isoskeles

No, they're saying that the US being heavily armed isn't the only explanation for why someone gets killed by a stray bullet in Atlanta.

This isn’t /r/antiwork.

Knowing what was intended to be said is great, and subtitles, for whatever reason, seem to convey this better than dubbing. Also, I feel like I can hear the emotion in the original actors' voices better with subtitles and no dubbing, despite being incapable of understanding the language. In that way, I agree it preserves the original performances.

However, moving pictures will always be an artform that are heavily reliant upon the picture part. With subtitles, I lose my ability to focus on minor but important details in film. During dialogue, this includes subtle facial expressions. I also pay less attention to all other visuals, which I find difficult to do without subtitles off entirely. I feel like I miss out on a lot of potential beauty in cinematography with subtitles enabled. (Although, to be fair, there is usually less dialogue in parts that emphasize on cinematography / setting.)

Anyway, just throwing in my two cents. I used to think people who disliked subtitles were expressing some broader dislike of foreign films, so I found their opinion perplexing or even stupid. But I've come to that side of the aisle myself, not because I dislike foreign films, but because I realize that reading a small bar of text at the bottom of the screen will always handicap my ability to take in the original experience as intended by the director of the film (in 99.9% of cases).

Really, it’s just a shitty comment that probably doesn’t belong in any discussion and should be ignored. “Huh?!” This doesn’t pass as substantive in any way whatsoever. Don’t waste your time thinking about it.

I went to the hospital two days ago. Plenty of COVID warnings were posted all over the place. One was a sign, last updated in February of 2020, that suggested you leave if you’ve been in contact with anyone who recently travelled to China, Korea, Iran, or Italy.

I can understand an opinion that claims this is worse, but it’s something I don’t personally care about because I don’t take many photos with people who would post them on Facebook. It also occurs in a more public setting than private internet browsing.

> If they were targeting Amazon, you would probably say "Targeting Amazon and not Google or Facebook for tech monopoly is not a good luck."

Nope.

I don’t have Facebook and have zero interactions with ANY of their products in my life. Google, Amazon, and Microsoft have been harder to extricate myself from. I could, but the inconvenience as a regular consumer would be quite difficult or costly. This hasn’t been the case with FB so I am in very strong agreement with the sentiment of the comment you replied to.

I actually hate Facebook but am reflexively disgusted with the irrational, partisan hatred of it from people who could just delete their accounts and never interact with the company again. At worst, they still log your IP on many websites if you don’t use uBlock or something similar.

Lack of information. LastPass was also relatively decent software for a while. I only stopped using it two years ago, but also noticed at the time that they have significant marketing efforts compared to the competition.

It seems like LastPass is angling to become the AOL of password managers, and by that I mean they want a bunch of old customers who never bother to switch to something better.

Why would you want to spread the idea of the “experiment” before gathering results? What if you conclude the experiment was a failure?

The hysteria is a function of how much people hated Trump. Orange man bad => orange man responsible for covid => I must act like covid is the worst, most dangerous pandemic of all time as a signal about how much I hated when Cheetoh Mussolini was president.

It’s quite absurd. I can understand hating Trump, but it’s actually time to move on. We’re going to be captive to this crap until people fully realize their reaction to the pandemic is mostly a product of their political opinion in 2020 rather than scientific fact.

I hear people bring up this example to scoff at every now and then, but it’s always some unstated rationale. The progression of technology mostly allows us to live like royalty compared to people 300 years ago, minus the terrible indignity of having to work.

I’ve yet to hear an explicitly stated argument for why I’m supposed to think someone who has access to a refrigerator, internet, food, etc. is impoverished, except for, “Somesuch CEO earns 100000000x more than they do.”

That said, sure, “welfare royalty” seems like a misnomer. I assume they typically live like regular, “middle-class” people without the job part.

I agree, but why bother to arrange to have them kidnapped? Surely the risk is much higher than the reward of a tax break. It seems like an inherently stupid idea compared to just abandoning the kid.

Who would even agree to kidnap somebody else’s child for this purpose? I’d suspect the first 9 out of 10 convicted felons would still tell the police your plans. Most people would be too suspicious that you’re trying to entrap them, asking them to kidnap your child.

And what can you offer someone to agree to do this if your own reward is a temporary tax break? At this point, you might as well kidnap your own child.

But supposedly a “correctly implemented” NFT would solve the problem.

Wouldn’t this also drive up prices of those crops? Not that it’s a bad thing, I’d rather we pay a fair price than something cheaper because the water is effectively subsidized. I’m curious what effect would occur on the prices of CA crops.

I lived in Florida for a long time, and the only people I remember who didn’t say “The 95” etc. were news anchors. So I always take these discussions with a grain of salt, as I do not think CA is the only place where people talk like this, and I also don’t even believe there are any regional norms about it most of the time. I assume people just repeat something they read in an article about this phenomenon.

But I would be interested to see something well-researched on the topic.

And someone always posts a reply like yours without etc. etc.

Enough to buy their kids tablets like it's nothing.

> Facebook users aren't reading the article. They're reading the title, and saying "aha, I knew it. The vaccine was unsafe all along."

You literally just made this up.

> it is harder than getting in with an athletic scholarship than without one.

I agree with most of your comment, but I think you're using "harder" and "rarer" interchangeably here.

One would guess that receiving a scholarship for elite athleticism or superior intellect are both quite difficult, and I have zero basis of comparison for which one is harder. I would not assume that athletic scholarships being rarer reflects on their difficulty. Rather, it's most likely a reflection on what the main function of a university is, as a place of learning. They admit more students to study than to play sports.

I’m smoking a wadded-up copy of that Rolling Stone article about gunshot victims waiting for the ER.

We’re talking about SF, so you can probably extrapolate from there.

The recent Virginia gubernatorial race seemed focused on that issue.

I honestly can't tell the difference between when people are talking about QAnon or BlueAnon unless a specific event is stated that would give me more context. Seems like others cannot tell the difference either.

Why not make this an opt-in feature? That way, big media companies with a YouTube presence who constantly have often post videos with high dislike ratios can hide the fact (although, we'll know this because of the hidden dislikes).

It's quite annoying when I'm looking at neutral, nonpolitical content, and I can't get a sense of whether or not other viewers hate it. I look at a decent amount of tutorial content for various things, and the like-dislike ratio is fairly indicative of whether or not the content is wrong or if I should even continue watching it.

Your argument appears to be that people should be forced to be vaxxed but with a bureaucracy that allows them to not get vaxxed (by visiting various doctors until one acquiesces) if they don’t want to. What am I misunderstanding here? And what then is the point of having a mandate, why support it?

Some app that a small minority of people use which includes warnings about traffic, hazards, speed traps, etc.

More likely the latter. HR usually has a mission to protect the company (project in this case). CoC and its moderation usually just serve the purpose of virtue signaling or maybe even carrying out a digital version of a struggle session, so D&I seems like a good analog.

> Nuances will likely hurt and confuse the common man. That's why the news and celebs and politicians etc try to keep things simple.

You can pretend there is "nuance" to saying that the common man would be hurt and confused by facts. I see this plainly as calling people morons in a polite manner. Sorry if it hurts your sensibilities that someone would lay bare the underlying meaning of a comment.

Also, please by all means ignore the actual point of my comment, which is, why do people go around correcting a specific comment when that applies to at least one more comment up the chain. Any replies re: "morons" will be ignored.

So why didn’t you post this reply one comment up when he calls the public morons? Instead you choose to correct the person who says the public is actually smarter than we think?

I’m not implying you meant anything by it. But it should be noted that people here are arguing, and you’re coming down with a sort of correction that could be applied to either side of the argument. You appear to take a side by choosing this comment without any further nuance.

Apologies if it sounds like I’m saying you’re doing something horribly wrong here, I just find this particular dynamic interesting in internet discussions. It happens all the time.

I read ZeroHedge occasionally, and I've never seen it spelled "FED" there. I'm wondering where you find conspiracy theorists who type it like that.