If you live somewhere with a good variety of different cultures, most of them probably have an association of some kind, which often host events that let them share their holidays and traditions with the larger population. Try to track down their local event calendars and show up whenever you can. I live in a medium sized city with decent sized Hispanic, Indian, Vietnamese, and Native American populations, and between the lot of them there’s ALWAYS something going on - and for me personally, 99% of it is stuff I’ve never even heard of, so it’s a completely new experience every time (vs trying to drag out the more familiar holiday feels by leaving the xmas lights up until March lol).
Super speed. So… Let’s say you can move at light speed, and let’s just hand-wave away the problems like turning everything in front of you into an exploding ball of superhot plasma or shattering the Earth’s crust with every step. We’ll just take as a given that you can actually use this power.
Would you want to?
Let’s be clear… This isn’t teleportation, this is being able to move at super speed. That means you still experience all the motion between point A and point B. That could go one of two ways:
Your mind can also operate at super speed. Great! You’re running across the United States? You get to experience every single footstep. You get to experience the subjective time it takes to walk or run ~3000 miles - five to seven months. Depending on how much control over your subjective experience of time you have, maybe you can make it feel like you’re going at the speed of a car on a highway or something, but you’re still looking at a week or so of subjective time. Hope you like time alone, because you’re going to have millions of years of it, from your perspective, if you use your power a lot. But that’s still better than the alternative…
Your mind operates at normal speed. You are now the most dangerous thing on the planet. Every time you use your super speed, the landscape blurs around you and you have no idea where you are, how far you’ve gone, or how many people you’ve exploded into red mists without even realizing they’re there along the way. You could easily plow through a line of buses filled with orphans and puppies, and never even notice the trail of carnage behind you, because they were in New Jersey, and you stopped in San Diego.
That’s why the comics always gloss over what it’s like to have super speed. The dark side of it is that for it to be anything but terrifyingly destructive to the entire planet, you have to have control. And in order for you to have control, you have to be capable of seeing where you’re going and reacting to obstacles. That means sped up perceptions, and thus the subjective hell of experiencing every single step you take at super speed.
I would guess that you have seen the first episode of “The Boys”?
Anyway, option 1 is very clearly superior, even if incredibly boring, because it includes not becoming tired or hungry during the trip. You kinda would get to zone out for months at a time, like a super long scenic vacation.
Option 1 also isn't necessarily as bad as they make it seem. If you suddenly gained super speed and your perception of time altered over night then, yes, you're suddenly going be spending a lot more time in your own head relative to before and it's going to take some adjustment as best, a lot of therapy at worst. But if you're born like that, surely it'd just be normal for you and you wouldn't necessarily know anything different?
The other option that wasn't mentioned is that you can "turn on" your powers and the world feels like it goes into slow motion around you, and then you turn them off again afterwards and it's all back to normal.
Your second point is how most comic speedsters operate. They can raise and lower their reaction speed at will.
In fact the only speedster I know of that can’t change reaction speed at will is Red Rush from Invincible. He’s permanently stuck at high speed so to him a simple conversation feels like hours.
Also even if you are protected from the repercussions of moving at super speed, anything you move isn’t. If you carry your friend across the street, your friend is now pulverized and probably burnt to a crisp. If you move your water bottle, congrats on delivering a pressure vessel of steam to wherever you just went. Acceleration that fast and impacts at that speed would destroy basically everything you touch while moving at super speed.
If you have the power of super speed you can control when it’s active. Likewise you can adjust the speed your mind processes things to always ensure you’re 1:1 with your frame of reference.
Being 1:1 with your frame of reference is actually one of the problems.
Say you’re Barry Allen and you’re running from Los Angeles to New York city. Given the nature of your powers, you arrive there basically instantly as far as anyone else is concerned.
But for you? You experience every single footstep you took along the way. You arrive bored out of your mind and possibly going insane after running across the continental United States in, for you, months of being absolutely alone in a world of utterly still statues and an unmoving sun.
I’ve seen an explanation somewhere that I likes which is super speed and super reflexes are like tensing two different muscles.
You can make your body move at 10x speed to run across town (even 2-3 speed makes you faster than the fastest humans and 5* is like a car going quickly), then you use your reflexes 3 times faster to make that superspeed feel like only 3 times your natural speed. You can also seperate them in other ways like buying yourself time in an exam by speeding up your thinking without actually increasing your muscle movement.
Your mental and physical speed being like tensing muscles also means you can have them kick in like a withdrawal reflex. As the air pressure changes before an explosion or bullet hits you, you involuntarily crank your limit to 50x speed (or whatever is required) to dodge.
It also has the obvious weakness of being exhaustable. It’s worth mentioning that 10x speed is absolutely enough to do most superhuman abilities, and 3x speed makes you basically better than most humans, not just at running but also dodging and punching, and it’s absolutely up to the storyteller to decide if such a low speed multiplier exhausts said speedster or if they can maintain that indefinitely like the muscles we use to stand.
As someone who generally likes Snyder’s movies but didn’t particularly care for Rebel Moon, it’s hard to say. The movie is both too long and too short. It’s too long in that the middle of the film drags and there are unnecessary scenes that definitely should have been cut (such as most of the scenes with the soldiers at the beginning of the film and the ending of the bird scene.) It’s too short in that most of the characters feel undeveloped and it’s hard to get emotionally invested in the climax.
I feel like some of the fight scenes, particularly an early one involving an axe, could use the extra blood effects from the R cut. It just felt really bland with cutaway clean kills, and kind of undermines the movie’s gritty tone with more fantasy violence. Later fights in the movie use more fantasy elements (like laser weapons) and these are fine without the blood effects.
Reportedly the R cut will have at least 40 extra minutes, which may really help flesh out the plot. I’d especially like it if the scene where Kora recites her character bio to the camera is cut and replaced with scenes showing us all those things, but that’s unlikely. More likely, some characters will be more fleshed out, but also a bunch of extraneous stuff will be added as well. Neither will likely fix the underlying core of the film that’s essentially Seven Samurai meets Star Wars, but does neither particularly well.
If you are going to watch it, I would probably wait for the extended cut, though it’s hard to tell whether there will be much, if any, improvement.
That’s Zach Snyder in general. The only way to really watch his films are extended cuts, because the theatrical cuts tend to cut out all the exposition and focus on the core of the movie. But the core of the movie doesn’t make much sense without the exposition. The result is an overlong movie that feels like it should be shorter, but nothing can really be trimmed because the film tried to do too much. BvS is a prime example of this.
I think the guy gets way too many ideas in his head and has trouble telling a single, focused story with them.
Improve the birthing process so you don’t have to rotate just to fit on the way out. Either make babies smaller or vaginas bigger (in which case penises would have to compensate I guess)
That one’s entirely of our own doing! By having better healthcare, people who wouldn’t be able to survive childbirth naturally are spreading their genes which leads to childbirths being harder and harder with every generation.
7% of all men will orgasm instantly if a firm pressure is applied to the back of the neck where the spine connects to the skull during sex. only 2% of women have that same biological feature.
Thing is, I want to be able to make an app that I would want personally for my own use, and then it other people would want it also, well, that’d be cool too (but gravy)
My neighbour gave me a TV. To be precise, he rushed it to me unannounced at the exact moment I was leaving to go to a party. I accepted as quickly as I could in an effort to still make my train.
It turns out it’s about 15 years old and I have no use for it. He’s a lovely man but I intend to post it as free to a good home then drop it at an e-recycling station if nobody is interested.
The beast being the government itself. The idea is that the government is somehow overspending in comparison to the tasks carried out and it needs to be fixed by cutting funding.
The result is obviously that the government will function even worse, so it’s a self fulfilling prophecy.
i used ynab for a while but am now realizing it’s probably worse for my mental health to keep track of things that granularly. need to go back to a more zoomed out, normal person sort of management scheme
Maybe just readjust your categories to be more general?
Alternatively I found a bank called Monzo that has ynab features built-in. I’m definitely considering not renewing my ynab and switching to that if I can.
The baked goods a lady from my dad’s church gave me. I don’t even know what they were; it tasted and looked like it was just a bunch of dallops of cake frosting sprinkled with almond dust. I don’t really eat sweets, and these offended my taste buds when I ate one. Nobody else wanted to take them off my hands so into the trash they went.
Pseudonymous is not even quite the same as anonymous either. It’s not just people randomly saying whatever nonsense like 4chan, there’s all the reputation-building and ego that other social media has, only less personal, for better or worse.
People don’t really know what the term means. Any media where the users create the content is a social media. That’s what social media means! YouTube, reddit, Lemmy, Instagram, Snapchat… All of these are social medias! Perhaps we need some different term to differenciate them based on whether you’re more expected to interact with friends or anonymously with strangers though.
While I do consider this my social media outlet it’s different in a few ways. If I meet someone new in person and they’re interested in my online presence
I am not giving out this username
they wouldn’t understand or know what to do with it even if I did
They’re forums though, are forums social media? I don’t think services people use anonymously and not for the primary purpose of interacting are social media. The stat has always been 90+% of people are lurkers who just look at memes. Doesn’t sound very social. Scrolling lemmy and reading articles doesn’t get at that part of the brain. We’re not a social group, looking at each others lives.
What stops being social media if we broaden the definition. YouTube is social media if Lemmy is imo.
Is it my imagination or do you think people that don’t consider forums to be social media are doing it out of denial, as if they consider social media to be inferior and they want to be the superior ones without social media, but by encountering you telling them these ugly truths, they deny and defend themselves almost in a tantrum?
Because that may happen with a person or two, but no, many people don’t have problems having social media, just don’t consider Lemmy a social media for various reasons (e.g. not used with a real name, they do not personally message from here, etc.). If their criteria is wrong or right, I don’t know. I do consider this a social media, but it’s open to discussion.
It’d be helpful if you stop looking at situations as if they were the crying wojak (them) vs chad wojak (you) because that’s not how we all work.
Lurkers on Lemmy and Reddit don’t seem too different from someone who is on Twitter or Instagram to follow celebrities.
Commenters definitely are in it for interacting, whether they realize or not. Like, just now, you felt the need to express your opinion to this crowd, and so did I.
If the expression of opinion or interacting with that opinion is all it takes, then YouTube is social media, IMDb is social media. Blogs are social media, any news site is social media. It has to be more specific than that because every site has a comment section and it’s a pretty useless definition.
I think the object of interest has to be people, and the engagement has to come from fixed personalities. Who develop a rapport. For example, you add friends and follow people, who you recognize, interact with and develop a social or parasocial relationship.
Although Reddit has maybe gone that way in some respects, sites like YouTube (maybe) Lemmy, 4chan, Q&A sites (Quora, stack overflow), and more traditional forums have anonymous people jumping in and out, and the focus is the idea (meme, article, creation, question).
Maybe we ditch the term altogether as everything is adding a social component and it will all devolve into a digital singularity.
It’s not that far off, frankly. A lot of websites with user comment sections have a social aspect to them. But even if we discount those whose the primary focus is not that, and we take YouTube and IMDb out of it, Reddit and Lemmy lack the sort of stable end result that reference sites and wikis focus on, or the sort of separation between creators and audience that YouTube has (then again isn’t Instagram like that too?). Even if we make a distinction here we are still left with a place whose content, curation and discussions are community driven. A subreddit or Lemmy community is nothing but that which the people who participate in it decide. Sounds like a social form of media if I ever seen one. An internet platform for public collective multidirectional communication.
Frankly, I think Reddit and Lemmy resist the classification as “social media” not because there aren’t reasons to count them as that, but because the userbases in these sites see it as a dirty word and they like to believe they are above the unwashed, stupid, celebrity-worshipping masses.
They are not. We are not.
How much do we mock people commonly not reading articles and just commenting immediately in both these places? That shows link aggregation is not necessarily the main driving appeal of these places. Even for lurkers and outsiders, they often use Reddit to see what people are commenting, especially as far as advice and recommendations go. We are even in a community whose primary content are questions from other users for us to talk about our opinions and ourselves. How much more socially driven does it need to be for people to accept that it is social media?
Even if one argues it’s different from Facebook because we don’t use real names, Twitter also goes by pseudonyms and everybody considers that “social media”.
Content curation and discussions sounds like Wikipedia to me, and honestly most information sites. As basically everything on the Internet is community driven by a small vanguard of committed posters. I guess we can just call all websites with social interaction social media.
My issue is, to me, lemmy, 4chan, and old forums are completely different to Twitter, Facebook, bebo, Instagram, Snapchat, tiktok etc etc in look, form and function. But I think if we still are just calling them social media, and there is no consistent definition that also umbrellas most of the Internet, it seems silly at that point. Much easier to just not call lemmy social media.
I could also argue people calling lemmy social media are trying to be contrarian and get a rise out of people. Like calling cereal, soup.
This ain’t Wikipedia. Nobody is just leaving their info and settling at that. Nobody is even trying to be objective (even if Wikipedia doesn’t always manage it). Threads don’t result in a single consensus reference page to be maintained indefinitely, but multiple discussions where everyone is making their opinions heard. As much as some opinions are highlighted over others, it’s not collapsed into a final conclusion.
Be honest here. Look at Twitter and then look at Wikipedia. As far as similarity in function and behavior, which is Reddit/Lemmy more like? If anything, to me saying Lemmy is the same as Wikipedia is calling cereal, soup.
The difference between Reddit/Lemmy and Twitter is that it’s based on subcommunities rather than personal feeds. Even then, Facebook has that too, in their groups.
It is social media. Some users just want to believe they are above that. It does get a rise out of them, because they refuse to believe it. It doesn’t mean it’s not correct, not only based on pedantic definitions but also how and why people use it.
Say, even in participating in this discussion, what is your goal here? It’s not like this thread will ever serve as a reference material for the classification of websites. It’s not even the main point of the thread (whether and how to join social media). Seems to me that you want to make your opinion known, and so do I. Whether or not you remember my username, this is social interaction. And by experience I can say the same sort of discussion happening here happens on Twitter/Mastodon near identically.
My purpose is to work out if Lemmy is social media, and solidify my position on it through debating (arguing) with people about it, I’m afraid I’m using you for my own ends 😉.
My point about calling lemmy Wikipedia is like calling cereal soup. I agree, because if we widen this definition to include Lemmy, we start having justifications for calling things that clearly aren’t social media, social media.
My ideal is that we just have old style Internet platforms in their own box called forums. And social media can continue on its way with phone number verification, blue check marks, and whatever else goes on.
I suppose the actually productive thought process is to think why we need to differentiate sites from each other like this, and come up with a definition that has function without being confusing. I’d argue the endless debate and confusion around this topic, especially on Reddit, for years and years, indicates a poor definition.
I think another divide when it comes to “social media” is the idea of following someone.
Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc let me follow people (or brands).
Reddit however isn’t about people or brands (and yes I’m away they added that feature, it’s stupid), it’s about topics.
Looking at Mastodon, it is also designed to follow people. They do however have the option to follow hashtags, which as a Lemmy user is something I like.
Similarly as a Lemmy user I don’t care who any of you are. I’m not following anyone in this thread. We could interact every day or we could interact once a year, I don’t care who you are and I like that.
Also, I don’t care if you follow me. I’d prefer if you didn’t. I do have an opinion to share, and I do want people to read it. Is that “social media”?
As other folks have pointed out, this is all more similar to Internet forums. Are those “social media”? I would argue they are not, but if you stretch the definition far enough… I guess?
I don’t think the definition needs to be stretched very far. In any of such cases, the function is social, it is about connecting people and enabling them to communicate in a wider, multilateral fashion, online. However asocial we might convince ourselves of being, if we truly had no interest in it, we wouldn’t even be discussing anything here.
Even lurkers, at the very least, place trust on a group to bring them matters which they are interested in, and if you consider it, this is the manner in which Reddit and forums are most similar to following influencers. The only difference is that it is a crowd-driven highlight, rather than an individual one, and even then people don’t tend to follow just one single influencer.
It starts with something silly like an avatar or profile pic next to every comment. If you’ld have had a flag or a dogpic or so next to your name/comment, I wouldn’t have read your comment in the same relatively neutral way. I dislike the persona stuff, it’s why I prefer forums. Lemmy is a collection of forums to me. I profoundly distrust persona cult stuff, like influencers etc. Sure, I’ll encounter same people here I’m sure, but frankly: I’m mostly unaware, usernames barely register in my mind.
The part about social media I dislike is the real connection between Irl and online, and the “profile”-focus, for now both is no issue for me on lemmy.
I thought I was taking crazy pills watching people tell the guy not to join social media, on a social media site!
I think the real question being asked is, should the OP make a social media account that is not anonymous or on one of the mainstream sites. Which I would say go for it if it helps with your IRL social life, just don't post anything you wouldn't say in person in public.
It is an anonymous social media, and the post is talking about non-anonymous googleable profiles (Facebook, Instagram, etc.). Quite different if you ask me.
Worse thing you’re going to see about bill Clinton is he flew on the plane. Epstein lent his plane out for various people to take to any number of places, charity events, whatever. There was some rumors about a pilot claiming Clinton visited the Island, but nothing that was confirmed by a second source that I recall. washingtontimes.com/…/bill-clinton-identified-as-…
About the same as most big scandals. Lots of noise and very few consequences. The damage control has somewhat started already. LOTS of people were “associated” with Epstein but that’s not a true implication of what their association was.
Well it’s kind of like that photo of Elon and Ghislaine. Does it raise questions? Oh yes. Does it automatically mean Elon has been raping kids? No. Those two rapists associated with lots of famous people. I think they got their in with a lot of people becauze of all the secret rapists they associated with. I don’t think every person who has associated with them was a rapist.
Jeff Davis of Whose Line, Harmontown knew Ghislaine from night life in LA. He talks about it in one of the last episodes of Harmontown when all this was coming out. They were socialites involved with everyone. It’s great cover, could even be black mail cover. Get an important person drunk or under the influence of something, get a sex worker to take them back to a room, film it. Awful people, but not dumb.
asklemmy
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.