The first 2-3 seasons are great. And that’s because it’s excellent characters in an unusual situation with just a splash of mystery/paranormal. The end of the show sucks, because they wrote it like they knew where it was leading, but they didn’t. The big reveals are very unsatisfying. Would have been better if they just ended it with no answers and let it develop organically instead of shoe-horning a “this is what it was all leading to” ending into it.

Just rewatch the last season. That’ll cure you.

Indian

I feel compelled to point out that “back door man” was already a common expression in blues lyrics.

“I am gonna get you so many lizards!” Whenever my wife has already done a chore/task I was intending to do.

This isn’t the most substantive of your comments in this chain, but I think it deserves some attention. It’s perfectly worded and it’s a concept more people need to embrace: you don’t have to speak in absolutes and it’s okay to express the limits of your knowledge.

Plus, it’s a model made before catalytic converters so it runs good on regular gas.

What if some moistened bing lobbed a scimitar at me?

Yeah that’s how I feel about ads targeting children (even when the products are intended for children): they are not yet equipped to look at the ads critically and recognize when they’re being manipulated.

Yes! I remember when they first introduced it and I had to make sure I wasn’t hallucinating that the cursor was blowing up.

You must mean plane-et.

Do you have any theories as to why this is the case? I haven’t gone anywhere near it, so I have no idea. I imagine it’s tied up with the way it processes things from a language-first perspective, which I gather is why it’s bad at math. I really don’t understand enough to wrap my head around why we can’t seem to combine LLM and traditional computational logic.

Y’all know this is photoshopped right? The actual truck probably has half the number of light bars. Totally reasonable.

Points for “sassy robot.” But you could have described it worse. This was the first one I could identify.

And I only subscribed because the one-time purchase was not available at that moment, so I assumed no such option existed. But honestly, I’ll continue to pay the subscription. It’s still less than a year’s worth of my monthly donations to the developer of Tasker.

Ain’t that the truth. People act like charging for software is evil no matter what. There’s a huge difference between a lone dev trying to earn a living and a huge corporation trying to wring every last ounce of profit out of their users. And there’s probably degrees of nuance between those.

Especially if they seem like a reasonable person, wanting reasonable amounts for good work.

And that’s the important context in this discussion. You’ve got a dev who’s active in the community and who builds an app not only with great features and UI but with stability too. And he has a not insignificant user base that is familiar not just with his work but essentially with this exact app… It’s reasonable for him to assume we’ll see the value and be willing to pay. And he is correct.

I’m personally averse to subscription models, but again context matters. Reasonable rate and you know what you’re getting. And I say this as a huge fan of both FOSS and socialism. I could have easily just let my DNS continue to filter out the ads, but I appreciate quality and believe it should be appropriately compensated.

I was raised Catholic, but I’ve been an atheist for—oh fuck I’m old—more than half my life. But… Monastic life seems pretty dope. Why can’t there be a secular order that’s just devoted to knowledge/contemplation for its own sake (or the betterment of humanity). I know it kind of sounds like I’m describing a university, but I mean with the personal discipline, strong communal bond, and simple lifestyle.

I am Lucy Liu. Give me your spines.

Concurring with my argument by citing one of my favorite authors. 😊

Did we just become Lemmy-friends?

It’s worth noting though that the shitty music of yesteryear doesn’t persist in the public consciousness. When we think of music from previous generations, we’re thinking about the stuff that was good enough to last (or bad enough, I suppose, if it’s notably bad). So the popular music of today may seem to be dominated by shit, but you’d have to examine what else was on the airwaves of a given era to really make a good comparison.

I also think there’s two major factors brought on by technological advancement and they both have a positive side. There are a lot more avenues to discover music than there have ever been. Musicians no longer have to be extremely talented and have broad appeal to reach an audience. From the listener’s point of view, it’s much easier to find good music that fits your particular tastes. And I think that in turn leaves more room in the mainstream avenues for lower quality but broadly appealing music.

The other factor is the accessibility of the technology to make and share music, which I think makes it easier for both “good” and “bad” music to find it’s way outside of the artist’s bedroom, so to speak.