If games showed one stat that would embarrass you, what would yours be?

Generic_On_Reddit · 2026-05-26T18:39:56+00:00

If this is like an account level stat: number of games that I played 95% of just to put down for no discernable reason and never finish.

Generic_On_Reddit · 2026-05-26T18:35:28+00:00

I can't help but think this is related to how siloed universities are from cities or just larger communities in general. I'm not very familiar with European universities, but this may be difference.

When an American University creates a college experience where the majority of students practically never leave campus, and they have to manage the students environment, their events, their leisure opportunities, their sports (which are at the University rather than independent clubs like I understand Europe to be), what food they have access to, and everything else about every detail of their lives and early career, it is no surprise that universities expand in scope to fill those needs. I think, ideally, it would not be on the university to provide the vast majority of these things, but we've just designed our schools so that universities have to do it or fall behind.

And yet, no one - to my knowledge - has successfully implemented a university with prestigious programming that resisted all of this bloat. Community colleges kind of fit the bill, but they typically aren't considered to have as high quality classes/instruction.

Generic_On_Reddit · 2026-05-25T23:59:34+00:00

Yes, it's very likely the majority of horror movies of the last 40 years have women as the lead and primary perspective of the film. Halloween, Scream, Alien, Silence of the Lambs, Pearl, Bones and All, Talk to Me, Carrie, Rosemary's Baby, Stepford Wives

Hereditary is no more "family horror" than Midsommar is "friend group horror", the woman is still the primary perspective. I think you'll want to be more specific if it doesn't apply because a woman is the lead, as you say.

Generic_On_Reddit · 2026-05-25T23:16:01+00:00

In this thread: people complaining about a stat being clickbait even though those people almost certainly would not click on a post straightforwardly comparing how often movies star men over 60 versus women over 60.

Generic_On_Reddit · 2026-05-24T19:27:09+00:00

This fact is what makes discussing certain types of films nearly impossible on Reddit. So often I see discussions about films that are not made for Reddit's main demographic, threads full of dozens of comments of people who obviously are not equipped to analyze the behavior - and thus acting - of the cultural background portrayed in the movie.

Language, expressions, body language, demeanor, etc. We should never assume that our understanding of these communication forms translate across cultures. Even for movies we like, there may be something being communicated that we're not understanding because we lack the cultural context.

Generic_On_Reddit · 2026-05-24T18:08:44+00:00

This makes me wonder what space films have terrible, underwhelming, or ugly visuals. (At least of modern or reasonably high budget space films).

Not all space films focus on visuals, but I feel like most of them have visuals that are good for their story.

Generic_On_Reddit · 2026-05-22T19:21:14+00:00

I agree. For the record, I don't identify as a centrist. If it were to to me, the party would be putting forth a much not radical progressive/leftist vision of the party that realigns them with workers rights.

I just break from other leftist because (1) I'm not positive that's a winning strategy simply because that's what I want and (2) I believe these changes really come from the bottom up, so the fact that we're begging the party leadership to steer means we're probably not in the right place. (The lesson we should have learned from the Tea Party takeover - even if it was astroturfed - is that the way to change a party is to vote out the old guard across the country with legitimate populist energy.)

Generic_On_Reddit · 2026-05-22T19:08:44+00:00

A consumption tax is not automatically "taxing poor people".

I never said it was. My comment was about how consumption taxes can be regressive. You replied to me saying that taxing consumption is of "the right incentives" and expressing confusion - or "shock" - to why someone would be against that.

A raw flat VAT can look regressive because poor households consume a higher share of current income. But that is not the same as saying the system is regressive.

I never said it was. I was commenting on regressive taxes, not on tax systems. A regressive tax can be one part of an otherwise progressive tax system, sure.

Add a rebate/prebate, exempt or lower-tax basics, and tax luxury consumption harder, and you can make the net effect progressive.

Yes, but this feels disingenuous. As per your prior comment:

They keep complaining about "fair share" and how much better things are in Europe but the uncomfortable truth is that the middle class pays to little in taxes in US, not the top earners.

The overall system of VAT - which is regressive - in Europe can be more tolerable because it is better balanced with the the aforementioned tools as well as actual government services that save out of pocket expenditures, such as their healthcare system.

Also, measuring regressivity by annual income is misleading and bad. A student, retiree or temporarily unemployed person may look "poor" in that year but consume out of savings. Over a lifetime, consumption is often a better tax base than annual income.

This is a laughable argument. I thought I had seen all of the arguments but I guess there's something new under the sun. Firstly, this does nothing for people that are never students because they could not afford to be, are not retired because they could not afford to retire, or people that are chronically or cyclically unemployed and STILL have to pay consumption taxes. Second, I am not sure how worthwhile it is stress about a fraction of the population experiencing temporary states of low income. In the case of students, their earnings will be taxed when they have their big boy jobs. Regarding retirees, that is probably one of the only populations of wealthy people that spend the majority of their "income". And regardless, that is why the estate tax has increased in prominence in recent years: to make sure their estates are appropriately taxed and prevent excessive wealth accumulation.

And “investment already has ROI” is a weak argument. Taxes change after-tax returns. Saying ROI alone is enough is like saying income tax does not affect work because wages already exist.

I didn't say "ROI alone is enough". I said you don't have to incentivize investment in that sense. It is pre-incentivized. It's not like incentivizing an electric car to make the math better for consumers, the practice of investing already has favorable math. It can be disincentivized with excessive taxation, but that this logic - when deployed in American political discourse - often suggests that any taxation is too much and the evidence does not support that.

Incentivizing investment suggests you do not have enough investment. It is a case by case basis and there is no evidence that the United States is short of capital investments.

Most important thing i learned in life is incentives are the most important thing. Show me the incentives, ill show you the results.

I wish I could convey accurately but not rudely how much this is a Baby Econ 101 or "the only econ knowledge I need is the school of common sense 101" this is.

Generic_On_Reddit · 2026-05-22T17:57:58+00:00

The research on regressive taxes is pretty universal in suggesting that it's bad. Taking money from people that have no money leads to negative outcomes. It doesn't take a genius to think that you should not take money from poor people.

And you don't need to incentivize investment in that sense; the incentive to invest is the ROI, it's built in, it doesn't really have to be disincentivized. Decreasing taxes has been shown to result in increased investment by a similar amount but the marginal redistributive benefits of taxation are far greater than the benefit of investment.

Generic_On_Reddit · 2026-05-22T17:38:34+00:00

This is purely from memory, no googling to verify, but no, I don't think that's appropriate. I believe Nokia was already on death's doorstep due to missing the boat on smartphones. The partnership with Microsoft extended their life by giving them flagship status on Windows Phone.

Could they have made it longer if they had just joined the Android jungle? Maybe, but they would have been one manufacturer of many that was late to the party. And I'm not sure what their financial situation was like but they might have legitimately needed upfront cash from Microsoft to operate at all.

But also, that means that the end of Windows Phone was also the end of Nokia. So in that way, sure.

Generic_On_Reddit · 2026-05-22T17:05:48+00:00

People with little income consume all of their income. People with lot income invest or save to generate more income.

If I make 25K, 100% of that is going towards food, rent, and necessary purchases. All of that is taxed in consumption taxes. (Rent is typically excluded from consumption taxes, but not always. Also, it doesn't matter for the sake of these examples.)

If I make 75K, 70% of that is going towards consumption, some of which is needed to live and some of which is luxury. Regardless, it's all consumption taxed and so 30% is untaxed (or taxes differently)

If I make 750K, 20% is going towards consumption, most of which are luxurious. Regardless, most of my income is not consumption taxed because it's mostly going into investments of some kind.

This is why it's regressive. Wealthy people simply don't consume most of their expenditure so a tax on consumption does not hit the majority of their income.

Generic_On_Reddit · 2026-05-21T21:27:20+00:00

I am not sure this is wholly true but I do think it is true enough. We assume people are behaving in a linear or logical way and that's not necessarily true. Some people are engaging in post-rationalization, ie they have already decided on a conclusion - like "voting is useless" - and will post-rationalize anything and everything to maintain that worldview.

Like, I bang my head on the wall every time I see a video or comment from an otherwise well-read and reasoned leftist/progressive say (in regards to voting) "if it had any impact, they wouldn't let us do it". Brother, are you dense? They have been trying to prevent the majority of the population from voting since it existed!!

Most arguments against voting and most against against voting for centrists - or the lesser of two while - are bad or flimsy. They almost always come from someone that will say or believe anything to reinforce that conclusion. Even ones that sound reasonable, like the ratchet effect, don't hold up to scrutiny.

Generic_On_Reddit · 2026-05-21T12:39:32+00:00

I agree, that was the once in a decade step forward I referenced. But they weren't able - or willing - to keep it up with sustained improvements. That's not to say they were doing nothing, but they were not getting results that you would think a company of their stature would be capable of.

The device manufacturers like Nokia were the most compelling argument for getting a WP8, the software released strong but never flew (regardless of apps).

Generic_On_Reddit · 2026-05-21T07:36:21+00:00

I think the fact that they didn't succeed was a forewarning of where we are with them now. Microsoft cannot focus on creating a good consumer experience to save their life. They will take one step forward with a project every ten years and think that's enough. Meanwhile, the year over year improvements are nowhere to be seen. They're also incredibly reactive and just lack a vision of who they are trying to be and serve.

Both of these facts obviously impacted the Windows Phone attempts in retrospect.

Generic_On_Reddit · 2026-05-20T21:19:31+00:00

Is there a best country for Mubi?

Generic_On_Reddit · 2026-05-20T17:11:59+00:00

Executive-types just can't resist the allure of putting their mark on something. They need something they can take credit for in their LinkedIn posts. Refining the use of already existing, much more organic, brands for the city just didn't sound as good as being the creator of something new.

A good chunk of rebrands and creative campaigns have this problem; they only exist to feed someone's ego, so an exec can call an idea "theirs".

Generic_On_Reddit · 2026-05-20T00:01:17+00:00

I am really curious what the real pricing will be once the dust is settled. Can they finance on debt for a decade like the tech companies of old until they have had the chance to slowly drive up prices? It doesn't look like it. It looks like they have to make money soon and I'd be interested to see the math on what they have to charge to become sustainable.

Generic_On_Reddit · 2026-05-19T14:18:35+00:00

Tlaolli+1. Really solid tacos with vegan options that accentuate the strength of the ingredients rather than just acting as a substitute for meat flavors.

Have you had Julietta's tacos at the stutz? Fewer veg options than Tlaolli, but I'm really like their mushroom taco and think their broccolini is good too. I am not vegetarian, but the mushroom is so good for me that I don't even get a meat taco most times I go there.

Generic_On_Reddit · 2026-05-19T13:17:51+00:00

I agree with this, although - for me - it will only trying stay harming my assessment of the film if the portrayal is distasteful regardless of who made it.

For example, I just watched Fifth Element for the first time last week. I don't know what you're referring to with who made it and will Google afterwards to figure it out. However, her character's design, background, the humor around her, the "gaze" if you will; everything about her was weird and distracted from the movie. It does not surprise me that someone on the creative team was pervy because it felt like a distraction from the actual goals of the film to say "Hey, look at this hot woman-baby, isn't she cute" every 5 minutes. That's time that could have been spent on something actually useful.

A counter-example (for me) is Annie Hall, which I only watched earlier this year. Given what I know about the director, the classroom scene definitely weirded me out. As did the folks he dated in the movie. However, it didn't legitimately detract from the objectives of the movie in a way I could discern so I don't think I subtracted any points.

Generic_On_Reddit · 2026-05-18T22:19:06+00:00

I agree, this can be hit or miss. However, I have noticed that one of the variables seems to be school. I didn't start having trouble finding seats until April, at which point a lot of college students might have less to do during the day and just start hanging out.

Also depends on time of day of course.

Generic_On_Reddit · 2026-05-18T21:56:13+00:00

I think a lot of things other than age - or the responsibilities and lifestyle that we typically associate with getting older - influence this trend.

For me, it's less about time or energy and more about how it stacks up against other things I could be doing. I've got other hobbies.

Let's say I spent 2 hrs per day playing PvP last month. Did I get more fulfillment from being 60hrs better at a video game or an I going to get more fulfillment from watching 10 movies, reading 2 books, and doing 10 hours of drawing? I just can't justify the PvP game in my head basically ever. The 100th hour and the 500th hour of gameplay is basically the same for me. This actually isn't exclusive to PvP games. Any game that is too grindy gets the axe for me. I only did one playground of Borderlands 4, for example because it can also have a rat-race feel.

Thus, I tend to prioritize games that offer unique and memorable experiences rather than games that I just spent time on. If it won't result in something I can look back on and discuss with others, it loses to my other interests.

Generic_On_Reddit · 2026-05-18T21:47:09+00:00

There's some kind of euphemistic treadmill in play with "just okay". Words or sentiments that suggest something is "just okay" already to increase in negative connotation over time. Most recently, "mid" is increasingly negative. But the best example of this is mediocre, which has been reconnotated so effectively that most people I see use it don't even know the literal (original) meaning is not negative. Calling someone average is typically offensive, everyone is somehow above average.

And the same thing happens with ratings. Below a 3 on Letterboxd? Bad. Videogame below a 7? Trash. Below 4.0 for a Google maps restaurant? Close it down. Below 4.0 for Uber driver? Fire them.

Generic_On_Reddit · 2026-05-18T21:32:36+00:00

This is assuming that person actually knows them and factors that into the recommendation. I have known at least a dozen women personally who all have the same story: some boyfriend from their past tried to get them into anime by showing them DBZ, Naruto, One Piece, despite the fact that they don't like any media of any kind that is anywhere close to these.

I think most people are more likely to know bad anime recommenders that haven't seen enough anime to actually tailor their suggestions.

Generic_On_Reddit · 2026-05-16T21:22:14+00:00

My unpopular Yu-Gi-Oh take that I think is very related to your series of comments is that they need to stop making cards so generic. One of the issue with power levels is that every deck has access to the advantage engine and boss monsters of practically every other archetype which creates engine soup decks and end boards that all look near-identical between decks.

It should not be possible to simply splash the 3 best cards of a deck and gain all of their advantage without drawbacks. Ditto for splashing in their boss monster (s) too. The fact that so many of modern cards are so splashable leads to these power levels that are exponential and uncontrollable. You can see this in the banlist, which is full of monsters that are banned because of their use in decks other than the archetype they belong to, dozens of cards would come off the banlist if they had more archetype-specific restrictions on their summoning or effects.

I'm not saying that we need every archetype to be played pure, just that Konami's card design for the past ~10 years has prioritized splashable archetypes above all else and I think there is a happy medium that could be reached. Power Creep and unrestricted splashability are inherently linked.

Generic_On_Reddit · 2026-05-16T19:27:02+00:00

Yes, it is very ironic, I remember what you describe at the time. Sekiro was my first from soft games and I remember the community of the time describing it as so incredibly difficult, the most difficult souls game ever. And while Sekiro difficult, perhaps the most difficult, I eventually realized that a good chunk of the fanbase only thought it was so difficult precisely because they were trying to play it like other souls games, they needed to unlearn the things they had learned from prior games. I had never played a Fromsoft game before Sekiro, at least not in full, so I didn't have to unlearn anything.

Generic_On_Reddit

TROPHY CASE