fritztastic

>we may further bankrupt ourselves in more ways than monetarily while looking for something to do the thinking for us that we are too lazy and too irresponsible to do for ourselves

I've known machinists who said the same about CNC. Sure, there are benefits to establishing a good sense of the older ways- but it's not laziness or irresponsibility to embrace new technologies and utilize them for efficiency. There is a whole lot of bias and catastrophizing here, like the author is grieving the perceived loss of analog tools and projecting these emotions into this rather bleak commentary. Look, it's one thing to be nostalgic and appreciate simpler ways of solving/understanding things- but it's a whole nother one to make condescending judgements of value and extending these ideas onto generalizations against people.

> If all your parents did was give you the opportunity to grow up stateside as opposed to some communist hellhole or third-world slum, that itself is worth a lifetime of gratitude that you can never hope to pay back.

It's ok to not be ok with abuse and neglect, despite the sacrifices those who hurt you made for you.

My parents left primarily due to not being able to provide for us during a period of unpredictable instability which was largely due to privatization of many industries and international corporate meddling (after having voted in a Socialist government that was upended by Capitalist powers). They left because they felt deeply betrayed and were ill equipped for the transition. I remember the struggle for food- that struggle was still present in America. Personally, I know they themselves struggle with having left their family (and children, for some years) behind- my father has regrets he voiced after his mother passed away, that despite all his accomplishments and hard work he is still not valued as he deserves but on top of that (most importantly to him) he is a continent away from most of the people he grew up with and loves. They do put the weight of that decision on us to accomplish and validate their sacrifices (or "make their sacrifice worth it").

One can be grateful and also still struggle with generational trauma. You can love your parents unconditionally and still have a hard time with them refusing to get help, refusing to listen, refusing to take you seriously because "children listen to their parents and listening is a one-way street". I can be as clear and patient as humanly possible, present all the research patiently, beg them to take me seriously, but what I say still won't hold the same weight as anything their friends say, despite my ability to explain misinformation or bias. I can only imagine how they will be in their later years. I hope they will mellow out over time but, as the last few years have shown me, I find this increasingly unlikely. I'll still take care of them and love them, fully knowing they are unable/unwilling to accept me as a person (LGBTQ+ wise), but no I don't think they are judgemental "no more than their former compatriots" because people exist everywhere (and I know for a fact in our country of origin) who don't hold the bitterness and hostile defensiveness they do. I think perhaps being immigrants made them even harder as people, and I'm old enough to remember what life was like before they had to live with the resentment of leaving everything they knew to give us opportunities.

Also I completely disagree with the sentiment of holding "a lifetime of gratitude" that can never be paid back over someone's life. Surely there are ways of reciprocating that amount of love and care, ways that don't involve conforming to your parents ideas of who they want you to be, especially when their ideas make no room for who you actually are.

Not to say all immigrant parents are the same, but I do think it's incredibly common to have immigrant parents who genuinely have no interest in knowing/appreciating you as a person, who live with so many layers of trauma that they refuse to even acknowledge their toxic traits, that they don't endeavor to heal from because they wear their suffering like a badge of honor. Their sense of self-worth is embedded in their fight to make it and prove themselves, and they create hurdles so you have to fight to make yourself worth their time and fight to prove yourself worthy of their sacrifice. I don't believe this is necessary and I wish they would care enough to get out of that mindspace. I do love and appreciate them enough to understand them compassionately and empathetically despite them not extending the same- my parents fully know this and they expect it and take it for granted because "it's the least I can do", it does not mean the world for them because their pain has nothing to do with me and everything to do with their continuous grief for everything they lost along the way. I just wish they would take the time to consider that despite their adamant stance of "I put a roof over your head, food in your mouth, clothes on your back, and that's all you should want"- we, their children, are also people with valid things to say and our struggles also matter.

> At a certain point they will just deny Dubai was created

That reminds me of a (reportedly fake) quote attributed to Sheikh Rashid bin Saeed Al Maktoum:

“My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I ride a Mercedes, my son rides a Land Rover, and my grandson is going to ride a Land Rover, but my great-grandson is going to have to ride a camel again.”

It's always interesting (for me) to learn of lost lands- from before humans were around, too, but especially those mentioned in human stories. There are many of these [1]- some of which are the subject of fascinating and informative documentaries, such as this one about Doggerland [2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lost_lands?wprov=sfla1

[2] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DECwfQQqRzo

Thank you for sharing that. That's a valid concern- people trying psychedelics on their own also run into the risk that what they're getting is altered, not what they wanted at all, or unintentionally taking a dose that will bring them bad outcomes. Even with cannabis, back when it was completely illegal, I knew people who would sometimesb unknowingly get their hands on batches that had been laced with something else and end up having wildly unpredictable (and sometimes frightening) experiences.

People are expected to keep savings to weather through the lean times, and corporations should do the same- set up a fund to keep valued workers through lean times.

From personal experience, you can do good work and still be laid off. I got laid off a couple months after the company's president gave himself a 5M bonus, fully aware a recession was ongoing and that measures would have to be taken.

From my perspective many businesses are very happy to have people stick around to do the work with less pay, dur8ng good times they give the profits of this labor to the people at the top + shareholders and then when a downturn comes they trim off workers. They could have kept the people they laid off and paid everyone more if they'd (rather than giving bonuses to executives) put that money away for a rainy day. I don't see the benefit of having loyalty and working yourself to the bone when the people you're working for have lots of loyalty to the bottom line, themselves, and their investors, yet very little to the quality of life of the people who work under them.

Sure, I'm willing to work crazy hours and do whatever needs to get done but I expect to be met halfway and be respected (preferrably properly compensated) for the sacrifices I'm willing to make for the work I do.

of all the plausible explanations I expected to see, "because it's trending" was not even remotely on the list

I laughed so hard when I read that. 100% was not expecting anything remotely like this and I'm kind of surprised to have never heard of it before.

Been a long time since I thought about the Jessi Slaughter incident.

If you have a pebble in your shoe and it's bothering you, is it not good advice to remove the pebble and go about your day (as opposed to trying to make the pebble become less uncomfortable)?

The biggest issues I have with cable are:

-There is no option to pick a few channels you want for cheaper than the package of channels. I would love to pick a dozen channels (which are otherwise are only available with the more expensive bundles that come with hundred+ other channels I have no interest in).

-Lack of availability of international channels. These often cost 30+ for each small separate package offered in cable, while better channel bundles are much more affordable through streaming providers- not to mention individual programs available in different platforms and news streams free online.

I don't spend a lot of free time watching things, and I have specific things I enjoy (documentaries, foreign films/TV, educational content) so paying more for cable doesn't make any sense when I can get a better variety through streaming and/or through resources freely available online or through the library. Not to mention paying high prices and still having to contend with advertisements taking up ~20% of the time and interrupting what you're watching.

Great info.

That photo of their building, at first glance my immediate reaction was the assumption that it was a screenshot from Minecraft. Upon closer inspection, it really is a photograph. Kind of a good metaphor for Scientology itself, looks harmless then you really look and it's quite a stark reality- less "wacky" and more "wtf".

I agree that this is both more effective and has the benefit of encouraging people to understand others in a deeper level. Taking the time to understand someone else handles stress differently (and has different strengths and weaknesses, preferences, ways of communication, etc.) is a level above just treating people the way oneself wants to be treated.

Anecdotally- I've had many experiences with my mother who adamantly insists she treats others the way she wants to be treated when, in fact, she has a very unique life experience that has generated some specific ideas of how she thinks people should behave, and in treating others the way she wants to be treated she tends to unintentionally generate miscommunication and awkward situations at best, if not sometimes conflicts and harm.

Most likely they struggled because the legal language in policies was ambiguous on how to handle the situation, therefore opening the room for the manager to pursue action against the company for consequences for their behavior.

It would have been dealt with sooner if the employee was white because (assuming they meant white as in western white skinned person) culturally there isn't an equivalent of caste that would make sense for a white person to act on, and they could have acted based on the other groups listed in the anti-discrimination language.

I think it's good they found a way to go forward with dealing with the manager and compensated the employees. In a visit to India a few years ago I saw a shopkeeper make someone leave the store because of caste, not sure if there are actual laws/regulations about this in place there to simplify the process of handling discrimination. The issue of discrimination is very easy to find anywhere, though, and most often presents in a subtle form of prejudice because many people feel a certain way toward others in another group. Anywhere there aren't enforced laws with legal language that protects a group there will be difficulty dealing with discriminatory practices against said group, because laws have to be specific in the way they are written to allow for their enforcement being simple/easy.

Hardly nonsense considering the speed of implementing new things far exceeds the research and attempts to scale back once harm has been identified. Private interests are far more powerful and well funded than the few scientists sounding alarms and attenpting to caution people. There were warnings about greenhouse gases causing climate change at least as far back as 1912, yet despite this the car and oil industries pushed forward against ethanol fuel, electric powered vehicles, public transportation, etc to spread and strengthen an automobile-centered norm of going about, which we take for granted as the way to get around and turning away from that is far more unlikely today than it would have been in 1912 if the science had been heeded and changes had been made. This is the norm of industries vs science, and it is present in almost every facet of our lives. Additionally, the issue with the ozone layer is still very much not a non-issue.

Yes, I think it would be a good idea to cap how many properties can be owned (at an amount reasonably high per private individual, but low for companies) although of course those intent on being real estate tycoons will find loopholes. I think, like many issues, this would best be implemented locally first. If a city/town has people who want less residential properties controlled by a few big owners (either for rent or to flip) they can demand their elected officials do something about it. Trying to enact broad change federally or even statewide casts too broad of a net with big holes that more likely than not would make it difficult for smaller owners to be able to do things but would most likely leave the international corporations only slightly inconvenienced. There really is no one solution that would be both effective and realistic but I do think it is very important for people to understand and discuss this topic, and not rely on assumptions. The market has changed drastically over time, as has public perception, and it's actually a lot more complicated than just "fill empty homes" and "foreign investors are owning all the houses".

Those claims aren't accurate, but this does sound spot on as to what his internal narrative would be were it put to words. Zuckerberg is known for steamrolling over anyone to get what he wants, and orchestrating a narrative that paints him as the sympathetic talented protagonist he absolutely is not and has never been.

If I worked for a someone with this sort of attitude, and I was in a position that I could walk away from this sort of megalomania, I would run for the hills.

Dignity is important to me, idgaf how many zeroes are in someone's net worth, if they started intimidating people over a zoom call I would intentionally miss the meeting even if I was initially going to attend.

FWIW, (in my opinion) it does seem like a "not-bad" adaptation. It's not a disaster, and I've enjoyed it so far. I don't think there would ever be a perfect time or a perfect way to adapt the source material, but I am very glad Gaiman was involved and it has been made into a series instead of someone trying to condense it into a film (even with the prospect of expanding into sequels). I think it does contain a lot of the important themes, but is missing some of the vibes- probably because the setting of the comics took place in a very 80s/90s reality. Though there are branching storylines sprinkled in different times. I haven't finished watching the episodes, but it seems like a decent adaptation- it's good, not. I think it's missing something, though I'd have to read the comics again to articulate precisely what that is. Then again, it is no easy feat to translate the comics into a video medium- and I'm happy to be able to watch the story, so I do have that bias.

I'd chalk it up to an egocentric assumption, because it's not hard to accept people love things. I don't care much for old cars but I understand that for some people it's a huge passion they have a lot of love for and they're not exaggerating when they mention how much it means to them.

Some people (myself included) genuinely love bookstores in general and used bookstores specifically. It's not an exaggeration, if I lived near a good bookstore I would be there regularly.

I understand your metaphor in the sense that The Matrix is a scifi adaptation of the allegory of the cave. The concept that commercial/online bookstores are where items worth finding will be found is like thinking the shadows of the cave are the only thing worth seeing. You are correct, there is so much content there be found, which isn't limited/controlled by what the big market values.

Additionally those are very good points about English and streaming. There are books out there which are not translated and not digitized, which are absolutely worth reading, and will not be found anywhere besides private collections, used bookstores, flea markets, estate sales. Some of these books were originally purchased long ago and/or far away, just because they are not popular enough to be easily found does not mean they are not worh finding.

Having visited many second hand bookstores in different cities, there are absolutely books out there worth reading not available online- soke will never be available online. There are a lot of obscure books out there- old, self-published, or just really niche subjects- which will never be popular or wanted enough to find reproduced digitally.

Besides being an experience in and of themselves (used bookstores are often very unique and individual, sometimes operated by interesting people who do it out of a love of books or history), you can find some real gems and sometimes even terrible unbelievable books of decades past that would never be something you could find in a regular commercial/corporate book shop selling for profit and catering to whatever is on the bestseller list, what critics recommend, and what publishers want to sell.

Besides the experience and obscure books, used bookstores often are the best places to meet interesting people. Some people, myself included, love the atmisphere of these shops- the smell of old books, the piles of otherwise discarded tomes, shelves where you can find books that were once part of collections curated by bibliophiles- some of these books have annotations on them, some of them are on very niche subjects not easily found elsewhere, some so old if you look for information online you won't find anything. I've had and heard some really fascinating conversations in second hand bookshops I don't think I would ever have experienced otherwise. Some of these shops are a place of community, where people post business cards and event posters for things you wouldn't readily find out about easily- some host events in the store itself (discussion groups, games, book clubs, etc). Some have very comfortable atmosphere and welcome people coming to just hang out, no pressure to spend money. Additionally there is the possibility there for you to build a bond with the owners/keepers, who sometimes will bring out books they keep off the shelves just for you.

Some old book shops are absolutely packed with everything from textbooks to catalogues to literature- unsorted treasures waiting to be found. Books with no ISBN, no online presence whatsoever, items that cannot be found otherwise (unless you were looking for them specifically, and even then they would be really difficult to procure). There is a charm to be found in these shops that just cannot be replicated in common bookstores.

This song has a special place in my memory, very specifically we used to listen to that exact CD in the first years when we came to America. I remember feeling something very deep and profound from the words, even when I didn't at first understand the words or what the song was really saying- I could tell from how it sounded, even as a child, that it came from a place of sincere caring. In contrast with much of everything else in music before and since, it really stands out. Knowing the story behind it is really nice, it's whimsical, heartwarming, and unlike most things inspired by internet culture... genuinely wholesome. Thanks for sharing this!

Anecdotally my teen brother, the youngest (born over a decade after the rest of us), is remarkably even-tempered and not prone to fall for bad influences. He does spend a lot of time on IG, mostly looking at cars and making informative posts on automobiles. He watches a lot of documentary-like material on YouTube about engineering, physics, and sociology. He isn't likely to get these wild ideas his peers seem to fall for. My parents though, will fall for all manners of internet misinformation- the phenomena of believing nonsense online isn't exclusive to children and young adults.

With my brother I've found that if you treat younger adults and children with seriousness and listen to them as though their POV is valid, you build a trust there where they have a sense of where to discuss their doubts and insecurities so they don't fall prey to hypes and misinformation.

I mention this because I had a huge amount of influence on him growing up, almost the opposite of my experience with my parents dismissing and ridiculing my concerns. Although when I was a teen social media was mostly all chat rooms, forums, myspace, and then facebook (YouTube barely existed until the end of my adolescence) where I found people who listened- and there was the potential for them to have an influence which may have led to something very similar to this article.

Although social media now is vastly more powerful and common, it is not the sole variable. For many of these children it is filling a gap where a solid foundation of reality and context should be- with family members and social support structures who can be trusted to provide a reality check. I can see why many young ones listen to online personalities (many adults do, too) and although the medium through which they're getting these concepts (tiktok) plays a large part, it is not the root nor is avoiding tiktok the solution.

I would add, my parents moved us far from the town with the intent to take us away from bad influences of kids who hung out downtown- what this actually did is prevent me from being able to walk to the library, while my sister still found a way to get in trouble because lo and behold, her friends had cars or knew older kids with cars. The isolation they thought might be a solution proved ineffective, but I think if their parenting had been more nutruring and less abuse/neglect she might have avoided a lot of the trouble she got into.

I was disappointed he was not in the films, however everyone else I know was glad of this omission. I think his character adds a certain something- maybe something a lot of people don't appreciate. Not including him in the movies, I thought, was a missed opportunity.

Ok, 2 points:

1. I'm surprised LiveJournal still exists. Genuinely. I used to have one, a loooong time ago.

2. I was always fascinated by Bombadil, he seemed to me like the embodiment of nature itself, or forests. At least, that's the concept he seemed to represent to me. I admit I skipped reading the lyrics though. This is a fascinating theory although it is quite different than what I would conclude from the same evidence.

Can the wood beams be seen in the cathedral? Do visitors ever tour the roof area? I'm trying to understand why it is so important to rebuild it exactly like the original, the benefits of this besides being faithful to the historical structure. Wouldn't it make more sense to innovate and make a new roof that would offer potential features to the cathedral?

Anyway I thought this part was funny

> “I see, monsieur, you have been contaminated by those who believe the president of the republic should not be interfering in the reconstruction of Notre Dame,” he boomed. “You have been contaminated by the party of slowness.” Georgelin is a good-humoured alpha type

Sounds more like a condescending way to avoid addressing the topic to me, personally. But that's just my opinion.

If you look into Mark Suckerborg's history, his character, his decisions and their consequences... it becomes pretty evident there are few motivations involved in what he chooses, and even fewer scruples about the consequences.

I really miss the experience I had with MySpace back in 2004-2007. It gave users a lot of control over their personal pages, and I had a lot of fun adding all sorts of wacky things. I got to communicate with some of my favorite bands and authors, all the content in someone's profile was contained in a single place. There was almost a diy feel to it. I sometimes even feel nostalgic about the "Top 8" drama. It was a simpler time. I was also young so I probably overlooked the darker side of things then. People did warn a lot about putting your real name online because it might give murderers your information, granted there were fewer people on the internet then and it had a certain wild west vibe to it, the great unknown with associated fears- somewhere along the way society did a 180 and everyone started putting all their information online. It's really strange to think about the shifts, but even stranger to think about the sources of the moving parts bringing the changes.

There are alternatives to corporate-run social media (the Fediverse, to name one off the top of my head) that are less-known. I've personally just left social media altogether. I had a period of time I spent in cycles of addiction/absrinence and I have to say I much prefer to keep in touch with people on more personal direct contact (snail mail, e-mail, messaging) without meddling, extra baggage, advertisers, my data being sold off to unknown entities to do as they please according to their most likely not benign motivations. But the biggest factor in my exit from social media was how negative it all became.

I joined facebook in 2007 when you needed to be invited in and it was basically mostly students. Ober the years things went from "so neat I can connect to people all over the world" to an online battleground in the span of a decade (arguably 2 decades, depending on your online experience). The convenience of keeping in touch with relatives/friends overseas and the wonderment of making friends online has become eclipsed by all the other things which have nothing to do with people being able to connect. If anything these big platforms have become all about (directly, indirectly, incidentally, regardless) gaming the divisions between people to push them apart and foment rifts they can profit from, at least that's how I see it and I am just done with all that.

Vaguely reminds me of Kowloon city

You're correct.

I'm sure they have reasons that can be speculated about (probably money), including that they don't want to run controversial ads though I don't know if they have imposed the same criteria to different takes on the same subjects.

I think it's regrettable and irresponsible that climate change has been allowed to become such a controversial topic, although this has been a decades long effort. It might be they don't want to lose viewership by broadcasting certain topics. But also,

Very possible they get $ from advertisers who pressure them to avoid the topic

Seems to me most likely their decisions are financially motivated, but this is just a guess.

I admittedly don't know all that much about Hulu's policies or history in regards to the advertising they choose to accept. It may very well be they have other motives, are trying to appear nonpartisan by allowing Ds to advertise but giving them criteria about what they can say, how they say it.