apolgy for bad english

where were u when guts get soul sliced

i was at house eating dorito when phone ring

“guts soul is kill”

“no”

Lemme do two shows:

Kings just had a premise too esoteric for this world. It was like a retelling of the story of king David set in modern times in a constructed world that’s like ours though the Bible doesn’t exist within that world. There’s all sorts of remixed biblical strangeness in it.

Jericho was like if one of those “mystery box” shows actually had a thought out plot that moved forward. Nuclear explosions go off around the country, not-Blackwater PMC guys work for not-Dick Cheney, and the main characters just keep getting sucked in to a ramp up for a post apocalyptic civil war.

I really disliked the first few episodes of Universe. The Battlestar Galactica reboot’s grimdark edge was bleeding in very strongly. The show does mellow out on that as it goes. The basic character friction is still there, but toned way down and characters are usually finding common ground.

The first words of the article:

So this is interesting. Just weeks after Google’s campaign to promote Android as being more secure than iPhone, the smartphone battle has taken a sudden twist.

My username is a play on a very esoteric old /tv/ meme.

My profile picture is one of my drawings from my worldbuilding project. It’s a froglike alien commando.

I use the aimlabs trainer to stay sharp.

The rule is essentially hidden if what I think are innocuous images contain a some image violating TOS. Which image is in violation? Which section of the TOS is it violating? I have no idea, therefore no idea how to follow the rule in the future.

They are not legally binding

So they have no duty of care with user’s personal data or privacy.

I don’t recall making a legal complaint. Something can be legal but mildly infuriating.

I use a variety for different things. My point isn’t imgur specifically, but how these hidden rules exist on different sites.

Myth: “The Polish military committed suicidal cavalry charges against German tanks in WW2.”

The myth was originally spread by Germany as propaganda to emphasize how Germany was technologically superior. The myth has largely stayed alive because it has become romanticized into a heroic act.

The truth is that Polish cavalry charged German infantry, successfully taking ground against them. German tanks counter-attacked and Polish cavalry sensibly retreated but some were killed. Images of the aftermath were used to start the myth.

“Stupid cats need the most attention.”

I figure that the Swiss Army knife my dad got me for Boy Scouts is really up there. Self explanatory why I suppose.

I can’t agree more strongly. The ad for the Neo felt like a cult recruitment video. It’s targeting people in their feels, not appealing to sensibility. Huge red flag. 99% of footage of a Neo in motion has been with in remote controlled by a person in a VR headset.

I double checked myself on some Chauchat machinegun facts, and then kind of went into a rabbit hole of inter-war French armament.

In 2026 the Neo robot, the figure 3 and the Tesla bot are going mainstream in countries like America and I’m pretty sure other western countries.

I am skeptical. The Neo robot is basically a Mechanical Turk with extra steps.

I can’t prove it but the Figure 3 gives me even more vaporware flags.

As for the Tesla bot, it’s the least scammy of the bunch, but this is on the “we promise to put robots in your house in 2026” scale. It wouldn’t be the first time Tesla overset expectations.

None of these companies are straightforwardly showing extended, unedited footage of these robots operating in full AI mode in an uncontrolled realworld environment for a reason.

Humanoid household robots are the new (edit: I suppose not new, but resurging) fascination, but they are dumb. If someone wants to automate away chores it’s going to be by increasing smarthome capabilities and integration, and/or by having improved standalone robots and automation, like roombas, if they aren’t going all in on integrated smarthome tech. Success in automation will be with specific use robots and pieces of automation, ideally working together, not a Cylon lumbering around.

Ziggy’s done messing around.

I grew up eating what most people consider very spicy food. I don’t care what level of spicy other people are comfortable with, but I’ve found that amongst certain types of people I have to be discreet about my preference for spicy food. Some people find it a novelty to gawk at which is just awkward.

If an art work has been popular for years, has won dozens of awards, is used by experts as an example of excellence, isn’t it ‘objectively’ good?

In this earlier definition looking for objective merit, it leans heavily on professional opinion. If a small number of individuals not thinking a work that is “objectively good” is good doesn’t change that, then the opposite must also be true. Therefore, if we have a situation where the critical consensus is that a work is bad, and only a small number of people think it is good, then we have a piece of art that is “objectively bad” by using the critical standards, but which is held onto by a small number of people who disagree.

At the top of this discussion I didn’t define “art” merely as visual pieces (I actually used examples of movie and games). So that art could be anything expressive- music, books, plays, movies, games, and beyond. I can think of art and artists not appreciated in their time, and then over time critical perception turned around.

This is all a long way of saying critical opinions are at the end of the day still opinions. That’s why even critics disagree with each other.

saying that something is objectively good does actually mean “for the majority”, because there is no singular point of absolute goodness to compare it to.

I agree completely that people use it like this.

If a piece of art was created 100 years ago and every professional critic of the time thought it was trash without any merit, and then 100 years later the critical reception of that same piece had changed and it was considered a piece of high art, is that piece of art objectively good? Objectively bad? Was it objectively bad 100 years ago and then somehow became good?

If an art work has been popular for years, has won dozens of awards, is used by experts as an example of excellence, isn’t it ‘objectively’ good?

If I don’t like that piece of art, am I wrong? Am I objectively incorrect of the opinions inside my own head?

Lots of people dislike award winning movies, songs, and games. Are those people measurably wrong? No. The plural of subjective opinions is not an objective one.