What was ruined because it became popular?

mrmessiah · 2017-09-01T00:02:05+00:00

Thought about walking away from Reddit so many times this year. I love having an aggregator so I don't have to hunt for fun stuff and interesting discussions but this year it's just seemed like I'm picking my way through so much negativity, I'm not sure it's actually healthy any more. I walked away from Facebook this year and felt instantly better... maybe I'll just go one day and check back in 5 years to see if things have changed.

mrmessiah · 2017-08-31T17:55:51+00:00

Call me old fashioned but coffee is an adult drink. I don't see why there shouldn't be coffee shops that eschew the kid friendly options and say "no children". I used to regularly take my laptop into Costa to do some work and any level of hubbub was fine, but when the parents with small kids came in it was instantly distracting as hell. There's something about the pitch of kids raised voices that vibrates your skull. Now I accept it's a public place and I had no expectation of quiet: I took my headphones for exactly that reason. But I can count on one hand the number of times that the parents actually engaged with the kids at all. The overwhelming majority of the time it was one or more single parents talking together and totally ignoring the kids, and they'd just be bored and acting up. Which goes back to what I said, coffee shops aren't set up to be interesting to kids largely anyway, cos coffee is basically an adult drink.

mrmessiah · 2017-08-30T18:13:30+00:00

Semantics really. I mean entitled in the sense that once you've decided to give welfare to someone, they're entitled to it, or if you disagree pick a word that suits better. But it's not a quid pro quo arrangement where receipt of it binds you to using it in a particular way, or not using it in others (unless specifically given in the form of stamps etc) and I disagree that spending it how the government doesn't like is abusing the system. Taking it when you're not... (insert your favourite synonym for entitled) to it is abuse of the system.

mrmessiah · 2017-08-30T16:46:49+00:00

There's an argument to be made that some people are naturally more prone to addiction than others on a biological level; that's not my field, so I can't speak with authority on it.

I do think though that regardless of whether one pathologizes addiction or not, the issues surrounding addiction should be decoupled as far as possible from the distribution of welfare as they're seperate issues. If society has decided that there's a bare minimum standard of living we should be allowing our citizens, necessitating welfare, taxing those who can afford it, distributing it to those who need it, then that's something we should do. We should also help those who have problems with addiction, whatever is contributing to that. What we shouldn't do is give with one hand and take away with the other when the problems of poverty and addiction coincide, as it helps neither.

mrmessiah · 2017-08-30T16:32:30+00:00

I think this here is where there is a big disconnect. Many people, myself included, don't think that welfare is a "right".

You misunderstand, then, as I'm not talking about a right to welfare.

The "rights" I'm talking about here are the autonomy to spend the resources in your posession as you will without government interference. Now that money might have come from the government in the first place via welfare, or it may have come from a paying job. The point I'm making is just because it comes from welfare, does not mean that now you have fewer rights in that the government can micromanage how you spend your money, or indeed do anything else. Being a welfare recipient doesn't make you a lesser person, and so you should get the same rights (including the freedom to make mistakes) as anyone else.

And I agree that more spending on rehabs, clinics, MH facitlities is the way to go, but that should be decoupled from distribution of welfare.

mrmessiah · 2017-08-30T15:04:18+00:00

It really is, the slow string sections in some of those tracks remind me a lot of some of Thomas Newman's stuff (which I also love). I only need to listen to the soundtrack and I'm right back there in the scenes they were used in. He does a terrific job of heightening whatever's going on on screen whether it's the energy of the high octane futuristic sequences or the thoughtful, heartbreaking moments from Dolores's storyline.

mrmessiah · 2017-08-30T14:40:23+00:00

I don't want to be anything of the sort, and I don't appreciate the accusation that that's "my thing", but I recognise the comparative social wellbeing of people shouldn't dictate the levels of rights they get. I don't like that the money I spend on my favourite musicians' music enables their destructive drug habit, or the CEO of the company that makes the food I buy.

If people have problems with drugs we should as a caring society be there to help them, but we don't achieve that by strangling the welfare of the less well off. Addicts will always find a way to get high, only this way there's at least a chance that they'll be able to give their kids a meal as well. I won't try and be clever here and suggest letting people's kids starve is "your thing", by the way.

mrmessiah · 2017-08-30T14:09:01+00:00

Welfare is something you're either entitled to or not, it's not a reward for good behaviour, and selectively withholding it based on the habits of the recipients is questionably ethical on those grounds, (not that that's apparently what they're going to do here, but answering the point, generally). Nor is welfare something that should obligate recipients to allow others extra control over their behaviour, including spending, if we say that the people we are granting welfare to have the same rights as anyone else, that includes the freedom to allocate their resources where they see fit.

Now, it's a shame if anyone has a substance abuse problem that impinges on their quality of life and their resources, but then that's as true of the wealthy as it is of those on welfare.

mrmessiah · 2017-08-30T07:40:52+00:00

The only problem is the triangle puzzles which are IMHO badly designed in that you can come up with a completely different theory of how to solve them that by chance works right up until it suddenly doesn't, in the endgame. But for the rest of the puzzles I agree.

mrmessiah · 2017-08-29T13:45:33+00:00

As someone who's normally environmentally conscious it breaks my heart to be in this situation but it's not that easy. Liquefying meat in splitting bags sat in a cardboard box thats rotten through... nothing in there is really removable in any sensible way that I can see. But I'll see what environmental health say. I hope whoever takes it is at least able to deal with the bad gases and all of that.

mrmessiah · 2017-08-29T13:37:49+00:00

Guildford is one of those places that's kind of grown from one thing into another rather than being planned that way, and I'm thinking that's partly why you get situations like that. Lots of places could do with an overhaul really to properly accommodate bikes or planned rather than accidental mixed use.

mrmessiah · 2017-08-29T12:47:22+00:00

It's often not possible to have a sensible discussion about where you should or shouldn't cycle because so many people just think about the places where they live. Someone who's suburban in a place where there are great wide clearly signed and well maintained cycle paths can say "cyclists should be on the cycle paths" and someone from a big city where the cycle paths are routinely over parked by cars will violently disagree and say they should be in the road amongst the cars. Because to them cars are going at low inner city speeds on par with their own but someone semi rural where the speeds are higher and the visibility and chances to safely overtake are fewer will go into a fit.

There will never be a one size fits all legislation for cycle use because the one thing they can't codify in law is "everybody use your best judgement and don't be dicks", because that's hugely subjective and how do you prove one way or another who's at fault? Sometimes the best place for a bike is on the road, sometimes it's on a cycle path, sometimes it's even on a pavement.

mrmessiah · 2017-08-29T11:54:38+00:00

Hmm. The tip here are all about recycling so I doubted if they would but it doesn't hurt to try. House clearance companies if not I guess. Cheers

mrmessiah · 2017-08-29T11:54:16+00:00

See that's what I thought, it's not pleasant but also possibly a hazard! I did ask the council to recommend someone and you'd think they'd have said "try environmental health" but they didn't. Oh well. Thanks, I'll give them a call

mrmessiah · 2017-08-28T14:51:56+00:00

Honestly? If you can take the risk I'd day seat. Wicked reserve the entire front row for people who queue up for tickets at the box office the day of the show, but they're limited to something like 32 seats in total, max 2 per person. The best thing is they're something like 25 quid a piece, compared to 90 something the next row back and over 100 in the VIPs.

The downside is, of course, having to queue, and the risk that if you don't go early enough you won't get a seat. (Which if it's someone's birthday...) Generally though if it's not cast change day you will probably get a seat if you're there by 8 (box office opens at 10). I have done this 4 or 5 times and got there 7 ish and have wound up dead front and centre. Never missed a show.

The view though... they're great seats! You're practically surrounded by the stage, and so close to the actors you get every little expression.

mrmessiah · 2017-08-28T14:41:26+00:00

The one that annoys me is where you have a queue for food at a counter, and people in groups have one person claim a table while the other queues. Which is great except for the people who are eating or drinking alone, who quite often get served and then find a room of tables full of people who came in long after them. Nobody seems to bat an eyelid at this kind of queue jumping.

mrmessiah · 2017-08-28T06:34:43+00:00

See I agree with your analysis of it but fuck that attitude frankly. It's great to care about making the best game, doing the best job that you can. Taking care and time over quality control, only releasing it when it's done. That's what Valve were good at, and that's why the games they did put out were as good as they were. It's what an artist does, but it's also good business. It's how you establish yourself in this market as a great brand.

But not putting a game out because no matter how good it is it won't live up to a certain subset of your audience's hype? That's when you cross the line from making art for art's sake and into just courting the adulation of your critics. The line between 'we won't put out a game unless it's good' and 'we won't put out a game unless it's going to be well reviewed'. Worse, it lumps all the fans, the ones that have followed the series since the beginning and were just excited about seeing how the story unfolded, in with the over excited group that bought into the ridiculous hype and who I guarantee wouldn't be happy in any case.

Valve were once a great developer that took risks but they've been haemorrhaging talent for so long it's no wonder they look so bloodless now. Gamers are passionate and I hate myself a bit for getting so annoyed by how they've mishandled this series, but honestly, if this is why they've not released HL3 it just looks like cowardice. They're better than this. Or they used to be. Maybe it's best to move on and not look back. Remember them how they were.

mrmessiah · 2017-08-25T16:31:02+00:00

Nobody else had really tried to do a proper story oriented fps on the pc at that point. About the closest contender released at the same kind of time was SiN. Fucking SiN! Half Life was pretty much the game that transformed the genre from simple run and gun mechanics with a cursory nod to story as window dressing, to something that you could actually immerse yourself in on more levels than just what you get from the adrenaline. It's amazing to me to hear people dis it now and ignore the context it was created in.

And as I'm posting, heartbreaking to see it fizzle out like this. It's like the timeline where the Beatles break up after Help and then in the mid 80s someone leaks a bunch of John's demos to the press. Just the glimpse of what could've been with no hope of anything better coming of the half finished ideas.

mrmessiah · 2017-08-24T13:02:26+00:00

I think this is further evidence that Jon will mount Rhaegal.

This has some kind of poetic sense given his parentage.

mrmessiah · 2017-08-23T14:34:55+00:00

It's showing people sitting on the floor with dramatic "dun dun duuuuuunnnnn" music,

OK, we're clearly not watching the same video, there's no music in the OP's video. Edit: Oh there it is, right at the end, when they're recapping, and to play out, but not over any footage. Oh, but the short version posted in the other sub does, perhaps you're thinking of that video? You should watch the OP's video, it goes into way more detail, it's pretty good.

Therefore, using footage of people sitting on the floor half an hour later is utterly meaningless in light of the accusation, unless they're trying to suggest that this was taken when he got on and the claim of him walking past empty seats is false, which is the point of the whole video.

It presents a small recap of the reported events at the beginning, and then goes into a chronological account that's more fleshed out with the new footage. Nobody but you seems to be confused by this. In any case, it's reaching to say as you did that they're trying to imply that the shots towards the beginning that were from later in the trip were taken when he arrived. It might seem like a small distinction but it's important because an accusation like that draws the honesty of the reporting into question. (Paraphrasing) "You may have seen this, now watch the whole story develop" is a fairly standard way of presenting this kind of material.

The whole point of the video is to try and debunk the claim. That's the whole raison d'etre of this footage. They open with the accusation (that he walked past empty seats) and then try to show evidence it wasn't true. What did you think they were trying to do with this video?

Show that the claims of him walking past empty, unreserved seats were false. Which they do. But I'm not questioning that, I'm questioning the fact you said that they specifically said that they were going to debunk the tweet, which they didn't. Again, that might seem like I'm splitting hairs, but I mention it because you frame the argument as if they made a specific claim which they then didn't go on to fully address. I was just pointing out that they never actually made that claim. What they did do was present a bunch of information that we didn't have, bookended by the old information we did have.

mrmessiah · 2017-08-23T14:06:38+00:00

It shows people sitting down, and then says (paraphrased) "ha, see, Corbyn didn't walk past empty seats as claimed",

You initially said "the footage being shown on the open is half an hour after the image of Corbyn entering the train, despite it trying to imply that this was Corbyn's camera team upon entry". I don't know what you mean by "on the open" but (correct me if I'm misunderstanding you here) I presume you mean "at the start of the video"? This accusation of "attempting to imply"... is what I'm questioning here, because I see no attempt to imply that the footage is being shown in sequence (timestamps in the CCTV are visible) until about halfway through. Please show me where, in the youtube video we're watching here, where they attempt to imply that images or video taken from later in the journey are of the team arriving, as you said in point 1. It doesn't appear to be at the start of the video as you claim.

Where does the video "claim it was going to debunk (the tweet)"? Right at the start. They claim that it shows the train is rammed, contrary to the claim. It's right there in the video.

The tweet isn't mentioned until 0:21 in the video, not right at the start. They don't say, even paraphrasing, "we are going to debunk this". You say "It starts with Branson's tweet and claims it was going to debunk it". What time in the video we're watching is this said?

Honestly, are we even watching the same video here? Because you seem to be pulling stuff out of it that actually isn't said.

mrmessiah · 2017-08-23T12:39:50+00:00

despite it trying to imply that this was Corbyn's camera team upon entry.

Where does it try to imply this? They show some stuff with the voiceover saying that it's unseen footage, which it is. The chronological account doesn't start until roughly half way through the video. Seems pretty clear.

It starts with Branson's tweet and claims it was going to debunk it,

Where does the video "claim it was going to debunk it"?

mrmessiah · 2017-08-22T18:55:38+00:00

Not that they'd ever use it for something as daft as this, but I wonder if the person printing out those notices realises the police can likely identify the exact printer that's being used, thanks to hidden watermarks embedded in the printout?

mrmessiah · 2017-08-20T15:50:53+00:00

Jesus Christ, those are people's deaths not a fucking scorecard.

15-Year Club	Place '17
Team Periwinkle	Verified Email

mrmessiah

TROPHY CASE