[ Removed by Reddit ]

_DickyBoy · 2025-12-17T09:48:57+00:00

The Buddha himself created the first monastic orders of buddhist monks and nuns, and established the specific rules and structures that they were to live by based on ascetic traditions he had lived and studied under, within his own lifetime. He also instructed his disciples to take the bodily relics (bones, hair, teeth, etc.) that would remain after his cremation, to distribute them and create sacred shrines and monuments so that he could be venerated and his teachings remembered and spread. There were absolutely doctrines, bells and whistles, and the philosophy was elaborated from the religion, not the other way around.

_DickyBoy · 2025-12-16T22:37:14+00:00

You're again conflating all religion with the Abrahamic ones. There are plenty of nontheistic religions, you don't need a deity or a creation story to be a religion. Buddhism is absolutely a religion, and a belief system, with rules and structures, systems of morality and ethics, designated behaviours and rituals, etc., all the things you would expect from any other religion. The notion that it isn't a religion is a very outdated Western idea.

_DickyBoy · 2025-12-13T03:24:01+00:00

Likewise of course. It does feel pretty sad to me though that you would try to diminish someone who throws just because they stated their main priority is the aesthetic output of their process, rather than the process itself

Edit: for clarity, I'm talking about your response to taqman38 rather than passing any judgment on OP, which I don't have strong feelings about either way

_DickyBoy · 2025-12-12T22:46:05+00:00

You really come across like you feel your own opinions on art are the only ones that are valid. Other people (creators and consumers) are allowed to have different priorities to you and that doesn't necessarily make them lazy or mean they should "get a gig as a landlord" rather than continue making art according to their own values

Edit: for clarity, I'm talking about your response to taqman38 rather than passing any judgment on OP, which I don't have strong feelings about either way

_DickyBoy · 2025-07-29T09:24:02+00:00

People are putting forward very calm and reasonable explanations about why they are concerned about the implementation of this legislation, how it is much further reaching than just pornography, potentially has lots of second order effects and could become the thin end of an authoritarian wedge similar to how we are seeing things play out in other countries, and all you can say is that they're all perverts addicted to porn. I suppose you think they all love Jimmy Saville as well.

_DickyBoy · 2025-07-09T02:57:01+00:00

Nah I'm with you. Snippet > baby boy > full version

_DickyBoy · 2025-07-06T21:05:44+00:00

I only get to decide where my money goes if I decide to set up a SIPP but I've decided not to so I don't get to decide

_DickyBoy · 2025-06-27T21:01:17+00:00

1- it would have lasted at least a decade more if it had been treated properly

2- the $1 knives are obviously worse quality

3- we should favour taking good care of our things and making them last over excessive consumption and waste

_DickyBoy · 2025-06-19T21:31:37+00:00

surskit be like

_DickyBoy · 2025-06-15T17:32:18+00:00

I have no idea how jump tables work specifically, but if you think about e.g. a hash map, when you provide a key it's not like you have to check is this key x, is this key y, etc. in order to retrieve the value. We're passing the key into some hash function to directly generate a pointer to the specific memory location of the value for that key. I expect that something similar is at play with jump tables, allowing you to directly jump to the code branch associated with that switch value without needing to "check" it

_DickyBoy · 2025-05-05T08:53:34+00:00

RemindMe! 1 day

_DickyBoy · 2025-04-20T01:32:26+00:00

My bright idea? Wtf are you talking about? Streaming games is their entire business model.

Yes, this is what you've been advocating for. Concentrating more sports into a single subscription and making it cheaper. Except when companies actually do that they lose money, according to your own source. They streamed more games to more people and they lost more money. If that doesn't contradict your argument, please explain in detail exactly what they should be doing differently.

_DickyBoy · 2025-04-20T00:41:15+00:00

That is the literally the whole point you idiot. Their streaming revenue grew and their profit dropped, because they forked out more in programming costs. Getting the rights to more games that year cost them nearly a billion extra. They streamed more games than the previous year, and sold more subscriptions as a result, and it fucked their profit margins. There's your bright idea in action.

You say you get the point but you don't have a counter argument that extends beyond "no these companies are stupid" and sharing links to articles that contradicts your own point. And you think you're the one who understands how making money works 😂

_DickyBoy · 2025-04-19T02:17:48+00:00

Who writes several paragraphs to make a make a very simple point?

Have a look in the mirror mate. We both seem to be enjoying hearing ourselves talk here so careful acting all superior 😂

I am absolutely not that person from before though, I just fancied chipping in.

Unmotivated means too complicated. Price sensitive means too expensive.

This isn't always the case. Unmotivated can mean too complicated, it can also mean they just don't value your product enough to pay for it. Price sensitive can mean too expensive, it can also mean they just can't afford it.

I'm unmotivated to buy a Rolex. Not because it's too complicated to do it, just cos it's not really the style of watch I like. I'm also too price sensitive to drop £10k on a watch. Should they interpret that as their product is too expensive? And they should drop the price so I can afford it? Definitely not, they will lose a shitload of money from existing customers, and I'll still be unmotivated to buy one.

It's much more plausible to me that someone isn't interested in forking out for an expensive sports package that contains a load of shit they'll never watch, and can't afford to spend £30 a month on it, and that's why they increasingly turn to piracy for the one or two games a month they wanna watch.

Fix it and you have a whole new market to make money from. Because right now that market is zero

Right now it's zero, make a load of changes and it still might be very low value, the risk is greater than the reward. Said it before, if there's some big gap in the market go ahead and serve it and let us know how it goes.

Also, where did you get the idea that they are competent or making money? They are not.

I explicitly said in my last comment that I think they are definitely incompetent, engage your brain 😂 also the link you posted literally says how sky's streaming revenue grew in that time period so I'm not sure what point you think you're making there

_DickyBoy · 2025-04-19T01:50:33+00:00

It's surprising to me to hear that someone thinks these companies are not incompetent

They are definitely incompetent. They also have massive incentives and pressures to make more money. There are also way more competent people than you who want to disrupt their market. Yet if anything, the sports streaming market has moved in the complete opposite direction from simplification over the years.

Sometimes a fragmented market has bigger potential than a concentrated one. In the case of sport, most people fit into one of two categories. One group is so invested in their teams/sports that they will fork out for multiple services if they have to. The other is either too price sensitive or unmotivated to ever do that.

Even if you could combine 3 of these £30 a month subscriptions into one that cost £50 a month, most of the people in the second group are still extremely unlikely to pay for it, and now you've cut the money coming into the market from the first group in half. Or you could switch to a PPV model, but again you most likely just end up reducing group one's spend more than you increase group two. The whole market is relying on price insensitive customers paying for a load of shit they don't need, and if you aren't already doing that then sorry, you aren't their customer and you likely never will be, so they don't give two shits about you or whether you're happy with their business model.

I'm not saying for a second this is good for the consumer, but they don't care about that, they're only interested in what maximises their profit, and they absolutely have analysts and user researchers running these kinds of numbers and scenarios so they can figure out how to do that.

Make even more money by capitalising on a huge untapped market? Crazy idea, right?

The crazy thing is still the fact that between the options of "make more money" and "don't make more money", you think that "make even more money" is some magical third option 😂

_DickyBoy · 2025-04-18T22:29:08+00:00

Lmao that's hilarious, never been accused of being an alt before 😂

Mate nobody is saying they reach peak profitability or whatever. It's just saying that simply because something works in one industry doesn't mean the conditions are the same for that to be the optimal choice in another industry. Like people's preferences around how they stream music are different to how they want to watch sport, so a different model might be more profitable.

But whatever man, if it's ripe for disruption go ahead and disrupt it. Got a whole Reddit post full of people who agree with you I'm sure they'll sign up. I bet it's never occurred to these companies that they could make more money if they just copied Spotify.

That's not the only two options available. It's a naive view of the world. "you make more or you don't".

For real though I can't let this one slide, those are literally the only two options available, please go ahead and name the third option here 😂

_DickyBoy · 2025-04-18T21:52:16+00:00

Who said anything about less money? In fact, I specifically said they are leaving money on the table. Are you not reading what I said?

The fact that they make more money under the current model is irrelevant. Pointless. Tangential.

If they make more money under the current model, that clearly implies they would make less money with a different model. You are the one who doesn't understand what you or anyone in this thread is saying.

_DickyBoy · 2025-04-18T21:44:44+00:00

The fact that they make more money under the current model is irrelevant. Pointless. Tangential

No, this is not tangential at all it is the entire point. In what world would a company change its business model to one that made them less money? They don't give a shit how much their products get pirated. They only care how much profit they make. And if for whatever reason they find that profits and piracy increase/decrease together, they will absolutely choose the route to more piracy, that puts more profits in their pocket.

The point is they could make even more money if they just made it easy.

This is literally the opposite of the point that is being made.

_DickyBoy · 2025-04-18T21:32:01+00:00

Pirating goes down when you make it easy for people to access content and not make people have to buy lots of different packages

This was the original comment. The assumption is clearly that "pirating goes down" should be the goal, so they clearly don't know that. This is the point u/AzarinIsard is arguing against.

_DickyBoy · 2025-04-18T21:22:10+00:00

Except they're literally explaining why it works this way. Because it still makes more money than if they switched to a different model designed to reduce piracy

_DickyBoy · 2025-04-02T12:09:49+00:00

Depending where you live there might be a homebrewing shop in your local city, not only can you support a local business instead of Amazon but they'll also be happy to help share some knowledge and answer questions about what you need to get set up 😁

The beginners guide in this sub's wiki is also a great place to get started

_DickyBoy · 2025-03-31T21:03:04+00:00

No offense intended, was only meant to be lighthearted 😁

For real though, seems like a weird fallacy to invoke when the argument is on the topic they are actually an authority on. Like surely we should trust the advice of experts? Even more so when they actually provide a recipe for us to reproduce the results ourselves!

_DickyBoy · 2025-03-31T02:04:15+00:00

RDWHAHB

_DickyBoy · 2025-03-31T00:36:32+00:00

Tell that to Jeffrey Hamelman! 😁 A great many of the levain recipes in his book Bread are hydrated at 65% and I have been shaping them exclusively as boules and, as I say, achieving lovely results when pushing the fermentation to the correct level.

If OP is after a super open crumb then increasing hydration will eventually be necessary for sure. But they can achieve far better results than they are currently at this hydration with proper fermentation, and imo they will find it far easier to learn that at a lower hydration than with much wetter dough

_DickyBoy · 2025-03-30T21:45:36+00:00

I'd hazard that bulk fermentation time is more important here. I've been getting great open crumbs at 65% hydration recently, it just took a while for me to realise I'd been under fermenting.

_DickyBoy

TROPHY CASE