• 0 Posts
  • 51 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle







  • My usual go-to is to ask what their latest/current obsession is. It works really well for a few reasons:

    • it’s nice and simple to ask - it doesn’t require a monologue/wall of text to set up, and it doesn’t require you to know anything about them to ask it;
    • it’s both as personal and as low-stakes as they want it to be. They can give very intimate, in-depth answers if they feel like it, or they can just mention something like the latest film they enjoyed. There’s no risk of making them uncomfortable by asking it;
    • it lets you filter out boring people who don’t really take interest in anything;
    • assuming they do have interests, it often gives you plenty of opportunities to dive into deeper conversation;
    • it’s often engaging for them because they get to talk about something they’re passionate about;
    • it’s often interesting for you because people talking about things they’re passionate about is awesome (and often attractive).
    • it’s pretty much always relevant and fresh because their latest obsession will change over time. This makes it particularly great for things like dating sites/apps because people’s bios will often be out of date and/or they’ll have talked about the things mentioned in their bio so much that they’re kind of sick of them.

    I’ve actually had multiple people on dating sites tell me how great a question they think it is, and that they’re going to use it themselves in the future. So obviously it’s not just me who thinks it’s a great question!


  • People can be angry or upset about more than one thing at a time. And you’ve no idea whether the person you responded to has been outraged about the US’ strikes or not. Just because a society as a whole has a viewpoint that trends a certain way doesn’t mean you can assume each and every individual you talk to has that exact viewpoint.

    By all means, criticise society as a whole - it’s a very valid thing to be critical of. But making assumptions about individuals - and being rude to / critical of them based on those assumptions - isn’t the way to win anyone over.


  • Well I’m just glad Harry Mack managed to release his 100th episode of “Omegle Bars” this week. He decided to take a break from doing Omegle-based content at the right time, it seems.

    For anyone who doesn’t know, Harry Mack’s a freestyle rapper. He has (had) a series where he’d ask strangers on Omegle to give him a handful of words and then create a full song out of them on the fly. And not just saying those words then immediately moving on like most freestyle rappers do; he actually creates entire verses on the topics he’s given and really raps around them. Plus he’d be calling out things the people were doing as they react to him, responding to things they say, mentioning things he can see in the room, etc, as he raps.

    Here’s one of his freestyles that’s really stuck with me ever since I first saw it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehcA4zCeaPI

    He takes what are some fairly negative, “cry for help” words from the girls and turns them into a really beautiful, positive rap overall. He’s a very positive guy in general, and I’ve watched him consistently since I discovered him. Binging his videos got me through a breakup, in fact.


    My own experiences with Omegle have either been penises or just bland, and it’s not something I’ve used for many years as a result. But videos like Harry Mack’s show what wonderful things could come from it and I do think it’s a huge shame it’s gone. It feels like another part of the old internet’s gone, and that we’re moving even closer to the sanitised, heavily-monetised internet run by megacorporations. I hate that.


  • Even if Starmer and the Labour party were pretty much the same except they kept the mask on, that would still be a step in the right direction. Normalising the racism, bigotry, corruption and general inhumaneness that fuels the Tory party is absolutely something we should try to avoid.

    However, I don’t think Labour is like this. I don’t think they’re perfect, but I think they’re much, much better. They’re not going to fix everything overnight, but I do think them getting into power would be an important first stepping stone in moving the country and politics towards being a better place in in 10-15 years. They may not be your ideal party but, if you’re pragmatic and have any kind of long-term vision, you’ll likely vote for them (or the Liib Dems, depending on which constituency you’re in) to make sure the Tories are eliminated.

    The Overton window is far too far to the right at the moment and Labour getting into power is important for helping to gradually shift it leftwards. People simply aren’t going to vote in a “radical” socialist in the current political or economic climate; they want someone they can see as a safe pair of hands who can work on stabilising things somewhat. Right now, that’s Starmer - the boring man who’s politically central (by current standards) with a fairly clean record and an air of competence. When, in most constituencies, the options are Labour and Tory, you working to put everyone off Labour is just going to benefit the Tories.

    Stop letting perfect be the enemy of good.



  • I think calling her the “second coming of Maggie” really undersells Braverman’s cruelty and capacity for evil. I think Thatcher really fucked up this country, and we’re still feeling the effects of some of her policies to this day. But Thatcher did genuinely think she was doing things for the right reasons - that she was making tough but necessary decisions.

    Braverman seems to get off on the cruelty. A lot of her policies and ideas seem cruel for the sake of cruelty. There are plenty of politicians I’ve disagreed with and disliked, but they’ve all tended to feel like it’s either because they were doing what I’d consider to be the wrong things for the right reasons (ie, they thought it would help, different approaches to what I’d want but with positive outcomes in mind, etc) or they’ve just been selfish, corrupt or idiotic. Braverman is a whole different thing entirely. The purpose of her policies is often the cruelty, with no tangible benefits that even she can list. She’s a genuinely evil person.


  • See, I love spreadsheets and being able to optimise things, but I do need to actually be able to feel the impact in the gameplay, too. And yeah, Destiny is terrible for that; the buffs and upgrades you do get just feel irrelevant, for the most part. Especially with the terrible scaling system they use where you never feel any stronger against weaker enemies, just weaker against stronger enemies. When getting a huge numerical upgrade (in terms of gear score) doesn’t change anything about how the game feels to play, I think that’s poor design.


  • I don’t think looter-shooters (and loot games in general) are inherently limiting, but loot needs to be exciting. I’ve played thousands of hours of Path Of Exile, and hundreds of hours of other looter games, and what holds my interest is interesting loot and build variety/depth. That simply doesn’t happen in Destiny. Compare Destiny to Borderlands, for instance, and you can see how boring the loot really is. Look at games like Path Of Exile, Grim Dawn, or Last Epoch, and you can see how boring the skill trees are. In all of those other games, I’ve had items drop where I’ve been excited to redo my entire build to accommodate it, or to make a new character built around it. In Destiny, items just don’t feel exciting enough. (Not every game needs to be as complex as Path Of Exile, but Destiny is incredibly shallow.)

    And, of course, Destiny’s story has consistently been disappointing. There’s some great lore there, but they’ve failed to translate that into a well-told, engaging story over and over again.





  • I always find this discussion interesting. I don’t personally tend to play Paradox games at all so I’ve no real horse in the race, but I don’t think there’s anything particularly wrong with the model. It’s designed around people being able to buy the specific parts they want, and those specific things having a good level of quality / depth to them.

    Like, if you’re really into early 20th century Japanese architecture, would you rather have a single house thrown into a “kitchen sink” DLC pack that you can copy-paste over and over into your city with no options to customise or expand on that, or would you prefer an entire DLC dedicated to that style so you can build a full district or city in that style?

    And conversely, if you’re not into early 20th century Japanese architecture, would you rather have a single house in that style thrown into your DLC pack that you don’t care about and won’t ever use, or would you prefer your DLC pack to contain things you are interested in?

    Maybe the average consumer does look and think “wow, I really need to spend $404.40 to be able to play the game” and decide against it, I don’t know. But personally, if I see a game has DLCs like “specific niche cosmetic option pack #2” then I see them as not at all necessary, and figure I can play the base game first and just buy any additional packs I want later.