I like to think I have broad interests. Part of what I like about Tildes at this stage in its growth is that I'll probably encounter folks who are highly knowledgeable about areas I'm totally ignorant in, simply because the userbase isn't too fragmented into niche groups quite yet, but the convo won't necessarily be too esoteric for me to follow. I like encountering tangential references that lead me into entirely unfamiliar topics, especially when I can learn from the people who are particularly interested in it. I tend not to post very often myself though (primarily because I'm a painfully slow and/or bad writer)... but I wondered how many other tilderinos are like me.

So, in an effort to contribute to the site, what topic or field could you talk about for hours at Tildes level of discussion, whether by education or interest? Mine would undoubtedly be soccer. I've played and followed it for 30+ years, and could easily bore you with all sorts of minutiae of the on-field side of things, but it's the world's game, so there are all sorts of tie-ins to culture, language, politics, etc. that help inform my non-sport conversations as well.

There is something about new ideas which can potentially change how we live that I love. They do not necessarily have to be good ideas. Take for example Google Stadia, it itself might completely fall apart in 3 years, but competition will start to build and Microsoft might have an amazing service instead. On the other hand, the creation of social media, communication around the world is easier than ever, I don't need to spend absurd amounts of money on international calls. Another example is new jobs, Youtuber is a legit job. Being an Instagram Model is a legit way of earning money because people are looking at the clothes you wear. Of course this has resulted in new problems that we need to tackle, but that is ok too, we have to take it one step at a time. A few examples, are arguably because of social media, fake news is spreading, outrage culture is building, people are doing stupid shit to become viral, and this disconnect with the people around us.

I am not saying disruptive ideas are clearly good or bad, I just find them fascinating.

in the interest of trying to slightly curtail the domination of politics in ~news for people who don't care for it while also consolidating discussion for people who potentially do, i think we should try one of those weekly threads that's so hip and popular on the rest of tildes, so here we go: this is a test run of a weekly thread on 2020 presidential news/analysis/etc. it's probably not going to get any lighter from here, news wise, so it might pay to establish a recurring topic like this before the media really gets rolling with election coverage (and potentially before ~news becomes a deluge of 2020 topics).

i think common sense should be able to generally dictate what does and does not get posted in this thread if it works out, so i guess i'll just say: if it's big news or feels like big news, probably make it its own post instead of lobbing it in here. like the other weekly threads, this one is going to try to focus on things that are still discussion worthy, but wouldn't necessarily make good/unique/non-repetitive discussion starters as their own posts.

leading off (and demonstrating that there really is going to be no dearth of 2020 primary and election news about this despite this week being pretty quiet on that front):

from NBC - Why some Democrats say: Don't sleep on 'Mayor Pete' Buttigieg. buttigieg is a pretty small candidate in a field of big names, but that hasn't put the damper on people's optimism for him as this NBC piece shows. i personally don't think he's got the runway necessary for takeoff, but with the debates, who knows. it might be that the debates stratify the field even more than it's already stratified--or it might be that they level it out a bit, to the benefit of people like buttigieg

from Buzzfeed - The Romance Of Mayor Pete In The Season Of Scam. another piece on buttigieg. this one is a bit light on substance and is basically an opinion piece, but if you're curious about buttigieg's qualifications you might be interested in it.

from Heavy - Bernie Sanders’ Los Angeles Rally Draws So Many, Overflow Crowd Fills City Hall Steps Across the Street [PHOTOS]. bernie sanders made the second of three stops in california yesterday, and he drew a pretty major crowd that's currently estimated at around 15k--and could potentially be as high as 20k or 25k, depending on the setup of the venue. his stop the day before was in san diego where he drew a crowd of about 6,400, and today he'll be in san francisco, which could lead to an early messaging and marketing win if he can draw a comparable crowd to kamala harris's kickoff in oakland (which drew 20k).

from The Guardian - The B-Team: are Beto, Biden and Bernie the best Democrats can offer?. i'll let this one present itself: "...But three of the top-polling candidates for 2020 so far are white men: Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, O’Rourke and former vice-president Joe Biden, who has not even declared his candidacy. Does that present a problem?" one of the big criticisms of the democratic party is that, even as it diversifies its slate of candidates across the board, its biggest hitters generally remain white and male, especially in this presidential election. whether or not that's a particularly valid criticism, i'll leave up to you.

from POLITICO - Harris and O'Rourke go straight for each other's strongholds. sanders wasn't the only one buzzing around this week: o'rourke and harris have both been on tours of their own in states that will be pretty instrumental to the path of any democrat that wants to win the nomination. o'rourke, you may remember (tildes discussion), is the current day-one fundraising leader, and it appears we now actually have his individual donor numbers now (112,000, average donation of $55). so far, he doesn't appear to have parlayed that into particularly large crowd sizes (and outside of her campaign launch, harris hasn't really either) but we're still very early on, so i anticipate as their campaigns ramp up they'll start pulling larger numbers.

from NBC - Beto O'Rourke could be a threat — to Biden on his right and Sanders on his left. this article, as you can probably guess by its title, mostly focuses on how beto is trying to position himself in the primary, but also how some of the people he appeals to feel about his candidacy and why they support him.

lastly, from NPR - Small Donors Hold The Key To Campaign Buzz And The Democrats' Debate Stage. this NPR article on push by democrats to incentivize campaigns to build up their small donor bases in the leadup to 2020. the democrats have pretty much always been the undisputed champions of small-donor politics since the internet became a significant player in american politics, mostly on the back of things like actblue. nevertheless, there are still a lot of places they've been looking to improve (and it's really only a matter of time before republicans build infrastructure of their own), so it makes sense that they're really trying to shore up that advantage where they can while they can.

this isn't even every article that i could have tossed on here, but i've already been working on this post for like an hour, so i think that'll suffice for now. feel free to contribute other interesting articles or comment on some of the ones up there.

Youtube has a giant lead in the online video streaming market and in spite of many controversies (demonetization, click bait being promoted to peoples' front pages, etc.) there doesn't seem to be any indication that this is going to change. What do you think about the future of this industry? Which (if any) providers have a chance to become viable competitors to YouTube?

I'm trying to recall a short story I read about 10 years ago in English class in school. It would probably be fair to call it "sci-fi", but I'm not sure how important that is.

What I remember: the story was set in the midst of an escalating arms race, Cold War-style, and the characters were chiefly military personnel (I think).

At some point, a chief actor obtains technology that is designed to (from memory) "disintegrate all weapons (certain materials/metals?)" within a vicinity.

I believe the technology is then used, and what ensues is a world-enveloping nuclear winter. I'm not sure how the weapons disintegration tech leads to a nuclear winter. It's also quite possible that I'm conflating two separate stories I read in that class.

Anyone have any idea what short stories I could be thinking of? This would be at the very latest pre-2010 stuff, and knowing my English teacher (old bloke from Yorkshire) probably 20th century. Probably.

Hi, simple request here, can we have a dedicated channel group for the economy & related financial topics? It is an important enough field of topics that deserves to be on its own and not just labeled via tags, IMO. Especially with interesting developments and happenings which may be driving political and other news, it would be nice to have them easily in one place.

Now that I look again, ~politics probably deserves its own too, although I can see how that might turn into the most raucous part of the Tildes community. Economics is usually a bit more dry though--it's nicknamed the "dismal" science after all--so hopefully that would be less of an issue.

Thanks.

Hi everyone.

I'm in a more or less of a dilemma here.
For the ones that don't know, SCHUFA is monopolistic credit agency in Germany.

The good news is that my wife is pregnant and now we need to move to a new apartment with one extra room. Luckly, a friend of us is also moving and we simply got in contact with his landlord. We sent the information about our salaries and answered a few general questions and all is well for him. But, the landlord also wants our SCHUFA score.

We weren't worried at all because we don't have any credit cards or any loans and we are very frugal with our money. We really only spend money for our basic necessities and doing our holidays. We don't have any debts; we pay everything in a timely manner.

Then, my SCHUFA-BonitätAuskunft arrived. I look at the first page, which is in this diploma-like format and it says: "We had only positive contractual information at our disposal." (Es liegen uns zum XX.XX.XXXX ausschliesslich positive vertragsinformationen vor.)

"Great!", I thought. Then, I turned to the next pages and I see "Explanatory informations for your certificate" and there it says that I'm a high risk person. Basically, my result is 335, right in the middle (scale from 100 to 600).

We have a high netto salary and it seems this doesn't count for anything. My guess is that they don't have almost no history about me (I'm only living in Germany for 4 years) and since we are not big spenders, basically we are high risk because they don't have data to infer the risk. A few months ago I opened a new bank account on Commerzbank and I guess my SCHUFA score was good enough to open a new bank account, so I don't understand.

How is it possible that in my certificate diploma-like paper says that they have only have positive information about me and then on the explanatory pages say that I'm a high risk person in basically every sector (Banken, Telekommunikation, etc)?

Now we also asked the SCHUFA score only for my wife and let's hope for the best.

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?