t new, but they’re getting worse year by year, and Simon articulates them particularly well.

It seems to me that there are three main criticisms of our current university system: that it is too costly for students while failing to fund the universities adequately; that degrees do not provide enough value to students; and that there are too many students attending university, especially (so-called) “low value” degrees, but increasingly also “high value” areas such as STEM.

The main solutions being presented are replacing students loans with a “graduate tax”, shuttering low-quality institutions and degrees, and sending more students to apprenticeships or trade schools rather than universities.

My view on this, as someone who has recently graduated university, and will be returning next year to begin studying for a PhD, is conflicted. I can definitely see that these problems are real, but I’m not convinced by the solutions being offered.

Firstly, I don’t think most people discussing these issues and offering their solutions are addressing the most fundamental problem, which is that universities have forgotten how to, or simply stopped, actually teaching. Many degrees only teach you what you need to know to pass the exams and produce acceptable coursework, which is not the point of a university degree.

This is a very challenging issue, because obviously universities must assess their students. But the purpose of a degree, its value, lies not in the assessment, nor even in the certificate awarded upon its completion (despite what many people believe), but in how you can learn and grow to have a deeper and more rounded understanding of your degree area, and the world at large. A university degree should make you a more curious person and build your critical thinking, enabling you to think through and approach many problems intelligently. But instead universities are continuously lowering the bar necessary to pass, because failing students is too costly for them, and thus also lowering their teaching standards.

The problem, it seems to me, is that the purpose of university is to educate, yet many who graduate university do not display the level of education, understanding and intelligence we would expect them to have achieved after investing at least three years of their life and tens of thousands of pounds in their education. This is not a crisis of too many students, but of a lack of quality in teaching. It seems to me that this has been driven by the funding model, which incentivises universities to grow their cohort size in order to receive more funding. Of course, this makes it harder to teach them all, and thus promotes the lowering of assessment standards so that students of sub-par quality - whether it be their work ethic, prior education, or simply learning at university that lacks - can graduate successfully.

If this is our problem, then I don’t think any of the proposed solutions serve to ameliorate it. This problem is equally common to humanities as it is STEM subjects, so the issue is not in students studying in “low value” degree areas. Whilst an apprenticeship might provide better value to a student in terms of the skills they would acquire, it is addressing a different goal and need to a university education. And while a graduate tax might be fairer than our current loan system (which favour high earners who can pay the loan off faster), it would not solve the currently perverse financial incentives universities are subject to.

The solution to this is obvious, but a hard sell. It is necessary to remove the financial incentive for universities to grow their cohort sizes. It seems to me that we must either fix, or at least cap, the funding universities receive, such that it does not grow with larger student bodies. Perhaps it should instead be linked to some performance metric, or maybe the faculty size - the more lecturers and other teaching staff the university employs, the better its funding. Of course, a complete solution to this will require a lot of thought and nuance, but I think it’s clear that the basic issue is the funding model.

The value to be gained (as a society) from a well educated population is massive, but we are currently selling hopeful high school students up the river with underwhelming university degrees that don’t educate them properly. I believe it’s the wrong answer to say that these students should give up on their dreams of a university education. We need to fix the funding model so that universities are incentivised to provide as high quality teaching as possible, not to provide the lowest level acceptable to as many students as possible.

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!