Totally agree with others about therapy. When I went, I used it as a sort of emotional dumping ground. My therapist helped me through some pieces but honestly listened a lot. I know the payment part of therapy is viewed negatively... I viewed it as a huge positive. I'm paying this person and so it doesn't have to be an equal conversation. If I need to vent for 45 minutes straight, I can do that, and they are compensated for that time.
In reality, I was doing the same thing to friends and family, but I'd only get 30% out at any given time, and so I just spread it around. Getting therapy helped me lessen the amount I needed to vent (some techniques help you work through things) and also have me a central location. It made me a far better husband and friend.
Yeah but they had the choice to sell the seat or not. I'm having a hard time feeling bad for a company, who set their own price, being upset because they realized later they could have set it higher.
No worries my dude, I had a stressful day today too. Better days ahead for both of us.
Hey fuck you buddy
(Thank you buddy, I hope you're doing well - I'll make sure to bring a better version of myself next time. Have a good weekend)
Your mom is a prolate sphere.
(I am embarrassed and am now lashing out with baseless personal attacks)
Not a professional, but studied it in college. It's mostly to either fill in gaps or loud noises.
One thing you can often do is get a "noise print" of the room, and you can isolate someone's audio basically perfectly. From there you can create a room tone and slap it under the entire track. Now if you need to mute or something you just cut the talking track and the room noise carries over.
If you don't get a good room tone, say you want to use someone looking at the camera, but the director was talking. If you try to filter out the directors voice, it's likely going to sound weird because some of the tones overlap with the room. So you mute it and slap the room tone over and you're good. They often get too much, because room tones vary ever so slightly. If you get a tiny half second sample, unless you get very lucky you'll pick up that something is repeating or sounds weird. If you have 10-20 seconds you can loop that no problem.
Because he's so smart and good at throwing the oval ball that his opinions must be true and relevant and he deserves the platform to spread his views.
I think it's a great example of how media outlets can seed certain ideas. If you read the headline then the context, then it's like yeah I see how he said that. But I'm not sure you arrive there if you read the quote then the headline.
I'm about as liberal as they come, but holy shit the amount that this is done in politics is insane. It drives me nuts. Republicans often have so much wrong with their platform (in my opinion) that we don't need to just make shit up about them.
A particularly good example that stood out to me was Trump's "Muslim Ban". Do I think it was profile-y in its application? Yes. But if you looked at the detail, the justification used was vague "national security". Why couldn't we just attack how bullshit that was? But no, media had to run with exclusively the Muslim Ban line and it was so easy to deflect for Republicans. All they had to say was "this isn't about race stop being racist". But because of that, no one asked the better questions, like saying "you say this is specifically about national security... How is this immigration program specifically being exploited in ways that harm us?" Were we blocking work visas from those countries? Because I can tell you refugee status is a fuck of a lot harder and has more screening than work visas.
There were just so many glaring issues, but we decide to side step into an alternative reality.
None of this frustration is pointed at you by the way, it's awesome that you just said hey I think I got this one wrong. That's an admirable quality on forums these days. I just hate the media apparatus.
Alright... Nuance time. Everyone please stick with me.
I don't like Rodgers, but this is kind of a dumb headline. THIS IS NOT A DEFENSE OF RODGERS. I think what he's saying is that the "pandemic response" was the thing manufactured, not the virus itself. I think people are misreading it, because I don't think I really see how he's saying they manufactured the virus. THIS IS NOT A DEFENSE OF RODGERS. Like the government gave all this money and tried to make people reliant on the government to save them, which has been his whole position with COVID.
It's still flatly wrong. But borderline purposeful misreadings like this only embolden Rodgers and others, because it's inaccurate, and people are attacking something he didn't say. And this gives him more of a platform because people are talking about it again.
If you're going to criticize someone, it's important to be accurate and understand what they're saying, so you can appropriately shut them the fuck up with the right facts.
One more time, THIS IS NOT A DEFENSE OF RODGERS.
Yeah this doesn't seem like a great take. I think there's severe selection bias.
I like a narrow band of crypto projects. I think the vast majority of things you hear about are scams. There's a ton of bad actors in the space. My advice to people is just to be careful, but I don't promote crypto because I don't promote things that you should have a good understanding of before investing in them. I'm not in the business of risking other people's money. I'll talk about the tech, but usually uninterested in a specific token.
I don't think your brand of zero tolerance will work on such a broad scale. I do think you should aggressively shut down any specifics about [token or project], but it's not inevitable that people go towards shilling.
I was one of the top users of a crypto subreddit, and it got over run in the way you are talking about. Shills and people talking about price, etc. I wanted to have real conversations about the tech and implications. I left because it wasn't what I wanted anymore.
There are people who can talk about those topics with the nuance required, but I agree many cannot.
Aggressive moderation? Good idea.
Zero tolerance policy? Bad idea.
Given the above you'll retreat to "so a little Nazi-ism is OK?" - and if you can't figure out the difference between the two and your view is that polarized, I don't think we'll really find any common ground here.
People don't read. And before you down vote, it's still bad.
It was not a human system that was posing as AI. It was a shitty AI that needed a lot of human intervention.
Yes, it's still shit. Yes it's still a problem with how they implemented it and how they pitched it.
But there needs to be a higher level of criticism. Saying "it was just human labor the whole time" is flatly incorrect. The better criticism is the truth... They made AI so shitty that it needed a bunch of human interaction, and their product was really really bad.
I've heard so many people state this as "there wasn't any AI, it was just humans watching cameras." And the false narrative distracts from the real story.
People pretend the truth doesn't matter, and will retreat to "well even if it was AI it was so bad so I was still basically right." and that's a problem.
This hurts to read.
I know it's satire, but this is like... 5% more satirical than actual beliefs on the topic at some points. The helping the poor section in particular.
They're not perfect, but they're not complete bullshit.
I can't explain it all in a comment, but, like most things, there are good polls and bad polls. Saying polls are bullshit is like saying car mechanics are incompetent because some of them are.
If you read up on polls and their methodology, and read more then headlines, you can start to discern good ones from bad ones.
Most people don't realize margin of error and how close elections are. There hasn't been that large of polling errors in the last several elections. 2016 was larger than normal, but still within pretty explainable ranges.
Good polls are worth paying attention to, and proclaiming they are all bullshit is just a flatly bad take. There are a lot of shit polls that are politically motivated to make candidates look good or bad, but there are good pollsters doing good work. But you have to know what to look for. Not all polls are equal.
Not a lawyer, but I really doubt it. As has been used before, his lawyers can argue that he really does believe he's being treated unfairly, so of course he would speak out. Or the route that it's protected political speech meant to rile up his base. I mean if January 6th wasn't stochastic terrorism, it leaves space for this kind of thing.
I don't like Trump either, but anything legal around speech is pretty difficult. I'm quite shocked the Carroll case actually landed against Trump, but you can see how egregious it had to be. He's talked about jailing all kinds of political people for all kinds of reasons. If you don't do something the first time, then it can be used as justification that he's not doing anything different. Is it a shitty argument? Sure. But in court, it's effective.
I would share similar feelings.
Andor is great because it's largely disconnected. They don't rely on any big major cameos, there's hardly even Jedi or Force involved. It's just a standalone story in the same universe. Honestly, the same things that made Rogue One great make Andor great.
I don't think you'll be disappointed, unless you wanted more Skywalker Family Space Drama.
Andor was the anti Star Wars series. It was the best written series of all time in Star Wars terms. The dialouge was not just good, it was fucking captivating. Almost every star wars film or show the script is usually mediocre at best and has to be overcome by the actors.
Andor had multiple scenes that left me in awe of the great writing. Maybe it's because my expectations were low... But damn it was good.
My first time I was like fuck yeah I don't care how good a girl is you can always go meet someone new! Screw Summer! Tom doesn't need her!
Then eventually I realized that Tom was really the one who was unrealistic and immature. But it took a couple viewings.