is all knowledge based on faith

It’s based on assumption, not faith. If we can trust our senses, and if things will continue to be as they have been, then the things we are learning have value. As long as you can recognize that everything could in theory end or completely change at any moment, it’s not blind belief.

This does not apply when you can move or make your own instance. It’s like complaining about tyranny inside your own house. Like, what?

I think a perfectly acceptable line to draw is “Is it reasonable to expect a large majority of the people on this instance would want this other instance blocked?” If the answer is yes, block them. If somebody has a problem with that, move to a different instance.

I don’t really understand what the problem is.

I don’t know if there’s a service that provides both functions. I’m sure there’s a way to do it - Lemmy posts are already accessible through Mastodon. Currently, I assume you would need the instance itself to offer both services under one account.

“Instances” at the bottom of the page will take you to a list of, I believe, federated instances, and at the very bottom, blocked instances.

My hot take is that you don’t actually want fewer streamers. As it stands, pirates benefit the most from content wars because the services are paying more to produce shows than they are receiving in subscriptions.

The obvious losses are legacy content and access to it. I don’t know that there’s a good solution. A streaming service benefits most from surfacing content that will keep you on the platform, meaning either a modern series with promised future seasons, or older content that’s still popular. Any old obscure media is going to lose money for rights holders on a $/stream deal because they could potentially make more $ from a single physical media sale than any amount of streaming would net them (if it’s $/stream, and only 2 people stream it, that’s very little return). And nobody subscribing to these services is going to shell out more money for specific titles because to them, that’s why they’re subscribing in the first place.

I don’t play Standard, or constructed, so this could be a dumb idea, but how would players feel about shifting what “Standard” means?

Right now, you immediately have access 10 sets worth of cards. The obvious argument to having that many sets is to present lots of different options to keep the format feeling fresh and changing. But of course, the new problem is that it doesn’t feel fresh anyway, so the value of having all those cards available is diminished.

What if instead, after launch week, you slowly introduced the 9 other sets (or more) of the format on a weekly basis? As in, for launch week only the launch set (let’s call it Set A) is available to play, then week 2 adds the next most recent set, so A + B. Week 3 is ABC, and so on. So, every week you get a sort of developing meta that’s subtly different from any other period of play. Older sets are more naturally phased out, newer sets have renewed emphasis, the format has a chance to build and evolve over time, weaker niche cards could have their chance to shine. I don’t know.

Cadence or intonation depending on what you mean.

Edit: This would seem to sum up the various parts of speech pretty concisely https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosody_(linguistics)

It really feels like there’s a game there that’s never been fully realized but would be super successful if somebody figured out how to do it right.

https://subscene.com/

If you’re looking for an alternative, I’ve had luck with https://subscene.com/

I don’t really know what the best or most popular website is because this one has never really led me astray. That said, I don’t need to use them too often, so your mileage may vary.

I’m sympathetic to the view that artists should be paid for their work. Collectively, artists have produced so much, and these tech companies are funnelling all their work into a machine and recycling it into new works, and profiting off that, without any compensation for the people partially responsible for this new reality. I’m also not interested in people who argue “but actually it’s not copying that’s not how the technology works it’s actually a really complic-” yeah I don’t care. Without the artists you would have nothing.

BUT

Don’t confuse the business practices that make this technology a reality with the technology itself. These tools are incredible, and will result in things that could have never existed previously. I just believe we need to have serious conversations about what they mean for our future.

Does it flush automatically? Could just be a sensor of some kind.

If not I’d report it to the hotel.

I thought this as well, but I’ve started to think they could be useful if I follow way more aggressively, and create a list that is “what I want on my feed” and default to that. It’s stupidly cumbersome, but would have the desired effect. Of course you’re right that they should just let you add directly to a list - I think the reasoning for the current functionality is to limit stalking/harassment, though I don’t exactly understand how that is inhibited at all.

Fascism isn’t a problem we can solve by just not allowing it the more oppressively we try to ban them the more secretive and the more fuel we give to their extremes

This is a commonly held belief that is actually just not true. Certain garbage opinions and behaviours will fester and spread and absolutely make a space worse. Communities that allow toxic behaviour will both push away reasonable people, and attract people with toxic views. Setting proper boundaries, rules, and conduct are important for maintaining a place of healthy discussion.

I don’t mind if they have somewhere to talk with each other - I think you’re correct it’s pointless to try to stop that - I’m just not interested in spending any time there.

Limiting downvotes forces other people to think about bad ideas more, at the cost of letting people with bad ideas think about their bad ideas less. Ideally the bad idea has some tangible rebuttal that the original poster can consider, but ultimately the onus is on you to understand why your ideas aren’t landing. This is all presupposing an idea that is worthy of consideration. People aren’t obligated to convince themselves you’re right, you have the job of convincing others they are wrong, or realizing that you yourself are wrong.

I loved Swiss Army Man, the directors’ previous film, for its weirdness, charm, music, humour and visual flare. Everything Everywhere was an improvement over all of these aspects so I absolutely loved it, such that I can overlook the pacing issues. They never lose the very human story through the madness.

There are tons and tons of lists on Letterboxd, a social network built around movies. Sounds like exactly what you’re looking for.

Personally, I wouldn’t worry about it too much. Use what you think is appropriate. If you’re unsure, use they/them; if they correct you, adjust accordingly. If you want to be most accommodating, default to they/them for everyone you meet unless they correct you or you learn otherwise. If you’d like others to feel more comfortable providing pronouns, providing your own - even if you believe it is obvious - can be a way to help normalize it for others.

The non-specific disdain people have for reporters, media, critics, news, etc. as if everything is created equal. I think there are many people working in news and entertainment media doing good work, yet a common refrain is “media today sucks”. I think it speaks more to how you consume, what you consume, and what you expect, if you believe there is some grand degradation of journalism. Media has certainly become more fragmented, with niches of content and wider levels of quality; the floor is lower, but I also believe the ceiling is higher.