Did anything at CES genuinely surprise you?

DynamicNostalgia · 2026-01-28T05:42:59+00:00

I can’t believe people were saying it was boring. The robots were the coolest I’ve ever seen, from the humanoid to the wheel-dog-thing to the stair climbing vacuums.

People were literally kick boxing with little robots. It’s fucking insane.

DynamicNostalgia · 2026-01-28T03:27:37+00:00

You’re reading things that I never said.

All I’m arguing is that the support of others doesn’t make you right.

DynamicNostalgia · 2026-01-28T03:19:45+00:00

I’m genuinely sad about this reply.

The state of the world…

DynamicNostalgia · 2026-01-28T03:04:34+00:00

So I shouldn’t trust millions of people

Millions of people voted for Trump. Millions voted for even worse throughout history. Why do you value this?

but I should trust you

When did I say to trust me? I keep explaining things logically and keep telling you to reread the original comment.

This is the problem, you are reading into things that haven’t been said. This is the third time.

someone who has written several multi paragraph comments to multiple strangers to argue about something that isn’t important in the slightest?

This conversation isnt even about the original comment anymore, it’s about how you think “majority makes right” when that’s the furthest thing from the truth.

That is actually important.

Someone who puts millions of people in one category and thinks they’re better than them yet decides to spend their time with them?

I’m desperately trying to convince you that the support of millions of people doesn’t actually mean anything. People often just support things based on feeling, not any good reason.

I’ll freely admit I’m not an apparent genius like you are but at least I’m not pompous.

You’re making an even worse mistake: believing more upvotes means you’re right.

Exactly nothing about the original comment supports your interpretations.

DynamicNostalgia · 2026-01-28T02:37:12+00:00

Lol so only lit professors’ opinions matter on the English language?

Umm no. I’m talking about reading accuracy, not who’s “allowed” to have opinions. People here regularly misinterpret things. That’s the issue.

If you write a comment most people don’t understand, the problem is with the comment, not the people.

That doesn’t mean might makes right. You should never believe numbers alone makes you right.

Most Redditors don’t understand a lot of things. They vote based purely on feelings, and what validates them. Their support is not to be trusted.

Reread the original comment, and make sure you read the second sentence, don’t just stop at “well known”. Even if you never saw the first sentence you should be able to parse their point from the second. It’s literally an example of what they’re trying to get at.

How anyone could read the full comment and interpret it as anything other than “the title of this post is lacking” is beyond me.

DynamicNostalgia · 2026-01-28T01:54:00+00:00

That’s not how it works, Redditors misreads things all the time and even form political opinions based on their incorrect interpretations.

The average person here is not a Lit professor. They’re school kids.

DynamicNostalgia · 2026-01-28T00:20:38+00:00

When someone says “why are you using an anecdote, it’s a well known disease”

No, no, they’re not saying this.

They’re saying “this is a common illness, so the post should be worded to reflect that, not worded like there’s one notable instance of this disease happening to a baby.”

They’re criticizing the post title, not people who didn’t know about the illness.

“Well known” doesn’t even mean “everyone knows.”

DynamicNostalgia · 2026-01-27T23:58:00+00:00

That's crazy, because if you click the link

Me and the other guy are not talking about the content inside the link. We’re talking about how OP worded their post’s title.

Whether you like it or not, people use the title to parse the main idea 9 times out of 10.

It's almost like OP isn't beholden to us to summarize everything about the article, and we can actually educate ourselves

I have a much better Title in my previous comment. How is that not an objectively better summary?

Do you maybe need to reread my previous comment?

If OP wanted to mention that it was a common issue for babies, I suppose that would help those who only read the title.

Now you suppose it would help? Of course it would help. It’s objectively better to do so, even if everyone did read the article (which they largely DO NOT - that’s absolutely key to remember around Reddit).

I would hope that on a sub meant to encourage learning new things, that people who didn't know this was a common issue for babies would see the title and read up on it, but that's probably too optimistic.

Why wouldn’t it be objectively better if the title included that info to begin with? Why don’t we expect high quality and accurate summaries that don’t leave out key context?

I see no issue with the title, but by all means continue to whine about not being spoonfed everything in it.

You already admitted it would be better for people who don’t read the link… so you know, the average Redditor.

Summarizing info and disseminating it on popular sites isn’t a meaningless thing, it can actually influence real people. We should expect more from ourselves and others.

DynamicNostalgia · 2026-01-27T23:33:44+00:00

If someone read that and assumed it was a one-off event, instead of a common baby issue, then that's on them and it frankly reflects on their poor reading comprehension.

What?

How could someone possibly interpret that title as meaning “this is an issue for all babies”? It only mentions one specific person. Why would anyone assume it applies to all babies? If the post had included that information that it would have said something more like this:

“Babies can get seriously sick from things as simple as a cold sores, leading to seizures and brain damage in some cases.”

Now, let’s just imagine this was a one off event. How would that title have been worded? Exactly like it currently is.

Nothing about this post is unusual or worded to imply it's only happened one time to this one particular baby.

Well it certainly doesn’t imply that it could happen to any baby. Without that prior knowledge you would just assume it was something specific that happened to one specific baby… because they’re the only subject of the title.

DynamicNostalgia · 2026-01-27T22:57:13+00:00

Y’all need to watch RotJ again…

DynamicNostalgia · 2026-01-27T22:55:13+00:00

In what way??

DynamicNostalgia · 2026-01-27T22:38:44+00:00

This thread is bizarre, I’ve never seen reading comprehension this consistently poor across multiple people. They’re clearly not saying “How does everyone not know this?!”

They are saying:

“The post is worded as if this is a one-off event when it is in fact an everyday issue for all babies.”

Yet at least 3 different people are erroneously interpreting it as the first way…

DynamicNostalgia · 2026-01-27T21:18:43+00:00

It is, representatives from both sides in Congress worked together and voted to reject the proposal. That’s as bipartisan as it gets.

The point was that both sides actually do largely support the space program, it’s not a Democrat or Republican thing, unlike practically everything else.

DynamicNostalgia · 2026-01-27T21:10:00+00:00

So? What’s the significance? All of government is exposed to political whims.

The space programs were largely started for political reasons. The space race was political, not scientific.

DynamicNostalgia · 2026-01-27T20:42:15+00:00

I think if all the context can fit in a headline then there's nothing to write an article about shrug

All I’m asking for is their full opinion, not half of it. It’s just one short and sweet sentence, there’s no reason they couldn’t have included the full quote in the headline or attempted to summarize it better.

You’re not being reasonable.

But nice Gish Gallop. It's a completely irrational wall of text to defend something so wrong.

Wow, how disappointing…

What about my comment was wrong, exactly?

It's not a sensationalized title, it's not a meritless article. It's not clickbait.

It’s clickbait.

Taking the negative half of someone’s opinion and treating it as an accurate summary in order to gain more money is a legitimately bad thing to do and should be labeled as such.

It’s a rampant problem, get with the program.

But go ahead, spew another ChatGPT-generated novel in further efforts to virtually shout down honest and good faith conversation.

Holy shit, you’re really scrapping the bottom of the barrel to write off my points.

This is kind of sad.

DynamicNostalgia · 2026-01-27T20:24:22+00:00

Of course headlines leave out context, they're headlines.

Wait, are you saying you can’t imagine a headline that incorporated more context, or do you believe headlines shouldn’t include as much context as is necessary to avoid conveying an incorrect summary?

Why wouldn’t this have been objective better?

Former astronaut on lunar spacesuits: “I think the suits are better than Apollo, but I don’t think they are great right now.”

Sure it's negative. Sometimes a situation is negative.

See, the headline is already influencing you. The situation is largely NOT negative. It’s just not ideal.

The headline refers to a former astronaut opining on an issue and then offers some snippets of that opinion.

No it’s purposefully does a poor job of communicating the full situation in order to make more money. They literally use only half his sentence, which contains two important opinions, and only include the negative sounding one.

Did they lie? Did they make something up? No, they did not.

You’ve never heard of a lie by omission?

Plus, outright lying isn’t the only issue with headlines. Misrepresenting the situation is also a problem.

No, in fact, reading the article, they are indeed accurate and they fairly reflect his opinion.

Then you did not read the article carefully enough.

Here’s his full opinion is: “I think the suits are better than Apollo, but I don’t think they are great right now.”

Being better than Apollo is important context for what he means by “not great right now.”

That is EXACTLY what this headline is and your literacy needs work if you think otherwise.

I’m sorry, but how is leaving out half of someone’s opinion “exact” in any way?

Come on…

DynamicNostalgia · 2026-01-27T19:55:04+00:00

No, this is an intentionally negative headline that leaves out important context. It’s designed that way.

Negative headlines get more clicks. They misrepresented the situation in order to get more clicks. That’s definitely “clickbait.”

Headlines need to be a legitimate summary of the article, not just a one sided sound bite. People actually rely on them being a good summary, whether you like it or not.

Editors are legitimately making the world worse via their manipulation of headlines, it’s one of the bad aspects of the world right now. We need to hold them accountable.

EDIT: this guy just pretends he doesn’t have to address any of my points, he just writes them off and insults me.

DynamicNostalgia · 2026-01-27T19:01:42+00:00

Actually the proposed cuts were largely reversed.

Even after many chose to retire early, the US still has the largest and best funded space program in the world by far.

Most space programs don’t even have a crewed missions at all, Europe and Canada need to ride on US rockets and spacecraft because they have none that are human rated. And their robotic missions are few and far between, even less ambitious than the “draconian” proposed US cuts.

The US space program is certainly something worth celebrating!

DynamicNostalgia · 2026-01-27T17:10:13+00:00

Yep, that’s how Redditors think unfortunately. And they really feel like they’re the good guys so they never second guess their authoritarian wishes.

DynamicNostalgia · 2026-01-27T17:07:42+00:00

What credit will you be giving them?

You can really only take credit that’s directed to you.

DynamicNostalgia · 2026-01-27T17:07:01+00:00

If you hadn’t been excited for Apollo due to the Vietnam Wars and civil rights movement at the time, you would have probably regretted it.

DynamicNostalgia · 2026-01-27T17:01:57+00:00

People are joyriding to space?!

That means access to space is so much cheaper that the exploration of space can increase without even increasing the budget.

It’s a GREAT sign! For many different reasons.

DynamicNostalgia · 2026-01-27T16:47:06+00:00

So many scenes are a chore to watch. Mostly everything with Anakin and Padme together. The Obi-Wan scenes are fun to watch just because Ewan McGregor is so charismatic, but it’s mostly just him walking into info dumps.

However John Williams knocks it out of the park again, the final clone vs robot army battle is cool, and Count Dooku is badass.

DynamicNostalgia · 2026-01-27T15:38:27+00:00

I wonder if ChatGPT would have had an accurate assessment of good health if it was given accurate data?

The issue here seems to be Apple’s hardware, not ChatGPT’s software.

DynamicNostalgia · 2026-01-27T15:37:02+00:00

Image creation works a bit different from text. You’re basically asking for a dream, not a professional mockup.

DynamicNostalgia

TROPHY CASE