"Beef" was pretty great, I'd recommend that. I'm surprised to see no mention of "The Witcher", though, I figured that would've ranked relatively highly despite the many creative shortcomings of the show.
One interesting difference is that in the TV show Luffy has a friendly smile on most of the time. In the anime Luffy runs around with a wide eyed unblinking psychopathic stare.
It does not help that main character only grunts in the show instead of talking. The book version of Geralt is the most talkative swordsman ever, so you learn a lot from dialogs or his thoughts. When you replace dialogs by grunts, you loose a lot of information.
That's a big caveat. Haha. I made it through almost the entirety of the season before I realized there were dual timelines. Nothing made sense. Maybe that's on me.. but I feel like enough people had similar issues that it's more likely a major shortcoming of the show.
I think that’s supposed to be intentional though. It didn’t click with me either even though in retrospect characters in the future are reflecting on their pasts that were shown in the very same episode.
I thought it was a really good execution tbh. It’s rare to see fantasy play out the effect of different lifespans
I'm the same, something as simple as `$year` at the bottom of the screen when switching about would have helped me immensely. It was disorienting enough that it put me off watching any of the further seasons.
The Witcher was pretty bad in its last season. I know multiple people who just stopped to watch it, because the show was too annoying for millions of reasons. I mean, I myself could not handle last series. Not just because of "faithfulness to source" issues, but because pacing, insufferable dialogs, characters that done makes sense etc.
And the series before that would be fine if it was not called the Witcher, but as it was it made any reasonable progress impossible.
It's a standardized file that describes a 3D scene (with references to assets, transforms, etc). It makes asset pipelines easier to spin up and iterate on, but I don't think anything about USD specifically will further enable AI art projects more than they actually do.
That wasn't my experience with the current layoffs at big tech. There was no effort to find positions for the engineers who performed well in the previous year(s). They just cut some orgs by the hundreds (I was in a call with 350+ other devs, many of whom are far smarter and more experienced devs than myself).
They just started cutting "weight" at some point, the "dead" adjective was dropped during the previous rounds of layoffs.
Sorry to nitpick, but I've driven across the USA many times and I've never had much to complain about with regards to our roads (outside of Ohio, fuck that state). Doubly so when comparing our road infrastructure to poorer countries.
I've driven across the country 4 times now, and lived in all four corners plus the middle (New England, Georgia, California, Washington, plus Minnesota/Iowa). In a cold weather state the roads tend to get rough because of the winters. Roads are expensive to maintain there. Never had any trouble at all in Texas or Arizona. Lots of trouble in California, though, and the Dakotas can be rough outside of I90 and I94. Not a function of negligence or anything in the Dakotas, it's just cold.
The Netherlands is a poorer country with about two thirds the GDP per Capita of the US. Here in Berkeley I see many potholes. I've never seen one there. And that's before we get into the increased road safety.
Please check out Michigan - I can only speak for the Ann Arbor area - but wow, compared to British Columbia (which has almost identical issues with salt, snow, freezing) - the roads there are really beaten up.
They even have a saying - there are two seasons in Michigan, Winter and Road Construction.
Agreed, as someone who has lived in multiple western countries and US states...the roads around the bay area are horrendous. I try to drive in the fast lane to avoid the damage done to the slow lane by trucks.
People pleasers can cause people to dislike them in a workplace, ironically. Being a people pleaser in software dev very often means you will over-burden yourself because you'd rather say "yes, I can do that for you" than "no, I don't have the bandwidth for that".
I'd rather a teammate who is honest about their current limitations than someone who tells me what I want to hear. If someone admits they are stretched thin, it's now an "us versus the problem" to find why you are so overtasked. If someone consistently takes on too much (because they can't say no) and causes the team to miss deadlines, it's now an "us versus you" problem.
The most hated guy at my old job would start every request with an elaborate hand-wrung introduction to make sure no one could possibly be offended by what he was asking for.
Because of this, everyone had to read one or two paragraphs of niceties before they had any idea what he actually needed.
It was incredibly annoying and actually quite selfish in practice since it wasted so much time.
A good manager would have broached the subject with the employee and gently moved them in the direction of adjustment and likely some therapy.
That sort of people pleasing behavior can easily come from a past where asserting even a minor need or boundary was met with abuse from caretakers or peers.
Not saying it's not maladaptive and irritating behavior. It is! But they probably came by it honestly.
I totally agree; unfortunately he was a contractor hired through an agency, which meant his management resources were poorly defined and somewhat diffuse across the two companies' reporting chains.
I'd imagine if he was strictly an FTE he would have been getting that guidance and support, but I guess the politics of trying to do so across company boundaries made it too much of a career risk for the "manager" he was assigned from my company.
That's true rhetorically (the favorite specific topic being the "dreamers"), but there is no will to fix the H1B program at all by Democratic leadership. The status quo is great for businesses, a big part of their power base. It's not even bad for support from organized labor (though that matters less and less in real elections as union membership has been in decline for decades), since H1Bs are largely employed in nonunion industries.
It's bigger than that, democrats currently just cry about how bad the Republicans are to get votes and donations then when they're in office they do nothing to fix anything.
Step #0 to any significant policy reform is eliminating the Senate filibuster, followed by step #1: controlling both houses and the presidency.
The only truly radical policy that has come out of Congress in decades was Obamacare, and that was precisely because the Democrats were just barely able to assemble 60 votes in the Senate. (Most Democrats wanted single-payer, or at least a single-payer option, but a bill including single-payer couldn't clear a 60 vote hurdle as at least one Democrat, Joe Lieberman, publicly opposed single-payer.) And even then, with the death of Ted Kennedy they immediately lost the ability to beat a filibuster, which is why the House was forced to pass the Senate bill verbatim, which was unusual. Usually there's a reconciliation process for bills passed between the two houses, after which each house has a pro forma vote on the reconciled bill. But even a pro forma vote on a reconciled bill is subject to a Senate filibuster, with the exception of purely budgetary bills, which Obamacare clearly wasn't. (There were subsequent changes passed as budgetary amendments, though, both by Democrats and later by Republicans--e.g. elimination of the individual mandate penalty.)
And don't forget, precisely because the Democrats passed Obamacare, the Republicans swept the 2010 election, taking the House and taking 6 Senate seats from the Democrats--who went from 56 in 2010 to 53 in 2011, not counting the 2 seats lost earlier in 2010--in December 2009 Democrats had 58 votes plus 2 Independents. The 2010 election was the biggest rout in 60 years.
Unless and until the Senate filibuster goes away, you can't really make any sweeping claims about what policies a party could or would actually enact. Because of the filibuster the parties are beholden to a handful of members. I'm not entirely sure the filibuster should be eliminated, but if I were a Senator I probably wouldn't stand in the way, either.
If you follow the politics, both houses and both parties could easily enact significant immigration reform on a simple majority vote. Albeit not radical reform so long as the filibuster existed. However, immigration has proven a tremendous wedge issue for Republicans, which Trump leveraged to great effect. Moreover, even though a vast majority of Americans and Congressmen wish to change the status quo, any specific, concrete policies lead to a lot of heated disagreement because it turns out different people have conflicting motivations for wanting reform, especially within the Republican camp. Moreover, the Republicans learned a lesson watching Obamacare--if you can't enact perfect reform (i.e. Democrats being forced to compromise on single-payer), your own supporters will crucify and disown you. A big part of the Republican 2010 sweep was upset Democrats walking away because they didn't get their preferred option. So especially for Republicans, immigration reform is a lose-lose-lose.
Take a look at Biden's 2020 platform. It's relatively broad, specific and actionable. And then look at his attempts to get it passed. First he had to throw out anything that couldn't be passed through reconciliation. Then he had to significantly water down even the reconciliation bills due to the DINO's Manchin and Sinema. And he also had to fight with a conservative court. And yet despite all that he managed to pass several major bills.
That isn't funny at all, the whole problem is that both parties are the same. They do the "bad cop good cop" routine, the cops are working for the same team.
Is this really the case? My experience with neoliberalism is they are certainly pro-globalism, but would be quite happy physically keeping everyone where they currently are (all the better to exploit the wage gaps).
Do you have any concept of how much more productive people are in developed countries than undeveloped? Unskilled labour in the US gets paid a lot more than ten times what it does in Haiti. Investing in the third world is what you do because you can’t get labour in places you already know too do business in, where you’d want to live.
How is this supposed to work? There’s an awful lot to exploit in Ireland or the US and pretty much nothing in Cuba, even less in Haiti. In between in Vietnam, Thailand or China. Is your model that the Irish/US elites are more benevolent and Vietnamese ones less?
Workers in Germany, Romanian and Vietnam doing the same job at similar productivity are paid very different wages. You can see this quite clearly in German companies that open factories in poorer countries to extract higher profits.
Capitalists pay the lowest wages they can get away with. While they exploit all workers (by appropriating as profits much of the value created by those workers), they exploit the workers in the poorer countries far more than those in the rich countries.
They can get away with this largely because the poor countries are underdeveloped (and are often kept that way on purpose). Workers in those countries have fewer options, thus can be exploited more.
> SC2 just released a huge patch that revamped a lot of balance issues
I feel like tossing in a patch from SC2 as an indicator that it's actively being supported is a little misleading. SC2 had the opportunity to compete with LoL and Dota2 for viewership but Blizzard made a LOT of mistakes with the first expansion that alienated players and sent them to LoL, Dota2, or CSGO.
Their game design philosophy and slow patch rhythm sabotaged the momentum that the pro scene had been building (warp gate tech, infinite value units like Brood Lords and Swarm Hosts, frontloading all Terran power into Stim units, etc). They also catered the ladder experience solely for competitive players, they didn't introduce many (if any) casual-friendly modes until far too late.
They also broke SC2 into three $60 boxes products, segmenting the multiplayer each time, right at the dawn of the free to play MOBA era on PC. My entire SC2 friend group ditched Heart of the Swarm for League of Legends and never looked back.
But also, just not being able to play cooperatively with friends was the final death knell. SC was designed for an era where you played alone and then you played against others who played alone because there weren’t a lot of anyone playing SC or anything really.
LoL unlocked an entire demographic of kids who wanted to play with friends. A great explosion in online VC tech helped foster this and the rest is history. Gaming is now a social activity and all the top sellers right now effectively leverage this.
> US workers are unfortunately lazier and slower and more expensive
I guess we just kinda stumbled into being one of the wealthiest and most developed countries in the world while having the lazier/slowest/most expensive workforce.
I can't say that every skinny person has a healthy relationship with food, but I can say that almost every overweight person does have an unhealthy relationship with food. Everyone is allowed to make their own choices, but if I smell liquor on your breath every morning, I'm going to assume you don't have a healthy relationship with alcohol. Same goes for food.
> I get the same sort of "helpful" suggestions
If someone is suffering from a cold and I tell them to "instead of going to work you could try taking the day off to sleep, it should help fight the cold virus", that's objectively true. If someone is suffering from depression and I tell them "try incorporating some exercise in your daily routing, it should help your mental and physical health", that's objectively true.
It feels like there's this viewpoint among many depressed folks where they want unconditional support from their friends/family, but only want the communication to go one way. It's incredibly difficult to support someone who is struggling with depression. If they offer suggestions, it's their way of trying to help because there's fuck all they can do outside of that.
The point is, I'm already doing all those things. I exercise. I eat a healthy diet and drink plenty of water. I have a therapist. I don't meditate, but I do take long walks and hikes in nature, which to me is kindof meditating?
Fat people, yeah "have you tried exercising? have you tried counting calories?" FFS of course they have. They weren't born yesterday. They're aware of their weight 100% of every waking moment of the day.
Don't give people advice unless they ask for it. Plain and simple.
edit:
Regarding the first paragraph, what I mean to say is: When I discuss depression or anxiety with someone, and they come back with a bunch of "helpful" suggestions, in my mind the conversation sortof flips to where I have to justify myself. I have to explain or prove to them all the things I'm doing. It also sets up a conversation in my mind: "Am I doing enough? Should I be exercising more? Maybe I should take up yoga as well?" I don't want to justify my emotional state to someone. Especially to someone who, no offense to you, (but kindof?) does not know what the fuck they are talking about.
I find people who complain about the PC community far more annoying, tbh. The PC community is just a bunch of young altruists trying to do the right thing (however misguided the attempt is). The anti-PC community has always struck me as childish.
