My partner and I have friends from China, and they pushed us to watch Ne Zha 2, the animated movie produced over there. It's pronounced "nuh zah" by the way. We had no idea what the fuss was about, and we were skeptical since it has literally no marketing in the US, and we hadn't seen the first movie either. All we heard is that it's insanely popular in China, and making records in the domestic box office there.

Now, I can say I was honestly blown away. It's like, ruined other animated movies for me, for a while. Again, I had no expectations going in, and the first ten minutes of the movie, I thought this was not the movie for me, it looked like a kids' movie, I was almost rolling my eyes in the beginning of the movie tbh.

We didn't look at any clips on the Internet beforehand, and I'm glad, because they would not do the movie justice!

What got me, I think it was the visuals, the nonstop action that looks like it was made with an insane budget, and animators working way beyond healthy hours to produce. Oh, and the sound production with the deep bass, so I could feel every impact, I have to thank the theater for that lol. I didn't even know it was an action movie, so it caught me off guard just how many scenes they crammed in there! Once it started, it really felt almost nonstop, no time to breathe like most movies would do

The story is actually good too, and there are definitely parts where people could cry

I'm also not used to seeing much of Chinese fantasy settings, so that part was entertaining for me. I don't know how much was out of the director's imagination, or coming from Chinese mythology, or Chinese video games, it all came together so well though

If you like action, and fantasy, and animation or video games, and are okay reading subtitles, please do yourself a favor, watch this one!

Disclaimer: I'm a US citizen, I'm not affiliated with Chinese media, I'm not a marketer, I really genuinely loved the movie

The cutoff age would be different for different people. Early music shapes us. I have read that even people with dementia respond to music from their early life. I thought of a few for me, and I was curious about people here.

Hi Tildes community,
I'm seeking your suggestions for spinning up Windows virtual desktop.
Allow me to set the context...
My offspring is in second semester of their first year of university, and needs to use Adobe Photoshop for one of their classes this semester. They don't use a regular laptop, and have been doing quite well at uni. with their beefy Ipad. While they have used photoshop so far on their ipad, there are some growing pains. Of course, they have access to super beefy desktop Apple Macs at their school's computer lab, but its a pain to get usage of them for a few reasons. At home, all my machines are linux except for my partner's which is an old clunker Windows laptop - which i am in progress of migrating themn away from that Windows machine towards linux laptop...Hence, I don't really have a solid, modern enough machine for my offspring to load Photoshop onto.

Then, I thought, hey, maybe i can spin up some Windows virtual desktop somewhere for my offspring to use photoshop on...Its only needed for about 10 or 12 weeks remaining this semester...and they only need to use it once per week for each week's assignments. I feel like as long as the virtual windows machine is beefy enough to suppoort photoshop workloads, it can get them through the semester...and then in summer i can decide if I need to buy them an actual laptop (like an Apple laptop, etc.).

So, may i ask of you dear Tildes community members...Does my approach make sense (of trying to use a windows virt. desktop)? And, if so, are there any recommendations for which provider to use, and how to spin these up? Like, should i try something via AWS or Google Cloud or Azure? Or, should i not even consider this virtual windows approach? I'm open to hearing any/a ll recommendations. If you have links to share for me to research, or if you actually wrote your own blog post on similar topic for example, i'd love to hear it! Thanks in advance!!

Edit: 2025-02-24 UPDATE: Wanted to update folks on where i am on this...After reviewing these comments, researching some more both online and offline, etc...I arrived at the decision of biting the bullet and just buying my kid an Apple Macbook laptop. I want to thank you all for all your greet feedback and suggestions! Thanks so much Tildes community!!!

My kids and I recently picked up Deep Rock Galactic, and after playing a few rounds I feel a bit overwhelmed. I think either I'm just not fully accustomed to the game yet, or perhaps missing something.

Anyway, I thought I would ask the people of Tildes for tips and tricks. Anything you wish you knew earlier? Or maybe just some general advice for a new player?

Thanks much!

I recently watched Rūrangi (2020) and appreciated it¹ for having a story centered on a trans man and his experiences.

I’m interested in recommendations of other media featuring trans men/masc individuals. I want to cast a broad net, especially if there are other people who might find this useful, so:

• Any type of media is fine (books, memoirs, movies, shows, webcomics, anime, manga, games, etc.)
• Trans men and/or trans masc people should feature, but they don’t have to be the main focus
• The media can be specifically about the individual(s) trans identity or journey, but it can also simply feature the character(s) without delving into those aspects

Now, I’ll also add some more parameters for what I’m looking for specifically if you’re looking to recommend to me personally rather than in general. Don’t limit your recommendations to just these, though. I’m ultimately open to anything and want this topic to be valuable to others with different tastes/preferences as well:

• I’d love for the trans man to be older, since a lot of the trans representation I do already see tends towards depicting younger individuals (nothing wrong with that, of course, and I definitely understand why that is, but as a middle-aged guy myself I’m more drawn towards stories about people my age/older)
• I am interested in stories that are specifically focused on trans identity and journey
• As a gay guy, I’d love to read about my gay trans brethren
• Like Chappell Roan, I want nonfiction (but fiction is cool too)

1. While I did enjoy it, I thought the pacing of the movie was really odd. It wasn’t until after I watched it that I learned it was originally broadcast as a series and was later cut into a single film (which explains the pacing issues). For anyone interested in watching it, I assume the series version does a better job with pacing than the film version.

I've been rereading The Fellowship of the Ring and saw the mention of Hobbits having their coming of age at 33.
"At that time Frodo was still in his tweens, as the hobbits called the irresponsible twenties between childhood and coming of age at thirty-three."

It made me wonder what all of your opinions are on adulthood/coming of age. Some questions I thought might be interesting around this topic include:

• Are there any coming of age ceremonies where you live or that you partook in?
• Are there any coming of age ceremonies you've heard of that you think would have been cool to participate in or think should be more widely adopted?
• When did you feel like you were an adult?
• Do you think the legal age that someone is considered an adult in your country should be changed?
• Do you think there are some things that should be age gated beyond the age of legal adult good? (I.e.: in the US alcohol being restricted to those who are 21+ years of age while someone is a legal adult at 18.)

Curious to see your thoughts on this!

Did you watch the royal rumble? How did you like it? I thought the winner was quite unexpected, especially winning directly against John Cena. Overall the performance of both the men's and women's rumble was really good.

This topic is a part conversation starter, part request for help in finding.

For those that are attempting to keep up with the many weird and sometimes interesting products both announced and teased recently in the field of AR/XR glasses- what are your thoughts?

Examples, off the top of my head, include a number of devices revealed at CES 2024. The Asus AirVision M1- a pair of full-HD display-in-glasses form, similar in many ways to the Xreal lineup. The new Xreal Air 2 Ultra and Xreal One line. Snapdragon's new XR2+ Gen 2 chip for high efficiency portable computing and a successor to the chip used in the Meta Quest 3 headset. The Halliday glasses, which forego any form of waveguide or combining optic and opt to project directly into the eye using a monocular microled projector. And older devices, such as the "open source" Brilliant Labs glasses which have been previous discussed on Tildes.

Personally, I'm disappointed in most (if not all) of these options, but that might largely be because the industry and I have very different ideas of what smart glasses should be. The industry is focusing heavily on social media features- cameras, filters, translation- and even more heavily on AI. Why anybody would want an LLM strapped to their face I do not know. I feel that the goal of full augmented reality (rendering tips and visuals over the real-world) is a noble one, but also not one I am particularly interested in. My ideal device would be purely a heads-up display with a long battery life. The ability to cast notifications and information to a reasonably pretty display, but the freedom to decide what. No cameras, no data collection, no overcomplications- does anyone know of any options that fulfill these criteria?

Discuss.

Ever since my diagnosis two years ago, I have had this as an ongoing conversation with my family. I always felt like there was very little accurate representation of ADHD in media. The few examples I could always think of were either very loosely coded as ADHD, or extreme stereotypes. I want to crowdsource some examples of ADHD representation in media, both good and bad.

Doug from Up: This is a common one that comes up a lot. I think it’s a really poor example. The only ADHD symptom is the squirrel joke they use a handful of times. It’s also (for my presentation at least) extremely inaccurate. Random things I see will indeed distract me, but Doug can come back from the conversation without a missed step. I think this one is extra harmful because it gives a false sense of how the ADHD brain works.

Dory from Finding Nemo: This is another common one people bring up. Dory’s intrusive and impulsive thoughts are much more accurate to my presentation, so it’s an improvement from Doug. I don’t like that she is often portrayed as stupid or careless. I’m not against a character with those traits, but with so few examples of ADHD in media, I think people may think it comes from the ADHD.

Evelyn Wang from Everything Everywhere All At Once: This example showed up recently on my Internet searches. I want to rewatch it again with the context of ADHD. I feel like it is probably a decent representation, but I can’t say for sure without a rewatch.

Percy Jackson: This is the only one on my list that is explicitly diagnosed with ADHD (and dyslexia and other issues). I will give them kudos for the explicit diagnosis, but I don’t think it’s a good representation. ADHD seems to just mean that he is bad at school. It seems that it has no impact on Percy outside of that. For my particular case, I was quite good in school, so it is inaccurate for me. I would be interested to hear if other people resonate more with it. Dyslexia seems to come up more in the books, so it may be a better representation for that.

Todd from Bojack Horsemen: I saved my personal favorite for last. I first watched Bojack Horsemen before my diagnosis, and ADHD wasn’t really on my mind. After my diagnosis, I realized how good of a portrayal Todd is. As a bonus, it is the only portrayal I have heard of that includes hyper focus (When Todd hyper focuses on writing the rock opera, and then the hyper focus switches to a video game). With the exception of the rock opera, I think I have had the same exact scenario play out in my own life. I had something I wanted to do, was able to focus on it, but was stolen away into a video game hyper focus.

Are there any other examples you have found?

Homeland - 5/10

First paragraph works as both the tldr as well as the beginning of the review.

This show is all over the place. Some parts are really good, some parts are really bad, most parts are just meh. This show lends itself to be picked apart too easily. There are plot holes, convenient coincidences, contrived nonsense, and so often intelligent characters behaving like idiots over and over again which leaves you wanting to yell at the screen. So many eyeroll moments, cheesy stuff, questionable story writing, a lot of times that they tell, not show - it should be show, don't tell of course - and that classic trope that everything would have been solved if they just talked to each other, and another about just doing one single simple thing instead of getting distracted for dumb reasons. It is also pretty unrealistic despite trying to appear grounded. A lot of this show is too reminiscent of Jason Statham movies, if that makes sense. However I was entertained enough by it to keep watching, and it worked fine to pass the time when I was bored. Despite never really getting all that into the show as a whole, the good parts or episodes were worth the wait.

Family drama in this show was not good. It was just kind of something you had to sit through to get to those good parts. Monica Baccarin was fine and Damian Lewis was incredible, but I really just didn't care all that much about their relationship nor their children. It's a show that is being sold as an action spy thriller, but too large a part of it is this sort of more or less regular drama. It reminds me of The Americans where you of course don't watch it for the family stuff with the children, but because they were super cool undercover Soviet spies. This type of show's biggest weakness is this stuff. It just acts as filler and drags things out unnecessarily. And this goes for the main character's family too. The relationship with the sister was alright, but when the main character gets a daughter? Just kind of felt like a waste of time.

Most characters are pretty run-of-the-mill spy show stereotypes. Not great, not terrible. The main character, Carrie, was quite unique with a lot of depth, but she ends up going through way too many unbelievable situations. She and her tiny team, or even she all alone, saves the world half a dozen times. Her character at best decent, and that was only in the first few seasons. But then she goes completely down the drain and off the rails in season 4 and never recovered. I am probably in the minority with this opinion but I can't imagine most people see it this way since it's the star of a show that ran for 8 seasons so I guess take this opinion with a grain of salt.. but she just does not land for me after seasons 1-3.

She is highly unlikable. She is one of the worst mothers I have ever seen in any show or movie. She is very neglectful and abusive mother, she is also a mass murderer who practically never repents or regrets what she has done, she disobeys orders constantly, mostly making things worse, she uses people all the time, and she has such a massive victim complex so 90% of the time she blames someone else for her often fatal fuckups - of which there are a lot. By far the biggest problem with all this is that it is quite clear that the creators of the show want the audience to sympathize with her and are trying to pass her off as the reluctant hero. She was never that good a character, nor do I think actor Claire Danes is very good in the role - just alright. However season 4 and onwards she just in no way works. Just impossible to root for, which is of course a big problem when it's the main character. She's not a cool antihero, it just became a chore to watch her scenes. The best summation is something Saul said to her in season 2: "You're the smartest and the dumbest fuckin' person I've ever known." Characters that are supposed to be intelligent who then do such truly dumb things.. characters are only as smart as their writers. So it's just bad writing.

On a more positive note, there are a few characters I really liked: Astrid, Quinn, Saul, Max. Astrid was not in the show very much but she was great as the German spy counterpart in the BND. She just had a way about her and I felt the relationship she had with Quinn was quite interesting. She was a joy to watch, just like Quinn, played by Rupert Friend whom I recently saw in Hitman: Agent 47 which was an awful movie, so I was kind of nervous when he first appeared here in Homeland. Turns out though that he was just horribly miscast in the former because in this show, he is great! There's no nonsense with him, it's the "competency porn" feeling while watching him. Same goes for Saul and Max. Saul's actor Mandy Patinkin (who also played Inigo Montaya, couldn't believe it when I looked him up lol) steals most scenes he's in. He is great as the older, experienced spy, the mentor for our main character. His voice is both soothing and dramatic to listen to and even though half his face is invisible because of his huge beard, he still has such good expressions and body language that he really draws you in. As for Max, he was a very minor character to begin with but his role became bigger towards the final two seasons and like I said, it was a joy to watch him on screen and great that he was given more screentime.

Not much of a joy however was all the nonsense that they had to implement in order to make the show work - they took the easy route to explain things away instead of actually implementing them well. For example they practically never have surveillance drones or satellites available, nor nightvision or thermal cameras, so they constantly lose track of people that they are following. Nor do they have much more than pistols most of the time. The agency does have these things available, and more, so it's just dumb that they pretend it doesn't exist in this show - some special ops guys had nightvision one time in one of the first seasons but I think season 7 was the first time a thermal camera was used and then we saw it maybe twice more. There are also often no contingency plans. Back-up being nonexistent 90% of the time, handwaved or ignored with a quick line or reason that wouldn't really make sense. Plus, everytime they needed to make something thrilling, they added a time constraint element to do it.

Something I did like was the representation of mental illness. You really see the ugly side of Carrie's bipolar and even though I don't have it, and so can't actually speak to whether or not it's actually a good portrayal, it seemed good. I feel it's important to show regular people what it looks like, and I felt the same way with Max's neurodivergency - that he was quiet and forward added a lot to his character. He could have definitely just been the kind of techy nerd stereotype that is seen everywhere, but I'm glad they didn't go that route.

And another great thing, I think the best even, was Damian Lewis. It was such a shame that he was written out but it does make sense that they couldn't do all that much with his character. I have only seen him in Band of Brothers, but he was one of the highlights in that show too, so it's not surprising that I liked him in this one too. The best scene of the show for me was the one where he is wearing the bomb vest in the bunker next to all the high ranking officers. The up close shot of his trembling and shivering face.. I have no idea how he was able to even do that. He has won awards which is well deserved.

Bingewatching the show over about a month instead of watching it week to week across 8 years probably did not do this show any favours. I think maybe it's easier to see through the formula then. Better shows barely even have formulas, but this one certainly does, and I'm not a fan of it. Every single season has ways that they can't trust anyone anywhere. It's always this small team versus the world. That's not unique to this show but it stands out because it's often the same way they do it - they think they can't trust anyone, there's a mole, they're on their own because reasons, etc. In any case, the show was an alright use of my time but definitely not going to watch it again.

Would love to hear anyone's thoughts about either the show or what I have written here!

Every time I get a haircut, my barber hands me a small hand mirror so that I can bounce an image off the wall mirror and see the back of my head. My hair is noticeably thinner in the back each time.

I recently was at a function and saw pictures of me standing around, some of which included the back of my head. The thinning is clearly starting to stand out in a bad way.

I feel like I’ve got two options:

1. Do something to try to save my hair (medication?).
2. Shave my head and try to rock a bald look.

I’m open to tips, tricks, and guidance on either of these (or options I’m not aware of).

I’m not very attached to my hair, so this isn’t a super emotional thing for me. I’m also not scared of going bald since, as a gay guy, I’m well aware of how compelling a bald + beard look can be on some men (my beard isn’t thinning at all, thankfully).

There’s still a question of whether it would look good for me specifically though. Also I don’t know if I’m ready to give up on my hair just yet?

One advantage I do have is summers off (I’m a teacher), so I’m going to be able to do a bald test run in a few months without too much risk. If it turns out that I’m a complete disaster without hair, I’ll just stay home and let it grow back out.

Anyway, I’m open to any and all thoughts on balding, hair loss, hair loss prevention, etc. Tell me your own experiences and what decisions you made. Let me know the tricks of the trade.

I recently heard something that I didn’t like. It was about the growth of fascism in the US, and it said something that I was uncomfortable hearing; ignoring it is the same as acceptance.

I am not subscribed to ~society. I was automatically added when it was created but I quickly noped out. I had already lowered my news consumption to a minimum before Trump won the election, but after I have actively avoided even those few programs that I thought were good. I didn’t have the will to hear about the terrible things on the horizon.

So now I am thinking about what I should do, and right now the thing that seems like the most concrete action is to buy a gun.

Honestly, though, I hate guns. I’ve done a shooting range a few times when I was a kid and I guess they were kind of fun but the idea of using it against people sickens me. On the other hand, we are living in an age where police forces are paramilitarized, the president can and will use CBP as a military force within the US border, and our civil rights are being pried apart.

But what would I actually do with a gun? What difference will it actually make? Bring part of deadly violence is the last thing that I want.

Ok, this is one of those thoughts I have in my brain and that I can't quite get rid of.
It breaks down into a couple of questions. For the purposes of this, I'm aware that what eyes see is the reflection of light bouncing off objects, but I'm curious the impact on the visibility of both objects and other lights.

A. If eyes emitted any light, could they still see anything at all?
B. If eyes emitted, for example, red light, could they see everything except red items? What about red lights? Does this change if the light is green or violet?
B.1. If they can't red things would they just be invisible?
B.2. If they can't see red lights, would it matter if the red light they're seeing is brighter or dimmer, and would it still be an invisible/blank space?
C. I'm not sure how infrared interacts here but I know animals that sense infrared do emit it, is there a reason that's different, if it's different.

The internet is mostly not super helpful with this, since eyes don't emit light, just reflect it and look glowy, but yeah, anyway... thanks for entertaining my weird fixation.

Recently my wife was complaining how her phone has been getting overzealous when flagging incoming phone spam, and as a result she's missed some important calls. It made me think about how easy it is for me to avoid spam calls, despite using a 3rd party dialer on my phone without any kind of spam ID features.

It's because around 15 years ago when Google started letting you pick your own phone number through Google Voice, I (for various reasons) needed to change my phone number. I ended up choosing one with what I thought was a really cool area code, and I've ported that number to every new provider I've swapped to so it's stuck with me since then. It turns out that all the spam callers, bless their hearts, like to spoof incoming phone numbers with the same area code as the number they're dialing. It means whenever I see a call coming from the same area code as my number it's ~100% guaranteed to be spam, and if I see a call coming from the same area code that I actually live in it's ~100% guaranteed to be something actually important (doctor, pharmacy, kids' school, something like that). It wasn't my intent when picking the number (I just wanted the cool area code), but it turned out to also be the perfect spam call ID system. (At least so long as I never move to the place that matches my area code.)

So I'm curious if anyone else has similar stories, where you did something for one reason but it turned out to actually be awesome for an entirely different, unexpected reason?

It’s been about a month and a half since our big Kagi trial giveaway, which means most people are probably about halfway through their trial periods, so I figured we were due for a follow-up.

To those who started using it recently, what are your thoughts?

What do you like and dislike about Kagi?

Do you think you will continue your subscription past the end of the trial?

Note: I’m not affiliated with Kagi in any way besides being a happy customer myself. I’m asking this entirely out of curiosity.

SOLVED
Bit of a long shot here because this is one of those issues where I search for the problem and you get a sea of replies like "have you checked the settings?" or "have you tried changing HDMI cables".

I just got a brand new LG OLED TV and I'm happy, but I've been watching Arcane on it and I notice jarring changes in brightness through the episode.
I'm playing through a native app (Stremio) on WebOS and it's not the source file, I've tested the same file on two different monitors and it's fine.
I went through the settings and disabled every autocorrect and "boost" capability the TV has to try and diagnose it, and the first pass did seem to improve the rate of changes, but it still happens maybe once every 5 mins of watch time.
From what I can tell it seems to be picking up particular colour/brightness changes in the source (Arcane is full of then being so vivid) and when it does, it just changes the brightness of the whole display.
I'm no expert here, I'm also colour blind, so I won't categorically claim it is definitely brightness changing, it could be contract or colour, I'm not sure, but it looks like brightness because the whole picture gets darker or lighter.

I wondered if it was actually flip flopping between SDR and HDR which honestly, it might be. If it is I have no idea how to fix that, as the TV seems to have no option to enable or disable HDR on native apps.

Any advice, thoughts, things to try would be appreciated. I'm technically orientated but I don't really know much about changing picture settings to be honest, I tend to pick the most basic/neutral setting and leave it like that.

Edit: I've dug out the old 4k firestick as suggested and don't get the flickering at all through that. Also running through the guide below helped make the picture look even better! Thanks everyone!
I might yet grab the service remote though and see if I can make the native apps work, then I can retire the firestick for good.

I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts who watched through the basho.

I don't have all my thoughts together yet but wanted to post this after watching the last day of the basho to get the ball rolling on any discussion.

While many of you are an inspiration to others on your own creative merits, I wonder if there is anyone else who sets aside little (or big) passages and other quotations from authors, poets, film, or TV whose work gets you in the mood to write or in some other way encourages you into a certain manner of expression.

I keep around a digital notebook of some of my favorite thought-provoking, creativity-motivating, or words that paint an immediately vivid picture. Sometimes they add color to a character or world in an intense way, or they're clever ways to word things I wouldn't have thought to express from that angle. Sometimes they're ways of phrasing or writing a concept or theme that we don't often see in modern fiction but might work for a fantasy setting or elsewhere and I want to keep around that idea as a reference of how I might do something similar, but different.

Please share and feel free to provide some context if necessary, such as a passage from a sci-fi novel that really gets you motivated to write something science-y, or a bit about the person if the passage is from a memoir.

For the last 10-years or so, I've been much more interested in US history, it started because I wanted to be a more informed citizen, but continued because of how much recorded history differed from how I was taught. Then I started seeing how the lofty offerings of America, as an idea, had really never existed.

Like, when the rest of the world was watching the Soviet Union from the outside as it proudly proclaimed how amazing they were and everyone was kind of glancing at each other and whispering "They know we can see how it's going, right?" I wonder if the same is happening now, as countries watch US politics unfold. How close are we from a failure here or there to cascading failure?

I'm at a point of accumulated facts, doing my best to remove my personal bias, that I can't help but think we were arrogant to think we could keep a continent this large in one piece. The weight of national systems that can support a population this spread out is immense. The upkeep of infrastructure at this scale is a logistics nightmare. Passing any national laws has become the chore that just never gets done, we'll always get to it tomorrow. The people, Americans, can be amazing, but that's a truth of humanity, not nationality.

I'm sad to think I could be witnessing the end of something really impressive and inspiring, even if a lot of it was some makeup and nice lighting. Thoughts?

I was looking through some pictures and realized that, starting from pictures taken a few years ago, you won't be able to tell how old a picture is based only on picture quality, even though that's been the case pretty much since the invention of photography.

As a follow up to this, I now have a blog that I intend to use for longer write-ups on things I find interesting enough to want to share, and continuing this chain of thought, it would effectively fill the purpose of what I would until now use a text post for. This very post serves as an obvious counter-example of something that would make sense as a blog article, so there would presumably be exceptions, but overall that would mean I would switch from text posts to links to my blog where the text is (and I'd probably add a collapsible copy of the article as a comment for redundancy in case something happens to the blog. I have no idea if I'm keeping this specific domain name in the long term, and in fact I do want to switch to a proper domain name I own rather than using yunohost's domains, but for right now it's not in the cards.).

To me, this reasoning makes sense and isn't in conflict with Tildes' principles, however I have a concern regarding the code of conduct's self-promotion policy, specifically the it shouldn't be the primary reason that you post on the site part. My gut tells me that I would be in the clear since the overall intent of this policy is to curb outright advertising and self-serving behavior, and I assume linking to my blog which is non-monetized and decoupled from any endeavor I might profit from wouldn't apply. While I think this is the most natural interpretation, I can't argue in good faith that, taking the text purely at face value outside of the broader context, "ceasing submitting text posts and replacing them with links to my blog" isn't pretty much making that blog the primary reason I post on the site (at least outside of the comment section).

So, as a sanity check, I'm asking if going ahead with this does fit the expected conduct on Tildes and I'm not missing something that makes it not okay. If I am missing something, what should I do instead?

Heads up: the following is abnormally wordy even by my standards, and I'm the kind of person who regularly runs into the Discord character limit by accident despite the Nitro subscription increasing it. The underlying context is a set of two videos that by themselves reach almost 3 hours of runtime. I tried to sum up some of the main points enough that you don't strictly need to have watched the videos to follow while also not needing to slog through a play by play of the same video I recommended you to watch if you did. While I believe the subject is interesting, I fully understand if you don't have the time to dedicate to this. If you do and weren't scared away by the size of the scroll bar, feel free to read on.

Context

This all starts with the seemingly straightforward question in the title: How many Super Mario games are there? You would think it would be easy to answer given that this series is so massively impactful in video game history that to many it defines what a video game is. The truth, like most things, is a lot more complicated. jan Misali, who you might also know for their Conlang Critic series and various video essays on other deceptively complex subjects they find interesting, gathered data through a survey to collect people's answers to that question, and made a video on the subject. The video is about 45 minutes long, and that's only because they deliberately cut it short. The discussion that sparked from this video eventually led to them starting another survey at a larger scale with a revised methodology, culminating to a sequel to the previous video, this time with a two hours runtime, and it, too, was cut short. If you have the time to set aside for this, I would greatly recommend watching both videos as they're very insightful and most of what I have to say is commentary to these two videos (and doesn't even come close to covering as much as the videos themselves do).

What question are we even asking here?

Like all good debates on the internet, it starts with an ambiguity issue: What is a "Super Mario game"? In simpler cases, a video game series can be defined as the first game and its sequels and that's enough to establish an uncontroversial list. Things get more complicated when we look at an entire franchise especially one as massive as the Mario franchise, which contains a ton of video games, an even bigger pile of non-video game media... and works that blur the line. You can probably see where this is going, but I'll get back to that particular can of worms later. Focusing on the video games, among the entire franchise, the question focuses on the "mainline" series. That is what jan Misali refers to as the "Super Mario" series, distinguishing them from spinoffs and other games that are part of the franchise. You'll note that I specified "what jan Misali refers to as the "Super Mario" series", not "what the "Super Mario" series is".

Multiple-choice confusion

Using the video runtime as a yardstick, we are 2 minutes into the first part, and there is already a binary tree's worth of debate, and it's only getting bigger from here: the existence of a mainline series as a separate entity from the overall Mario franchise is commonly accepted, but not unanimously. Among those who do agree, there is disagreement on the scope of the mainline series (with how gargantuan the franchise itself is, even the spinoffs have their own spinoffs, and it would be a perfectly reasonable take to consider some or all of them, such as the Mario Kart games, as a core part of the series). Among those who agree on the scope, there is disagreement over what the first game of the series is (do we start at Super Mario Bros? Mario Bros? Donkey Kong? The Game & Watch series?). In order to keep the video at 45 minutes and not 45 hours, jan Misali picks one definition they feel is reasonable among others: the Super Mario series is one distinct series among others in the franchise, made up of Super Mario Bros. on the NES and its sequels, which are mostly platformer games. With this baseline established (even if the survey doesn't 100% agree), how do we figure out which of all the Mario games are the sequels to SMB1? There are many methods to go about this... And not only none of them converge to a single answer, they all diverge in different ways. Let's start with the most direct source of data jan Misali had access to as a direct result of the process of making the videos: the surveys.

The one thing we can agree on is that no one agrees

jan Misali isn't just presenting their own thoughts on the matter, they're also analyzing the data gathered from a survey they made before recording both videos. The first one merely presented you with a premade list of games and asked you which of them you considered to be a Super Mario games, and the second one goes more in depth but still had the same overall goal. If there was any sort of consensus (assuming the survey wasn't sabotaged or otherwise flawed enough to distort the ability to interpret the data to the point of uselessness), you could derive the broadly accepted list of Super Mario games from looking at the most common answers to the survey, right?

If you interpret "the most common answer" as "which games people overwhelmingly (>95%) agree are part of the series", the survey gives us Super Mario Bros, Super Mario bros 3, and Super Mario World (by the time of the second video, the second survey added Super Mario 64 to the list, as well as Super Mario Bros. Wonder)... which almost anyone who has an opinion on the subject would agree is a grossly incomplete list. If you interpret "the most common answer" as "which is the list that the most people agreed is the full list of the Super Mario series", you end up with a much more complete list of 18 games which by definition is what the highest percentage of people answering the survey agree on. You could consider it the survey's overall answer to the question... except the percentage in question is less than 2% (although in the second survey analyzed in the second video, this same list, with the at the time newly released Super Mario Bros. Wonder added, actually stood at just above 5%. Closer, but still very much a minority group within the survey). Almost everyone who answered still disagree to some degree with that answer. While there is plenty of insight to be gained from the data (including regarding the limitations of the survey itself), it also conclusively establishes that public opinion (or at least in jan Misali's audience) doesn't have a truly agreed upon answer to this question.

Hang on, let me call my uncle at Nintendo

So, we have an answer, but not the answer, and even worse (...or better, if you like analyzing seemingly trivial arguments that secretly hide a rabbit hole of semantics, linguistics and cognitive science) the only thing we can say about "the" answer is that it cannot exist. So let's try finding more answers by going from another angle. If we learned anything from politics, it's that an answer derived from polls can absolutely be wrong, so it makes sense to consider that there is an authoritative source that can give a definitive answer over public opinion. The most obvious lead would be Nintendo itself, the owner of the IP... except that instantly fizzles out because while Nintendo does provide a list of mainline Super Mario games on their website, the one they give you isn't the same depending on whether you ask Nintendo of America or Nintendo of Japan. We can also look at what Wikipedia deems to be the list of Super Mario games, which naturally is different from both Nintendo US and Nintendo JP's list, and on top of that is arguably inconsistent with itself: the page's release timeline lists Bowser's Fury as an entry like the others, but the infobox that redirects to the various Mario games under the "main games" section lists it between parentheses as a sub-entry to Super Mario 3D World, the same way it lists New Super Luigi U as a sub-entry to New Super Mario Bros U which the release timeline in turn omits completely. There are rational reasons to do it this way which I won't go into since jan Misali explains it in the videos themselves, but technically that means Wikipedia doesn't have an internal consensus either. The Super Mario wiki, while unaffiliated with Nintendo, is also a good candidate for an authoritative source, which gives you another, different, answer. We could go on, but let's stop here and conclude that, once again, there is no agreed answer.

Give me your argument and I'll tell you why we're both wrong

Neither polling the public nor going by the authoritative sources have given a concrete answer, which leaves us in front of the semantic rubble trying to piece back a coherent understanding of the Super Mario series. Not to try and find the Correct™ answer, we've already established there isn't one, but it would give us valuable insight as to why no one can agree to a specific answer in the first place. jan Misali spreads this approach over both videos as they give their reasoning from various angles. They deliberately haven't gone over this exhaustively, and neither will I (not that I would be able to), but I do have thoughts I'd like to share based on their observations... Which yes, means I've written 1,5k words establishing the base around the videos I want to talk about despite operating under the assumption the reader has already watched them before going over my own thoughts. I'm certain I could have been more concise, but I felt this was necessary so that this post could stand as a coherent chain of reasoning and not a completely disjointed rambling that won't make sense to anyone who hasn't made the significant time investment that fully watching the video essays represents, and still not make sense to most who did (and if I misunderstood something critical, someone reading this can point it out from my attempt to lay out the context rather than after 12 confused replies down the thread). I'll try and tie my thoughts together in broader parts with increasingly silly titles.

"Home console purism"

I will start by addressing this not because it's the most important (if anything it's the least important detail I have something to say about) but because it lets me introduce a talking point I'll reuse later. Something that jan Misali mentions early on is what they call "home console purism", defining it as the belief that the mainline Mario series, as a rule, cannot include handheld games. While they don't explicitly state this at any point nor do I have a specific reason to believe implying it was their intention, it somewhat came off to me like bringing it up as a flawed argument just to dismiss it, especially after it was brought up again regarding Super Mario Run as a comparison to the belief that mobile games "don't count". If you leave it at that, I absolutely agree that it's silly to exclude a video game for that reason, especially with the Switch blurring the line. After thinking about it, though, while I'd still disagree with using it as a reason to exclude a video game from a series in this specific case, I think it deserves to be looked at in more detail.

Gatekeeping or shifting perspective?

The least charitable interpretation of this argument is that handheld and mobile games are deemed to not be worthy of being included alongside the "real" games released on home consoles or PC, usually with a side of implying that you're a "fake" gamer if you play them (not to mention the higher layer argument from the same basis that also excludes any console games, leaving only PCs as the "true" gaming platform and everything else as lesser toys for kids) which can safely be dismissed as elitist gatekeeping. However, from a perspective of classifying games within a series, there is a much more sensible way to approach this argument.

The "Call of Duty on the DS" problem

Nowadays, between the handheld PCs like the Steam Deck which can give desktop PCs a run for their money in terms of specs and the Nintendo Switch that refuses to be classified as a dedicated home console or handheld, the distinction would look a lot sillier, but the handheld game market used to be closer to an isolated sub-segment of the overall video games market than a fully integrated part of it. Disregarding the whole "exclusive releases" circus, faithfully porting a PC game to a home console was generally agreed to be feasible. Handheld consoles were another matter entirely. Most (all? was there a handheld notable for outperforming contemporary home consoles?) of the time, handheld consoles had vastly inferior specs to contemporary home consoles and computers making faithful ports of a given game to them a pipe dream if the game was too resource intensive, and a tendency to have a much more varied control scheme than you'd expect from home consoles, sometimes to the point of "porting" an existing game requiring restarting the game design process from scratch.

You've gotta hand it to the Need For Speed DS game devs, they certainly tried to make them similar to the other platforms

Where this starts mattering in this context is what this means for releases within an individual game series, and how game studios would treat developing a given entry for each system. Some just stuck to only home consoles or handhelds, some would aim for the best compromise between having a unified experience for a given game no matter which device you were playing it on and leveraging a specific console's unique features, some would confusingly release games under the same title on different platforms but actually make them completely different games (even Nintendo themselves are guilty of it!), and, most relevantly, some would deliberately make handheld games stand out from the home console games as a sub-series.

Why this doesn't really matter here, but the point I'm building up to does

This outlook makes a lot less sense if you look at the Super Mario series in a vacuum, which, as a mainly platformer series, struggles a lot less with making a handheld release that convincingly fits the vibe of the home console releases than other genres might (in no small part because designing a 2D game makes just as much sense as it does in 3D for this genre, making the specs gap between handheld and home consoles a lot less important), and as a first party franchise, Nintendo isn't going to be blindsided by a new console's weird features like a third party studio might since they're the ones making the console... But if you consider the market in general across the years, siloing the home and handheld side of a given series as two separate entities, with the home console being granted the "mainline series" role was a very real phenomenon. If you start from this premise and look at the Super Mario series which debuted on the NES, it makes sense to apply the same framework and say "None of the handheld games are part of the Super Mario series, they're part of their own series". I would still disagree, but it's definitely a lot more sensible to base it on past observations of the market than gatekeeping.

The Super Mario release timeline needs its own timeline

To elaborate, I would find this argument a lot more convincing back when the DS (which was so atypical that even porting a game from another handheld to the DS' bespoke dual screen and touch screen setup was a non trivial affair, let alone the home consoles) was the current-gen Nintendo handheld than now where the Switch 2 (a console with a mostly conventional control scheme and powerful enough that porting an arbitrary PC/home console game to it without visibly changing anything about the game makes just as make sense as any other platform) is about to come out. And with this I'm finally arriving to the talking point I wanted to introduce. If the evolution of the broader market can affect the validity of someone's criteria to determine which games are (or aren't) part of the Super Mario series, then we can generalize that to the following: A game can be (or no longer be) considered part of a series depending on when you ask even if absolutely nothing has changed about the game in isolation.

Sure they're all a Mario game, but which one is THE Mario game?

One thing that jan Misali picked up on from the original survey is a major ambiguity that made answering (and therefore interpreting the resulting data) harder is the remakes, remasters, enhanced versions with their own release, and other related weirder cases. These games range from almost completely identical to previous releases to non-controversially a variant of the same title but still different enough to provide an experience meaningfully separate from the original title, to different enough they're arguably not the same game, adding a dimension to the answer that makes enforcing a flat "yes" or "no" choice less useful. This is why the survey that led to the second video made it possible to call an entry a "mainline Super Mario game", a "major spinoff", a "minor spinoff", "not canon" and finally "not a Mario game" (and "unsure", just in case) at the same time as you answer whether you think the title is a distinct entry in the series (or you're unsure), to be able to clarify the general sentiment that if a game saw more than one release under different versions, they can all be acknowledged as an incarnation of that game without making each individual release an entry to the mainline Super Mario series of its own. This allowed the answers to be more nuanced, but this by itself doesn't help answering the original concern: if multiple releases can all be the same game, and that game is part of the series, can more than one of these releases be called a "distinct" entry? If you think there can't, which one is it? And this last question is what I'm going to focus on for my next thought.

Mario games are temporary but Doom is Eternal

Forced reference aside, let's look at other franchises for comparison. Doom Eternal, originally released on PC in March 2020, got a Switch port later in December that year. Thanks to skillful optimization allowing it to somehow run on glorified 2015 Android tablet hardware, this port is faithful enough that I don't think it would be controversial to call it the same game as the PC release compared to, for example, The Sims 2, where while a game named The Sims 2 was released on the Nintendo DS, it is so radically different from the PC release that I would consider it an entirely separate game (and for that matter not a part of the mainline Sims series, but I'll put away that thought before I completely lose the plot). If I asked "Between the PC and the Switch release of Doom Eternal, which is the main release?" and we assume "both" isn't considered a valid answer (which is itself debatable) I would expect the natural answer to be the PC release simply because out of two functionally equivalent releases of the same game, the PC release came first. Similarly, if we consider, as a general rule, that there exists one, and only one, release of a given game that embodies a distinct entry in the mainline Super Mario series, with any other release not counting (while still accepting that they're a version of that game), the earliest release being the distinct entry makes intuitive sense. After all, they're the original version of the game. If it could be of the future ones it would mean a release could stop being the distinct entry in a mainline series despite nothing having changed about the release itself, which doesn't make sense... right?

What's in a name?

Time to bring up that one point from earlier: there's nothing inherently preventing the status of a game release as a mainline series entry from being affected by external factors. Quick disambiguation note: I've been using the word "release" in the context of video games being made available for purchase, but the word "release" can also be used to mean a software update, no matter how minor. Video games also being software, this distinction is now going to matter. To avoid confusion, I will only use the word "release" to mean a game being made available to purchase and refer to a new software version for an already released game as an "update". With this cleared up: before internet connection became a standard feature in consoles, the general expectation was that releasing a game meant permanently locking down the state of its software. Game companies would not want to update a game between releases and end up with different versions of a physical game in circulation if they can't ensure that the customers would get the most recently updated copies as it would inevitably confuse players, so it would only be considered for truly major issues that weren't caught in time for the release. As broadband internet came into the picture, it suddenly became a lot less important to make sure the game stayed the same after release as you could simply get the customer to upgrade their game over the Internet. This quickly became standard operating procedure for PC games, with consoles catching up a bit later, including Nintendo's. And with it, came the practice of content updates over the lifecycle of a game before the next release.

Dragonborn... reborn?

Even if the individual updates don't change the game to a meaningful degree from one update to the next, as they pile up you can eventually end up with a wildly different game than what it was when it originally released, even if it's supposed to be the same entry into its series. If you agree that the release you accept as the distinct entry of its mainline series can change its characteristics over time, wouldn't it make sense to also agree that which release of a game you consider to be the distinct entry of the mainline series can also change over time? Let's turn to another series as an example: The Elder Scrolls, and specifically Skyrim which is infamous for its amount of re-releases. It is at the time of writing the latest game in its series, and has been since 2011... but is the by now almost 15 years old original release really still the main entry in the Elder Scrolls mainline series? As far as Steam is concerned, the game you can purchase if you search for Skyrim on its store isn't the original release, nor is it even the Legendary Edition release from 2013, but the Special Edition from 2016 (while also letting you buy the Anniversary Edition as a DLC to the Special Edition). With the original release no longer being on sale and the more recent Anniversary Edition being classified as a DLC rather than a "proper" release, it would make sense for me to call SE the "distinct" entry representing Skyrim in The Elder Scrolls over the original release. Is there an instance of this happening in the Super Mario series? It would be a huge stretch, but you could argue (although frankly I wouldn't agree) that Super Mario 64 isn't a distinct entry in the Super Mario series because you consider the Super Mario 64 DS remake to be the "true" entry in the series. Sure, claiming that Super Mario 64, the first Mario 3D platformer isn't a mainline Super Mario game sounds ludicrous, but so does "Skyrim (2011) isn't a mainline Elder Scrolls Game but Skyrim Special Edition is" and I did consider it a plausible argument. A slightly less unhinged instance would be to consider New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe to be the representative entry in the mainline series over New Super Mario Bros. U.

Strictly defined criteria and their pitfalls or: why is a sweater a Super Mario game?

By this point I've highlighted ambiguities over the meaning of pretty much word in the question "How many Super Mario games are there?".

• How many: No consensus on the number of games in the series, let alone which ones they are
• Super Mario: No consensus on what makes an individual game part of the series
• are there (present tense): No guarantee that the list can stay consistent with regards to time, in either direction

There is one left to achieve total semantic obliteration: games. This was inevitable, really. How could you overanalyze this question and not bring up nitpicking over the meaning of the term "video game" itself? jan Misali has already done most of the work for me, as part of the second video involves them mentioning that attempting to derive an appropriate list of mainline Super Mario game solely from an objective definition while is doomed to fail. Whatever the approach, you will always be working with an unstated semantic "guardrail" of some sort that cannot be comprehensively worded into the definition. The first basic example they give is "Anything with 'Super' in the title is part of the Super Mario series." Under any reasonable context we know what is meant by "anything" but without it, this definition includes infinitely many things that very obviously aren't Super Mario games. But even progressively narrowing it down to something that sounds sensible will still leave a semantic hole that includes something absurd. This culminates into the following bit:

So, maybe you can use this "has Super in the title" method as a starting point and add more stuff to it until it becomes a useful definition. And, in the comments from part 1, many people have tried to do exactly that. And very often what they come up with something like: "The Super Mario series consists of the games developed by Nintendo for Nintendo consoles that have 'Super Mario' in the title, excluding RPGs, party games, Mario Kart, sports games, and reissues of previously released Super Mario games."

At which point jan Misali unleashes their inner Diogenes and reveals what I've been hinting at in the header: Behold, a man mainline Super Mario game! However, while I'm all for leveraging semantic technicalities for the sake of comedy, I think this is a part where jan Misali loses the plot a bit. Even accounting for a VERY permissive understanding of what a video game is, I don't think I am a teacher: Super Mario Sweater plausibly counts as one. Obviously knowing the incoming storm in the comment section, they supplied the following definition for a video game: "interactive software with a visual display for the purpose of entertainment". I agree that if you accept that's what a video game is, I am a teacher: Super Mario Sweater is in fact a video game. What I don't agree with is that the definition itself is accurate enough.

My favorite video game is Tildes

jan Misali's last argument in the video in favor of IaaT:SMS being a video game is regarding the value of knitting as entertainment, which I'm not disputing, but that's not where I believe the issue with this definition is in the first place. IaaT:SMS does have interactivity, yes, and it was designed for the purpose of entertainment, but to me that is not enough to constitute a video game. For it to be one, the interactivity needs to be a necessary part of the entertainment, which isn't the case here. The interactive part, inputting your measurements, choosing a file and scrolling through the selected knitting pattern isn't the entertaining part. The entertaining part, which is knitting a sweater, requires none of the interactivity provided by the software; a completely non interactive slideshow of the various patterns would accomplish the goal just as well. And, while this was ultimately just part of jan Misali's overall point that you cannot bolt together a purely objective definition without relying on some level of unstated common sense, I think that point would have been better served by highlighting the holes in the provided definition of a video game itself than taking it at face value to poke a hole in the definition of the Super Mario series that relied on in the first place (not that this is even required, as jan Misali proceeds to show more examples of games that clearly wouldn't be argued in good faith by anyone to be part of the mainline series and are still noncontroversially video games, and then goes on to explore the ambiguities in pretty much every other part of the definition). You know what else counts as a video game under that definition?

• mspaint.exe
• Arch Linux
• Tildes
• Any movie DVD that features a menu
• BonziBuddy
• The Youtube video player
• The onboard widget display of the Logitech G510 keyboard
• Kangjun Heo's Rensenware
• A chat interface with an LLM whose system prompt instructed it to entertain the user without any further elaboration
• The firmware running on my pair of wireless earbuds (a LED counts as "visual display", right?)
• Twitch chat
• The YouAreAnIdiot prank website
• The Times Square ad billboards (yes, it's interactive, even if the controls are atypical)

You will note that even with my caveat, you could still argue that a lot of these still fit this alleged definition of a video game, so whatever a video game is, it's not just that. Instead of continuing this list and losing the plot myself for the second time in the process of writing this, I will point out that jan Misali's second video has been classified under the "I am a Teacher: Super Mario Sweater" game category, meaning that apparently Google agrees that this is in fact a video game. Shows what I know.

Video killed the Mario star

And of course, you can't cover debating what's a video game without also covering the video part. When people ask "how many Mario games are there", the video game part is implied, but there is definitely an argument to be made that being a video game is not necessarily a prerequisite to be part of the mainline Mario series, especially if you hold the belief that the Game & Watch games aren't actually video games (I personally do think they are, but it's debatable enough for jan Misali to not be fully sure, at the very least) but are still significant enough to be part of the mainline series (there is a Super Mario Bros. game in there, after all, and it's even a platformer!). This can also be further argued to include other media that aren't even games (if the NieR series can include stage plays, what's preventing the Super Mario series from including, say, its licensed movie?), though I personally don't have any non-video game candidate in mind to argue in good faith that they should be part of the series.

413 Payload Too Large

At this point I don't think I have much else to add that isn't basically paraphrasing jan Misali themselves, so I'll wrap up this post so I don't have to spend another day adding to it and proofreading, and I'm fairly confident that between it and all the other interesting points the video raised that I haven't mentioned there will be more than enough jumping points for discussion (and if I forgot something I wanted to add, I can always do that later). What are your thoughts on this? _{And did you realize before I pointed it out that I wrote over 5k words about the question without giving my own answer at any point?}

Recently I did an update on my Macbook and it started showing alerts about Apple Intelligence. I've heard a little bit of marketing about this but I haven't really spent any time trying to figure out if it is just hype. Well, I've tried it a few times and I'm completely underwhelmed.
One of marketed features is that Siri is much improved. That would be nice, I thought, because there are only a few use cases like "Set an Alarm" where Siri could ever do anything besides a google search.

So there are two times recently I tried to use this improved Siri to solve a problem. My background using AI: I use Copilot at work. I get mixed results for it, but it does use my local context (open files etc) and is able to ask follow up questions if my prompt is too vague.

First Use Case: I want to solve a technical problem on my laptop

• My Prompt: "Can you help me fix Discord so that audio is shared when I share a video stream"
• My Expectation: Maybe an AI summary of the cause of the issue. Maybe open up system settings or open up Discord or give an explanation of why this is a technical problem on Macs.
• Actual Siri Response: Does an internet search and shows some links. Essentially just did a google search which I could have done by typing the same prompt in a browser.

Second Use case: I want help finding a file on my laptop

In this case, I made a summary of my finances on my laptop a few months ago. I can't remember what I named the file or what kind of file it was. Maybe a spreadsheet? I know it was on my local computer.

• My 1st Prompt: Can you help me find a specific file on my computer
• My Expectation: Maybe some follow up questions where it asks me for a date range or something that is inside the file. Yes, I know that I can do this in Finder but I want Apple Intelligence to save me a few minutes.
• Siri: Shows the result of a web search on how to find files on a computer. The first few results are for Microsoft Windows
• 2nd Prompt: Can you help me find a specific file on my mac
• Siri: Tells me to use Command-space and use the search

In both cases, Siri just acted like a shortcut to a google search. It didn't even recognize that I was asking the question on a Mac. This is same as Siri has always been. I assume that it can still figure out to set a timer and do a few things, but it doesn't seem to be working in a way I would expect an AI to work at all.

We have this big project at work...an "all hands on deck" kinda thing that has us rank-and-file frontend devs working alongside our manager more closely than I'm used to. And it was fine, because I like the guy and he's been a decent manager. But this project is killing me.

On multiple occasions now I've written code, had it pass code review (often with his approval after a round of changes/guidance), and then every few days we get these massive re-write PRs from him where he completely rewrites large chunks of what we've done. It's leaving me feeling a few different ways:

1. Angry because how quickly your code gets replaced is a (imo, bullshit) metric used as a part of our annual reviews and promotion discussions
2. Doubting myself because in my head a good developer doesn't have their code rewritten that quickly.
3. Confused because features I thought I understood are constantly being rewritten leaving me wasting time trying to relearn how things work
4. Wondering what the point of writing code is if it's just going to be thrown in the garbage later in the week?

And like I'll be the first to admit I'm not the most proficient developer on our team. React and Typescript are relatively new concepts to me, despite a long career in web development. But I've been writing with it for about a year now and I had thought I was finally getting a good grasp on things. But now I'm wondering if I'm just an idiot? Is it imposter syndrome or have I actually somehow coasted through a 15 year career across various stacks and it's just now catching up to me?

Or is this just the nature of massive projects like this? We had a half-baked product scope to begin with and its getting daily changes with entire chunks of it not very well thought out by our PM. I can see how it would make sense that the more senior developer might see the need to refactor things when things are constantly changing and we're left writing code based on assumptions and half-written requirements. I'm also getting are comments on my PRs that request changes, but mid-comment he's like "I'll just take care of this because it's blocking me".

It's just really taking a toll on my mental health and how I feel about my job. I've been trying to find another job for a few months now, but I'm not having any luck. Job hunting sucks and when you're already demoralized as hell, it's hard to sell yourself to prospective employers.

Could really use some insight from other experienced devs, please!

So during covid pandemic, a big issue that I kept hearing about in the news and on the Journal podcast was that the economy is hot which is bad and causes interest rate spikes from the Fed if you are in the U.S. or Bank of Canada if you are in Canada.

tbh, I never fully understood that. we live in a consumerism, materialistic and capitalist society. i thought that people buying non-stop was what corporations and American govt valued, hence why we are hit with ads everywhere we go. and yet it was somehow a bad thing and was causing economic issues?

so I looked into it and came across a reddit post that basically explained it in simplistic terms like this:
the iPhone costs 1,000$. now, if not many people can afford the iPhone cause it's out of budget, what that implies is that not many people have 1,000$ which means that 1,000$ is hard to get which raised the value of the dollar, which is good for the economy.
If a lot of people can afford the iPhone, it means lots of people can afford to spend 1,000$ which means it's not as unique position to be in anymore, to have 1,000$ in spending money which apparently makes it worth less, cause more people have access to such funds.
Moreover, besides lowering the value of the dollar, more people being able to afford the iPhone is apparently also not a tenable situation cause apparently supply for iPhones could not meet the demand if it's suddenly now in so much more demand, so the value of the dollar going lowering is not only bad for the economy, but also has an effect on supply-chain issues.

Now, if I understand correctly, during covid and shortly after, the stimulus checks were given to people, both middle and lower class. the stimulus checks allowed for lower class to be able to afford more basic necessities from what I heard. This also however, also caused middle class people to be able to afford both more basic necessities and also to spend on luxuries (gonna continue with my current example of the iPhone). So the lower and middle class people having more spending power to be able to afford their necessities and maybe splurge a bit on luxuries causes the value of the dollar to go down cause now things are more affordable to people. and the value of the dollar going down causes wall street/the fed to freak the fuck out. and this causes them to raise interest rates, which has a domino effect of causing unemployment which obv leads to less people having spending power which causes a dampening effect on how much people are buying which brings the value of the dollar back up and the Fed is happy again.

I know I have probably oversimplified some parts cause I am not an economics person and God forbid the Journal podcast actually do their job and breakdown how the economy is screwing people so most of what I know comes from online research and what I can glean from the news but is anything I said incorrect?

cause if what I said is correct, that means that whenever the government keeps saying "the economy is fine" in response to people saying the times are tough, I get confused how that's a counterargument from the govt and not actually a subtle confirmation that times are tough for people. cause what it actually means is "the value of the dollar is fine, but the people are hurting cause that is needed for the dollar to be fine"?

I've been the sole developer for my company's website for over a decade now. It's gone through a bunch of evolutions throughout the years, but I've been sidetracked lately and have let things stagnate as far as maintenance goes. Now, I'm looking to do some upgrades for security purposes and I'm trying to wrap my head around everything.

Some facts:

• PHP 8.0.12
• MySQL 5.7
• Symfony 5.4
• Web server is currently Apache only because that's what I've always used. I'm open to nginx or other options.
• Running on a Google Cloud VPS with Ubuntu 20.04
• I also use Google Cloud Storage to host thousands of images

My first thought was to take baby steps and start by upgrading Symfony as much as possible. However, the next major version (6.0) requires PHP 8.0.2. Symfony 6.1 requires PHP 8.1. Symfony 7.2 (the current release) requires PHP 8.2. So, then it just makes sense to upgrade PHP to the latest version.

However, I am terrified of upgrading PHP in the current (outdated) Ubuntu environment. So I might as well upgrade the distro while I'm at it.

And then, MySQL 5.7 is no longer supported, so I might as well bring that up to date too (8.0, I believe).

There will be no baby steps. I'm gonna have to just upgrade everything all at once. Which then leads me to my next question: should I stick with the self-managed VPS, or is it time to look at something like Google App Engine or Fly.io that is a little bit more managed and "locked down" than what I'm doing right now? Should I look into just going with Docker instead?

Put another way, if I'm going to start from ~scratch, what's the modern best practice to host all of this, given that I'm going to have to upgrade a bunch of different things all at once? (Turns out the "baby step" of upgrading Symfony will actually have to come last since I need to hit these prerequisites first).

Please let me know if I've left anything out. PS, security is a pretty big concern for us because we manage user auth, so I'm all for anything the cloud providers can do to take some of that responsibility away from me.

Last night while my wife was going through my Spotify to pick a song to listen to while I was driving, she mentioned that 90% of my library consists of instrumentals. (Most of which are game OSTs) I find it much more pleasant to listen to, instead of song with lyrics.

Which made me wonder, there might be some hidden/not so hidden gems that I might be missing out on!
Please share your favorite game OSTs with everyone. (New gems, old gems! Either the entire OST or even 1 song of a game! we don't discriminate!)

Bonus point if it's on Spotify

What I currently listen to:

• Armored core 6
• Shadow of the Erdtree
• God of War: Ragnarok
• Nier: Automata
• Devil May Cry 5
• Celeste
• Scarlet Nexus
• Zenless Zone Zero
• Silent Hill
• Flipwitch (Which I understand to be an 18+ game, which I have NEVER played. I just happened to find the OST on shuffle and it got me addicted. Try the song "A Witch's Thoughts")
• Cult of the Lamb
• Fable
• Atelier series

I'd just like to say that I never make meta posts like this one, but for some reason this topic has really struck a chord with me on this Wednesday evening...

We recently lost a user from Tildes. I don't know which day, but I'd already noticed they weren't around a few days before I did some digging into it. The names here are not important. But this user had been a prolific poster over the last six months. As someone on Tildes who does a lot of tagging, they were high up on my 'user interaction list' in the passive way that comes from amending tags can do.

Some departing users leave all of their contributions behind, along with their username, never to be seen from again. Perhaps they regenerate with a new handle or perhaps they find pastures fresh elsewhere. Some users take all of their topics with them, along with the conversations, the ideas, the thoughts, and in my mind a little piece of the Tildes community. The latter is what happened here with our prolific user.

This has made me unusually sad. There are lots of users I miss on a personal connection level, whether that be the status they held in the community, or simply missing the elegance of their prose. Sometimes they return and I smile at my keyboard. Sometimes I check how they're doing by looking on Reddit. The sadness here comes from a feeling that when a prolific user leaves with their topics, it feels like a library user leaving the country with their borrowed library books. I've never been very good with analogies.

People talk about link rot and video game preservation and the walled gardens of the internet and it feels like this mourning over lost information from a link aggregator with a close-knit community bound up in it fits in there somewhere in the discourse.

In a comment to this topic I'm going to link to as many of the lost topics as I was able to find. These will be direct links to the articles, not to the Tildes discussion. I don't want this act to feel like grave-robbing by linking to deleted Tildes pages.

This is the end of my hopefully only foray into meta posting. I don't think I have the wordsmith-ery for it.

So bit more than one month ago my very old Microsoft Sidewinder X4 keyboard broke the membrane on the 'A' key, meaning it was effectively kaput. I decided that I wanted to try a mechanical.

The Search

My use-cases are as follows, in the order of importance:

1. Gaming
2. Programming
3. General typing

These were the first requirements I settled on, based on my limited knowledge of mechanical keyboards:

• ISO nordic layout
• Full size: Because I make heavy use of both numpad and the insert-delete-home-end-page island of keys. Whatever it is called. I have zero interest in compromising on the standard layout.
• Nice to have: Metal body
• Nice to have: General high-quality
• Nice to have: Wireless, but only if 2.4Gz.
• Nice to have: Tactile switches
• Nice to have: Backlit keys
• Nice to have: Simple elegant aesthetic. I especially want to avoid typical gamer aesthetic.
• Budget basically unlimited

With these requirements I eventually settled on Keychron Q6 Max with Jupiter Brown. But just before ordering one, I started thinking about the height of the keys on a normal old-school mechanical.
I don't remember when I have last used one, all my recent keyboard had been modern low-profile so I didn't have a reference for what I was buying other than images.
I started reading about wrist problems from keyboard height and the recommendation of a wrist rest. I looked at the Keychron options and saw that they only had rests that were completely detached from the keyboard.
Thing is that I move my keyboard around my desk a lot, so I figured that having a wrist-rest that was not attached would become an annoyance.
After this I decided to just stick to what I am used to and added another requirement:

• Low-profile

Unfortunately when you set requirements for 100%, ISO, and low-profile, then the otherwise extensive Keychron catalogue becomes super limited. So I started looking elsewhere.
At the time there was a new post about a search engine on the /r/MechanicalKeyboards front page.
Using this I discovered the Cherry MX 10.0N. This seemed like a good deal. High quality all-metal body.
The only real sticking point was that the switches are linear with very short actuation, but I liked the look of this keyboard so much that I decided I could probably learn to live with it.

The review

The keyboard looks great in person. The all-metal body feels very solid and high-quality. It's got good heft and sticks to the table. The entire board is very thin and feels good to rest on.
The keys also feel high quality with minimal wobbling, and long keys sound and feel the same whether pressed on the edge or in the middle.

That's all the good stuff. Now on to the less good.

The foot

The adjustable foot in the back has no real positions. Meaning that there is no point in adjusting it where it will click in place and stay there, and it is under constant spring pressure to return to the stowed position. This means that the only thing keeping the extended foot in place is the weight of the keyboard. As mentioned I move my keyboard around frequently, and this means that everytime I move it I have to readjust the foot.
Additionally, it's highest position is sort of a balancing point, meaning that it you are a bit off, or accidentally push the keyboard a bit in this position, then the foot will suddenly collapse.
It's a minor annoyance, but one that is unique to this keyboard since I don't see this kind of foot design anywhere else. Otherwise the full-length metal foot is really nice, if only they had added proper click positions in its travel.

The switches

As mentioned, these are linear with very short actuation. CHERRY MX LOW PROFILE RGB SPEED switches to be specific. My first thought when trying to type with these was "Oh my god I hate this, how can some prefer this?!".
Constant mistyping was the name of the game. I was so used to being able to slightly miss a key, but still only actuate the intended. But that doesn't fly with this keyboard. If you depress any key even the slightest, it WILL actuate.
For gaming I first didn't understand why I sometimes kept jumping. I eventually figured out its because the mere weight of my thumb resting on the spacebar can be enough to actuate it sometimes.

After 1 month of regular usage, I can confidently say that my thoughts are now "Oh my god I hate this, how can some prefer this?!". Okay, I improved my typing somewhat to maybe half my mistyping. Gaming is still a pain, and I've had to regularly rest my thumb on the table instead to stop the sudden jumping.
Unfortunately this keyboard does not have hot-swappable switches, so there is no fixing it unless I want to buy a soldering iron and replace every single key, which I am not willing to.

Key spacing

So while the keyboard is technically 100%, Cherry has still designed it to be as compact as possible. One area where they have shaved off the length is the spacing between the main keys and the arrows keys and those above. Aswell as on the other side with the numpad.
I didn't know this prior to puchasing this keyboard, but apparently this spacing is essential for my muscle memory to be able to find those keys. The lack of spacing has meant that maybe 25% of the time I use them, I press the wrong key.

Overall

Now the issue with the switches and spacing is really an issue of preference. These aren’t quality issues. They were designed this way because some people like it (somehow). So if this keyboard looks interesting to you, and these preference design choices don't bother you, then I can only recommend the Cherry MX 10.0N. It really is a very high quality keyboard.

For me though, I just can't overlook these choices, so I have started looking for another keyboard again. I'm currently split between the Cherry KW X ULP and Logitech G915 X Lightspeed. None of them are full-metal body unfortunately. The cherry one seems to be the higher quality, but the the key caps remind me of laptops keys, which I really hate the feel of. Maybe I'm overreacting to it. The Logitech one is lower quality, but has all the the features that I would want. If you know of something better then please do leave a comment. I might reconsider my low-profile requirement. I'll give it at least another month before I become serious about switching again.

I saw a similar thread recently and since I also happen to be looking for a gpu, I thought I'd ask here as well.

Soo, I suppose I should start by saying that I really do not know much about hardware. All the computers I had were purchased pre-built and I didn't really open them up apart from occasional cleaning or plugging in a new drive. Either way, my current hardware is as follows:

• CPU: Intel i7-8700
• RAM: 16GB DDR4
• GPU: integrated Intel CoffeeLake-S GT2
• Displays: 2560x1080@60hz and 1920x1080 up to 165hz but usually sitting at 60
• Motherboard: 0NC2VH (from Dell OptiPlex 7060 SFF)
• PSU: 200W

So the 2 things worrying me here are:

1. The PSU power output is probably too low
2. The entire case is kind of on the smaller side, I'm not sure what gpu would be able to fit there (though that's a thing I asked about when buying this pc, and apparently small form factor gpus should be fine?)

As I said earlier I'm really clueless about this kind of things and I'm not sure where to start, so I don't even have any candidates. Generally, I don't do too much gpu-intensive stuff (which is why for a long time I've been fine with an iGPU) and most of the games (2d stuff like various roguelikes or Factorio) I play run fine, but recently I've been playing some more games like Fall Guys or Supermarket Together with friends and it's been a bit frustrating to lower the graphics settings to the very lowest they can be and also decrease the resolution to have them run at a playable framerate (though even Factorio has been having some frame drops recently as my factory keeps growing, but I'm not sure if it's actually the igpu causing the bottleneck).

Any advice would be appreciated! I can provide more information if there's something relevant I haven't mentioned (which I imagine is quite possible)

Edit: I am now instead considering a full upgrade, since it might make more sense as people pointed out

Edit2: a pretty important thing I forgot to mention is that I primarily run linux, so driver compatibility is a big thing for me.

I visited my in-laws over the holiday break. They have 2 border collies (and really shouldn't but that's a whole nother other...). Both border collies absolutely lose it barking and aggressively posturing when anyone but MIL/FIL enter a room they are in, UNLESS MIL/FIL are not home. Then they can't be bothered to even sit up from where they are napping.

I find this behavior really confusing. It appears the dogs are ?protecting? my in-laws, and that in-laws have somehow unwittingly trained them to do so?

After they're done barking they're affectionate and playful. I'd love to find a way to encourage the dogs to skip straight to the petting/play time.

Thoughts? Advice?

thanks in advance Tildes!

The other day I was in Target and they had a keyboard display, and in that display was a SteelSeries Apex Pro TKL. For those unfamilliar with them, they feature what they call omnipoint keyswitches, which basically means that they are all essentially analogue inputs, which means you can adjust the actuation point in software.

I know there are a lot of keyboard enthusiasts here on Tildes, so I thought I'd ask what you thought about it. While I'm probably not going to buy one anytime soon, I'm interested in it. But I'd also use it almost exclusively for typing, which isn't really the target audience for it. I generally prefer tactile switches but I realized while demoing the Apex that I've been using rubber dome switches so much in recent years that it doesn't matter too much.

I didn't "get" the horse thing

Like some (most?) people, I looked at horse people and wondered "why". My Mum is a horse person, she'd rave about how much she loved her horse, but the words never really meant much to me. I always empathised with my Dad who, like me, found things like motorbikes and tractors more interesting and fun.
I thought, why would you want to invest time, energy and money into this 500+ kg animal which, as far as I could tell, didn't do much other than stand completely still all day and eat grass?
And then there's the actual riding, horses are animals, they are famous for getting scared of things such as a puddle, a plastic bag and the wind. Why would I not just use a reliable thing like a bike or car and master that? I honestly couldn't think of anything worse than wanting to go on a trek somewhere and your dumbass horse going "nah I don't like that brush" and you having to take a detour. It sounds frustrating!

So I tried horse riding

I started dating someone who was also a horse person, my Mum is a horse person and I felt like I was both missing something and also maybe it would be good for my relationship. So I thought, fuck it, why not let's give it a go. A new hobby is always a good thing.
My initial thoughts were luke warm. It was difficult as hell, which probably was the main thing that kept my interest. I feel confident getting on any machine and learning the controls in an afternoon, but a horse was like learning to drive again, but worse because each time I went to learn the car had a different opinion that day.
I felt like I struggled. I got laughed at and I laughed with the people at the stables as kids the age of 10 or 12 were running circles around me.
I could go one day and feel like I had it, the horse would listen and I knew what I was doing only to go back the day later and struggle to get the thing to go forward.
It took a year, minimum because it's hard to really put a finger on when it clicked, to actually sit on a horse and consistently get basic forward, stop and turn, never mind everything else. And I swear to god there is a lot of everything else.

Horse riding is really complicated

A horse, as mentioned, is a real living breathing animal. What that guy had for breakfast today is going to effect your ride today. You don't get that on a motorbike.
I'm writing this section before I even get as far as owning a horse too, so bare in mind these are all riding school horses, not my own.
So you sit on a horse and you know the mechanical signals to move the animal the way you want. I won't go into detail. As a rider, you have to both read the animal, as you would a person in a social setting, and also set the tone on the horse too. By sitting on that horse and giving clear, no nonsense instructions, the animal also builds trust with you too. Both on a momentary and a long term basis.
This means that, you could sit on a horse and give it the right mechanical cues, but the horse will go "nah" or it half ass it. As a rider, it take so, so much practice to learn how to pick up on these cues and also correct them and, even better, avoid them in the first place! And it's obviously even harder when you are learning at a stable and you aren't sure you are going to get the same horse every lesson.
OK, still with me? Because so far we've sat on a horse.
The horse can spook, the horse can be lazy, the horse can be really energetic, the horse can be stronger on one "rein" (the direction of travel around a riding school) than the other, the horses tackle may be uncomfortable for the horse, the horse may have sore feet, the horse might have a really boucy trot or a slow canter or goes straight into gallop from walk. The variables are impossible to list. As a software engineer, the thought of trying to ride a horse programaticially sounds nigh on impossible. It's all vibes.
And that's part one of this massive post, it's all vibes.
It's the vibes. You spend years learning how to vibe check a half ton dog so you know ahead of time it's probably not to pleased about the upcoming bush which is a slightly different colour and you can do something about it.

Horses are weird animals

So far in this post, I've been learning to ride and I've started to understand, ok, there's a lot going on there. I can trot, I can move the horse but I can't really do much with that beyond go for a nice walk really. There's a lot more to do.
Around this point, thanks to the aforementioned partner, I was gifted a horse. He's a handsome quarter horse named Brego (yes, named after that Brego).
I was told "Brego is lazy, he'd rather stand there than throw you off, perfect for learning" I was dubious.
I met this horse, he didn't say much, or do much. I can read dogs, but this man was giving me nothing.
Needless to say, I started riding him and it was a rocky start. He lived up to expectations and he refused to go out of sight of the house, and I didn't have the skillset to know what to do with him.
I got a horse trainer over and she gave me the tools, which springboarded Brego and I off into the woods for some adventures together.
It's taken another year, a lot of questions, getting thrown off (not Brego as promised) and many, many neck scratches but I'm getting it now.
They don't really communicate like other animals, a lot of it is silent and very subtle. Posture, ears, eyes, jaws and being tense are all little signs of horse language.
Nowadays Brego will see me across the field and push all the other horses out the way to see me, then just stand there. He just likes to hang out with the boys, you know?
So that's part two, the animal bond and it's a great feeling! It is like a big, weird dog. They all are full of this bizzare personality that horse people keep trying to put into buckets, but it doesn't really seem to always work.

Putting it together

Having an animal you love and trust, who also loves and trusts you, through hard work ontop of the honestly rediculous amount of skill and patience required to vibe check a horse and ride it is a huge payoff.
Riding a bike or car feels to me like refining a process. I can learn it reasonably quickly and then it's years of practice to get various experience and learn various niches.
Horse riding it seems like there is always more to learn, I don't know how to format it in this post without it going on for thousands of lines.
Just consider learning to ride, learning to jump and learning dressage on one horse, then having to apply that to another with a different temperament. There's obviously a lot of crossover, and you can learn how to ride a horse with a similar personality but every horse is unique, so you're learning how to adapt and thrive with each different animal.

Everything else

I didn't know where to put this but I wanted to call out the sheer volume of knowledge in the hobby/sport. I was so unaware of this before I started to learn.
I already mentioned sitting on a horse, going forward and the intricacies there. But there is so. Much. More.
The basics, like walking, trotting, canter, gallop, turning. Multiply that by the horse itself, riding a lazy horse is a different skillset to riding a wild beast with no stop peddle. I've seen people try to bucket horses in around 6 to 10 different types. Like I said above, I'm not sure about the buckets but these are by people who have more experience than me so maybe there's something there.
Then you've got more advanced riding sports, jumping, dressage, cross coutry, racing. Obviously not everyone is going to learn and get into all of these but they are their own sports which I haven't even touched yet.
Then on top of that you have non-riding skills. That is the community is very keen you understand and you are comfortable with horse care.
We're talking stable care with mucking out, water and food, brushing before and after, tacking up and down, taking care of the tack, hoove care. To some extent there's other stuff like teeth, vaccinations, quality of life, etc etc.
I'm listing stuff and these all have depth I don't understand, there's stuff I don't know about because I keep getting told in a matter of a fact way "oh did you not know about blah?"

Horses are cool

They are massive dummies but they are cool. I used to think horse riding was a sport for lazy people.
But lord, I feel like I have to apologise! It's so damn hard and uses so much of my brain that I realize it was me on my motorbike that was the lazy one all along!
I love learning and I feel like I learn all the time riding. The fact the fatty I'm sitting on likes me too is a good feeling too.

Feel free to ask any questions and please share your thoughts and experiences with horses!
Are/were you also like me?
Are you a horse person?
Do you think you'd ever try horse riding?

First of all: this system brought undeniable historical advances in the West (formal equality, freedom of speech, universal suffrage). There's no way to deny this when compared to monarchies and the civil-military authoritarian regimes in Latin America. However, even so, current democracy inherently carries the objective of preserving the economic order. The political structure is designed so that economic elites (whether bourgeois or corporate) maintain control through campaign financing, legislative influence, and media dominance.

With this in mind, I decided to bring up for debate why democracy is considered the ultimate and best system we currently have, leaving no room for criticism of the system itself (representative democracy). This system derives from a stratified one (Greek) that has been refined over centuries to take power away from monarchs and transfer it to the bourgeoisie. Today, we live in a bourgeois-liberal democratic state that restricts any minority group’s access to the center of power. Everyone notices this, but since proposing or thinking of something distinct from representative democracy is dangerous, most people aim to patch a system that was designed to be this way: exclusionary and elitist. In the end, this term (democracy) has been elevated to an absolute moral ideal, leaving no room to question its central premise (the maintenance of centralized power in financial capitalism, which now finances the most radical right-wing movements).

By the way, it’s worth considering how the right gained power in the world (money). And how it maintains its hegemony over cultural thought worldwide (money). Who funds this? Who benefits from this? Why couldn’t a decentralized yet ~autocratic~ proposal (I understand the difference between autocracy and the lack of checks and balances, but I fail to see why the current system is inherently better) be superior to a centralized government defending the interests of a dominant class? (Hint: the right maintains its hegemony because it controls financial resources and the means of cultural production; it’s not just about governments but a machine operating at multiple levels where the dominant ideology reflects the ideology of the ruling class.)

Continuing, there are no decentralized and autocratic proposals (in the sense of concentrating power efficiently for certain decisions while decentralizing access to power overall) because these challenge the traditional logic of checks and balances, which ironically has been more effective at blocking structural changes than preventing abuses of power. For instance, the concept of distributive autocracy (a model in which power is temporarily centralized to carry out rapid structural reforms, followed by mechanisms of redistribution and decentralization of power) is rarely discussed because the tripartite and bicameral system locks this debate in place to maintain control through financial power (amendments) of the country.

We remain hostages to a system that has become humanity’s manifest destiny, where no questioning can be raised without the individual being labeled as morally inferior. It’s not that representative democracy is inherently superior, but that it was historically designed to be acceptable within the context of bourgeois power. The question, therefore, is not simply "autocracy vs. democracy," but how we can create inclusive, participatory, and redistributive systems where power structures are transparent, accessible, and fair for everyone.

There have been a few interesting bits of news here and there over the holiday period as well as notable developments, along with the usual political squabbling, that people might be interesting in skimming or catching up on. These posts are grouped by topic and in reverse chronological order (except the pledges of support section that reads better chronologically) as best as possible (mods feel free to edit the post itself if needed).

Also, just today there is news that Finland seizes Russia-linked tanker suspected of cutting vital undersea cables (please take discussion to the Tildes thread) and now Sweden's Social Democrats want to activate NATO's Article 4 after the cable sabotage in the Baltic Sea.

(Thank you to @KapteinB, @cffabro, @skybrian, and the other people who have helped post many of these links and alternative sources!)

December 2024:

Russia and Ukraine swap at least 300 prisoners in exchange deal

Russia suffered 421,000 casualties in 2024, 'highest price' since start of invasion, Syrskyi says and allegedly ~785,000 Russian troops since the beginning of the invasion in February of 2022.

Injured North Korean soldier captured by Ukraine has died, says South Korea

‘I thought it was fake news’: secrecy around North Koreans fighting in Kursk

“We were told in the morning to prepare for a special type of patient,” said one of the medical staff at the hospital who treated North Koreans.

“We’d heard rumours that North Koreans were fighting there, but I didn’t believe it. No one had actually seen them before,” the medic said.

More than 1,000 North Korean military casualties in Ukraine war, says South Korea

Ukraine faces difficult decisions over acute shortage of frontline troops - "Depleted army is increasingly made up of older men, but Zelenskyy is reluctant to lower mobilisation age from 25"

Kyiv reveals total Ukraine casualties in Putin’s war for first time - "Zelenskyy said 43,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed and 370,000 wounded. That compares with 600,000 dead and wounded reported for Russia."

In December, Perun released a video which quotes material about Ukraine's intelligence support of Syrian opposition forces that I hadn't heard before. At the 49:00 mark he says that Ukraine provided essential information (and basics) to Syrian rebel forces on drone usage, 3D printer schematics, and release mechanisms. Here's an imgur link to the report's summary that was posted to X/Twitter.

Pledges of support:

In June it was announced that the Annual allied military aid, [to that point, would be] $60 billion for next four years

In July 39 tanks, HIMARS and ammunition: Germany covertly hands over huge shipment of weapons to Ukraine

In late December the Biden administration pledges additional military aid to Ukraine amid Russia war - "... extensive support including a planned delivery of hundreds of thousands of artillery rounds, thousands of rockets and hundreds of armored vehicles by mid-January."

Interesting articles and information from 2024:

‘The forest will survive’: the volunteers saving Kharkiv's war-charred woodland

In September, Ukraine strikes two Russian munition depots, says military. This comes after numerous drone strikes on Russian oil facilities in August, July, and January.

‘I can do the same job as a man’: Ukraine’s first frontline female commander on war, grief – and her hope for the future - If you only read one article on this page it should be this one. This is a great interview and the person who took that portrait photo knew exactly what they were doing. I want her portrait to be painted and hung in the Louvre!

Revealed: Russia anticipated [August] Kursk incursion months in advance, seized papers show - As well, Ukraine's Kursk Offensive, launched in August and still holding their ground, has an entire wiki page.

A night with the drone squad targeting Russian forces in micro battles

Kyiv's drone suppliers are ramping up production of computer-guided drones that are cheap and can't be electronically jammed

Frontline report: Ukraine ignites Russian strategic bases, flames span from Crimea to Urals

New Yorker magazine interview: The Ukrainian President on how to end the war with Russia, the empty rhetoric of Vladimir Putin, and what the U.S. election could mean for the fate of his country

Interview with Col Gen Oleksandr Syrskyi: ‘I know we will win – and how’: Ukraine’s top general on turning the tables against Russia

Reuters interview excerpts: Ukraine President Zelenskiy speaks to Reuters in exclusive interview

Oleh Sentsov, Ukrainian director turns accidental footage into a film

In his home near Ukraine's front line with Russia, Yurii makes a stand

Putin's Unsustainable Spending Spree: How the War in Ukraine Will Overheat the Russian Economy

Valerii Zaluzhnyi: top Ukraine general who rivals president for popularity: Volodymyr Zelenskiy seems ready to risk firing his armed forces chief in a deepening rift that has shone a light on Kyiv’s frailties

Previous megathreads:

I'll update this more in a little while.

Mid-year 2024 updates and news megathread that covered developments such as announcements of North Korea providing materiel and manpower, changes in NATO leadership, the sacking of several Russian defense ministers, Eastern European security pacts, and changes to Ukrainian defense leadership.

February 2024 megathread that covers Ukraine's withdrawal from Avdiivka, the shooting down of more than one Russian A-50 AWACS, trade sanctions, and some articles about drone swarming tech.

To find more posts about these topics, use the 2022 russian invasion of ukraine tag.

This is more of an incoherent chain of consciousness from a lot of the thoughts I've had about being online over the past 20~ years. I welcome discussion and thoughts about the points I make in this post, optimism is appreciated as I've almost none left for this. (For context for the older folks on this forum, I'm not going to be getting into pre-2006 internet as I wasn't around to experience much of it. I know the internet has a very rich and storied past from before that period of time, but the vast vast vast majority of people didn't "get online" until after this period of time)

As we hurtle headlong into 1/4th of the way through the century, I've been looking back on the earlier years of the internet and missing a lot of it. Sure there were a lot of rough edges and problems, but I'd argue that would be true of any period of time for any large group of people. One thing that always stuck out to me in the past was how much the used to reward innovation, creativity, and hard work. Youtube, Twitch, Reddit, even platforms like Twitter and Facebook; they all felt a lot smaller and a lot more approachable for the amateur with some ambition. So many of the success stories you heard from around that era were just seemingly normal guys and gals who had some talent and drive and put in effort and made it big. Obviously there's some confirmation bias there, you don't hear the 1000 stories from the people who tried and failed, but I don't think you can deny that the "barrier to entry" was a lot lower back then in pretty much every field. I've gotten to know the founder of the company I work for, and he started it out of his house with a few friends from college and created what would be considered today to be a pretty basic product, and they managed to turn it into a 200~+ million dollar business in just over 10 years. Most of the stories I've heard are like that, just a guy or a couple guys sitting down and working on something over the course of a few months and striking it big off of it.

Now let's get to the point of this post, to me it feels like those success stories have slowed to a trickle, if not stopped completely. The amount of competition there is in every field is insane. Are you a fairly talented digital artist looking to make a little extra cash on the side? 10-15 years ago, you could easily get commissions for things like Twitch emotes, personal portraits, (drawing furry OCs), etc. Nowadays I don't know a single amateur artist who can find a reliable source of clients who are willing to pay any reasonable amount of money, and this was before AI took over the low hanging fruit for pennies on the dollar.

I'm going to continue to draw on personal experience because that's the only field I feel like I can speak with some authority on. In the Youtube/Twitch scene, being a reasonably skilled video editor used to mean that you could make a decent (if meager) living and build up your reputation by editing for large creators. Editors became known for their styles and even became mini-celebrities in the communities that they were a part of. Now it feels like every large Youtuber/Streamer has a team of faceless, nameless production staff that handle all of the video management, thumbnails, analytics, etc. There's no personality anymore, there's no individuality; you're part of the business, a cog in the machine. The .00001% of people who manage to crawl their way to the top of creating videos or streaming content have hyper-optimized the process so finely that there is quite literally no room for a newcomer to enter the space and attract a crowd.

I'll expand on that last paragraph a bit because I know that its not really 100% true, I see Youtubers and streamers every single day that I've quite literally never heard of before, and they have millions of subscribers; the platforms have never been more diverse. But one thing they all seem to have in common is that the production value and effort required to make their content is 100x the amount it was 10 years ago. You can't just put a handycam on a 10 dollar tripod in your bedroom and make it big on the internet anymore note: this is explicitly ignoring Tik Tok because I have no interest/experience with that platform, and from everything that I've heard, "tik tok fame" is so incredibly fleeting and transient that someone can go from being a celebrity to a nobody literally overnight. It's the tabloid magazines of internet content, just a flash in the pan for the vapid and dopamine-starved. It also seems like one of the most toxic and manipulated platforms out there, quite literally millions of people putting out actual trash into the ecosystem, throwing anything at the wall to see if it will stick. (for anyone who thinks I'm being too harsh on TikTok, I'm referring to the part of the platform that's all astroturfed sponsored trash like "omg check out this new water bottle I found that filters out negative energy in your water before you drink it" and the 1,000s of other scams that infest that godforsaken app. That TikTok rant got a little off-track but it just makes me so frustrated to see how hyper-consumerism, low effort, and morally bankrupt the "creators" of that platform are. It's all about the "grindset" and "hustling to make a quick buck." As long as you get your bag, who gives a fuck right?

To circle back to some more context for why I'm making this post, I'm very active in the freelance/contractor space. A lot of my friends are/were creatives, freelancers, contractors from all sorts of fields; artists, sound designers, voice actors, video editors, website developers, app programmers, audio engineers, etc. I was talking to one of my friends about some of the projects they have been working on recently, and one of them was editing down a podcast for these two hustle-culture bros. The type of people who offer those $5,000 paid online courses on how to make "passive income" online; you know the type, I know you do. And the surprising thing to me was that these guys were actually "successful" they had suckers enrolling in their courses, they were making good money. You want to know what the one of the "hot tips for passive income" that they were using? They made AI generated "product review" videos on Youtube that would scrape Amazon product listings, and put together thousands of automated useless garbage videos a day and pump them onto any platform they could monetize. You ever try to look up a review for a fairly niche product to see if its any good, and all you can find is AI generated trash? Yeah, these are the types of people responsible. They have absolutely no morals, no respect for their audience, they will do anything it takes to make .0001 cents and completely flood the platforms they're on with worthless garbage making it unusable. It's the online equivalent of an industrial factory discharging thousands of gallons of toxic waste into the ocean a day to make a few hundred bucks from some boomers who can't tell that a video is worthless.

I use this as an example because this is happening everywhere, in every field. It's not always AI, its not always worthless trash; but the almost universal truth everywhere I see is that every possible niche online is absolutely packed to the brim with a million other people and bots who will do whatever you do for much less money and time. Competition for human attention and money has completely exponentially skyrocketed and there is quite simply not enough to even begin to go around.

If you stuck around through this rant and it resonated with you in any way, feel free to share your thoughts and opinions below. I ask that you don't just solely comment based on the title without reading at least some of the post. This is definitely coming from a negative headspace and I'm well aware that my personal experience may be skewed, but its so hard not to be cynical and jaded.

Hello Tildutes!

I have an elderly relative (91) who spends a lot of time alone in her house. I was thinking it would be nice to do an offbeat bonding activity in town somewhere to relax her.

I’m looking for suggestions on things she might enjoy, ideally something interactive but low-stakes.

Requirements/notes:

• Something one can do in a place like Newark, Wilmington, or maybe Philadelphia.
• She can walk and stand (her cane helps), but not too fast or for too long. She would need to sit.
• She can see alright with her glasses and can hear you with hearing aids, but not from a distance.
• She is astute and can follow conversations just fine, thought it can take a moment for her to put together her thoughts.
• I’d like to get her out of the house—managing her own living space is stressful and she is more relaxed when she does not feel obliged to be hostly.
• I would like this to be calming or relaxing or refreshing for her. She has some obsessive/compulsive habits and I kind of want her to zen out more. Or just have fun—she’s often worrying.

Some ideas I had (input/feedback/additional suggestions welcome):

• Some sort of guided meditative or zen garden-type relaxation thing, but suitable for a kinda tired senior with OCD. I don’t know what to look for exactly. Maybe even something a little New Age. She is nominally Quaker and I would say a good-natured and open-minded person.
• She mentioned once that her dream job was to be an artist. I was thinking about an abstract painting session at a studio where they provide all the materials. Some way for her to let out her inner Jackson Pollock?
• I thought about a spa day. Do they have specialists who work with seniors? She has some aches and pains but is obviously fragile and extremely unused to being “treated.” She might have to overcome some… guilt (?) for being attended to.
• Some sort of guided cultural experience—but maybe more engaging than walking around a museum? She is well-traveled and remains interested in world cultures. She used to be a teacher of English and French, spent a considerable amount of time volunteering in Mexico (before it was developed), and seems to often appreciate learning about cultural things on Wikipedia or in magazines.
• She seems to be quite pleased with animals, at least cats and dogs. I considered going to a cat cafe but, having been in those before, I know the animals are not always accessible. Are puppy cafes a thing? Indoor petting zoos?

In contrast it would be unsuitable for us to play any sort of competitive game, or to do something requiring a lot of physical strength or dexterity, or anything that would be emotionally overwhelming.

If you have experiences of activities or programs that might be fulfilling to my relative, I would love to hear them!

My goal is mostly just for her to have a nice time for that day. If I can get her to be more relaxed generally, that’s great too.

Thank you!

I thought I would share this story as I've been thinking about it ever since coming out as transfem and it always makes me smile.

for every year it's been going on -- which is two... but I digress -- I've helped out at a major trade show to put some iconic industry products on display as mainly fully working examples for people to play around with.

I noticed this lady looking at one of our exhibits and struck up a conversation with her as I had done with countless other people that day. turns out she was working at the company who built that exhibit during its production run in the early eighties! we spoke a lot about her experiences with that company.

after a bit, a few more people from that same company came over and they were all reminiscing about their time working there. it was at this point I realised she was trans because she kept saying to all these old guys "you probably knew me by a different name back then"! they were all really accepting and had no issues, goes to show older people can and do respect trans people!

it really inspired me to meet not only a trans elder but a trans elder working in my industry, who had worked on an exhibit I had set up the day before -- we opened it up later and found her initials on an electrical testing label from 1983! in meeting her it feels like I saw a possible future for myself, which is not something I had properly envisioned before, not on the order of decades at the very least. I like the idea of having a future. it gives me something to strive for. I want to be the lady who goes to trade shows and regales bright-eyed students with tales of a long and fulfilling career in my industry. I want to have stories to tell and I want to be there to tell them. meeting her made all that seem that much more possible.

I hope this makes someone else smile like it does me and I'd love to hear more stories like this if anyone is willing to share!