My NT husband switches between games. In one sitting. I look up from drawing evey once in a while and, wtf since when is Mario in Ass Creed? Not that he doesn’t like the game, he always comes back to it after a while and finishes most of what he plays. He just gets bored after a bit and loads up another one. And they tell me I have attention issues.

When I start a game, I either drop it after one sitting or I am 150% in (and sometimes I get so deep into a game that I stop playing shortly before the end because I don’t want it to end - fuck this brain (I need to finish Cyberpunk 2077)). I actively avoid certain games because I know they’ll eat me. Instead I’ll sit and draw for 37 hours a day without needing sustenance or the loo, which is much more healthy and socially accepted and even encouraged by my therapist.

More time for him to continue his search for the worst MMO ever.

Yay, die by 35 of some disease that used to be totally preventable in the past! Utopia!

I’m unclear on what this accomplishes, genuinely interested to understand though and possibly misunderstanding the entire setup. What’s the difference between this and just having the machine vent into the room as usual?

|||| ||

… huh?

I keep seeing people ask why people call Bluesky decentralised. I never see people call Bluesky decentralised.

(Okay, “never” isn’t quite correct, I’ve seen the term used in relation to Bluesky maybe a handful of times but you make it sound like that’s their main selling point)

Everything you said is a common storytelling trope you can find in other stories too.

Take the hero’s family being endangered - the difference is that Die Hard dude then jumps into action and does shit, like what you’d expect from an actual hero. Job does fuck all, doesn’t seem to mind too much (at best he’s like “oh bother”) and, worst of all, does NOT get his family back, it’s a new wife and kids and that’s perfectly fine by him.

The villains corresponding to the neighbours is far-fetched in my opinion but even then, common trope to have story elements trying to discourage the hero. You can find that “parallel” anywhere. They also have vastly different motivations: in Job, his neighbours are presumably worried for him, Die Hard dude’s villains are trying to save their own skin.

What did this man do to suffer? Die Hard dude is devoted to his job, his family doesn’t leave for no reason and isn’t endangered for no reason. It’s a moral dilemma that he struggles with, rooted in the hero’s personality and informing his character arc. Job is just there, changes nothing and learns nothing.

In general, there has to be some motivation for the hero to start his (we’re talking about classic tropes here) journey and people around him and his property (sometimes seen as the same thing…) being endangered is the most convenient one. The interesting part is how he reacts to this situation - which couldn’t be more different between Die Hard dude and Job, as I said above.

Person suffers, then gets happy end - that’s every classic story ever told by anyone (bad endings are a new-fangled modern thing).

Edit: it is 4am i cannot fucking believe i wrote a wall of text about this. i havent even watched any Die Hard in years and years, never mind read the fucking Bible. fuck.

Edit2: McClane. I knew the name was somewhere in my brain. Yes I have the world’s knowledge at my fingertips shut up I also have perfectionism and I only took 3 hours to remember so there.

You’ll have to explain that. Where Job refuses to have a character arc, staying completely passive, watching people around him die, until the very end (and even then only goes whining to his god), Die Hard dude is everything but passive and even willing to risk his own life for others. What do they have in common?

なければ is the negated subjunctive of ある, so very literally it means something like “if this isn’t the case/doesn’t happen/doesn’t come to pass”. It’s not easy to translate.

いけません literally means “cannot go/work”.

So what you’re saying is “if this doesn’t happen (/if I don’t do this), it won’t do (so I have to do it)”.

Edit: Oh and don’t expect every grammatical pattern to have a translation that makes sense. Some of them you just need to memorise.

You can turn it off. Opt-out is still bullshit.

Who said 15 and 1985? Some people had so much potential at 5 in 1988.

I don’t have a career which means that this one isn’t about me at all. So I got that goin’ for me which is nice.

Yep, not just there. I don’t know if it’s going to change anything fundamental but I agree with the sentiment and if nothing else, it’s a statement of solidarity with other people who might feel like everybody around them is giving in to the slopshittification.

I don’t know what being American or otherwise has to do with it btw.

Intermittent fasting, 16 hours of fasting, 8 hours eating period. It simplifies the problem to “am I allowed to eat right now or not”.

So the dopamine you get from being with me must be very low. I see. Mhm.

Oh no, wasn’t he vaccinated?

Pages can “trend” on Wikipedia…?

I agree, definitely. But here we are, the reality is that people read first paragraphs at best (which there can be valid reasons for) and take away “ah yes, Hawking radiation is a thing black holes do, science says so”. A reader who is interested further and has the mental capacities after working 8 hours 5 days a week to scroll down and read about experimental observations might also realise “oh wait, it isn’t actually clear whether it does exist” but you can’t expect that from everybody (unfortunate as that may be).

This particular instance may be harmless because it probably doesn’t affect anything in everyday life. But in general I think a first paragraph in an encyclopaedic source that wants to inform the general public should be very clear about it when a thing is hypothesised and hasn’t been shown to exist.

Okay, might have worded that better. It says “The radiation was not predicted by previous models” and “is predicted to be extremely faint”, not “it is predicted to exist” - and also “[it] is many orders of magnitude below […]” which sounds like a statement of fact. I realise this may be nitpicky but I don’t know if people who don’t know anything about the subject would interpret that as “we don’t really know if it even exists yet”.

Yes, I know, but realistically, many (most?) people just want brief, general information, which is what the introductory paragraph is for, no? So I’d argue it should say “hypothesised” or “predicted” somewhere in the, ideally, first sentence.