Same in Canada because everyone in power would rather spend all their time energy and expertise dismantling the health care system and privatize it than in actually making it work the way it should.
The only incentive to privatization is that a small group of people can make a lot of money.
Keeping things public doesn’t make many people wealthy and it only provides equal benefits to everyone, which everyone takes for granted and never appreciate until those benefits are gone.
Legitimately I do think being kind of, orientation agnostic, seems like a decent idea. I’ve seen it done well before in things like webtoons, where the sort of “line of action”, as it were, can benefit from bouncing from one side of the screen to the other, and where a variety of composition techniques can make a shot look more interesting and be properly readable in either viewing orientation. I think a conflict kind of naturally comes about when you’re just wanting to shoot everything to be completely in line with the floor so it’s easily parsed by the viewer, which is understandable, but kind of limits how interesting and efficient you can make your shots.
Also, somebody needs to make some popsockets that actually work, so holding your phone horizontally for more than five minutes doesn’t suck garbage doo doo.
I unironically wish that modern videos could change FPS, aspect ratio, and resolution on the fly. There’s way too many cases where having a 16:9 section of a video followed by a cinematic section is useful, and black bars are an awful way of transitioning between the two. Same can be said for vertical and horizontal ratios in the same video.
we might get there with AI and maybe some auto-editing recutting software at some point (or just with fancuts, if IP law ever gets better), where the aspect ratio can be redone for a specific cut of the film, but I don’t think it’s ever gonna get to the point where you’d be better off watching something on a 16:9 monitor if it was meant for 4:3, unless you’re really dead set on redoing all the shot composition so everything isn’t confined endlessly to the center of the screen.
realistically our best bet would’ve been to just film everything in the same aspect ratio, which I thought would be the case after we all collectively decided to fuck ourselves, and very slowly migrate from 4:3 and your other postage stamp aspect ratios, to 16:9, over the course of like 50 years and over the course of different mediums. but apparently we can’t have that, and we just have to get increasingly longer and longer aspect ratios because phone manufacturers suck. it’s been like a century and change since we started filming stuff and everyone still just treats it like pictures on a camera, where it’s all up to uncompromising artistic integrity.
The thing is each aspect ratio has its merits for productivity, so 16:9 can’t be an end-all be-all.
Also, what I’m talking about is different from what you’re talking about. If source footage was shot in 2 aspect ratios, and both are used in a YouTube video or movie, it should be possible to label video segments with their correct aspect ratio. Right now, a single video can only have 1 aspect ratio, so if a video was formatted for 21:9 with some source footage being 16:9, if you were to watch that video on a 16:9 monitor, you’d see black bars on the top, bottom, left, and right of your screen despite the video segment being 16:9. If you watch WandaVision on a 16:9 or 4:3 monitor, you’ll understand what I mean.
So would you want to stop watching a video on one monitor, and then pick up where you left off on a different monitor with a different aspect ratio? That seems like a lot of hoopla to me, a lot of rigamarole. I do agree though, that should be a function.
Not necessarily. I am saying that instead of a video being 16:9 while containing a 16:10 clip, the video should be 16:9 for most of it and 16:10 for the segment with the clip. There would be fewer black bars during playback because the computer would interpret different frames of video as being in different aspect ratios.
I have an even older (but initially somewhat beefier) i7 2600K. My computer still works just fine. Even for modern games, even with my dusty old GTX1080Ti.
Flip her onto her side and hold one of her legs upward. You’ll get compliments because it’s a bit athletic and does in fact feel deeper.
Important: try this only if you know she’s into being handled this way. She likely is if she’s saying things like that, but always make sure your partner enjoys stuff before adding it.
the pelvic alignment improves penetration, mostly due to the thighs being out of eachother’s way
you won’t slip into her fernix as easily, which increases lateral pressure in the vaginal canal
generally she just feels you better at unexplored angles where she remains more sensitive to pressure, for a stronger feeling of fullness
Why does it work?
Is it because she thinks your pp is bigger? No, probably not. It works because you’re paying attention and being responsive, which makes your partner feel in control and taken care of. She’ll think of you next time she wants that, because she knows you’re good for it. Better sex, that is.
Anyway be safe, have fun, and quit worrying about your pp.
Who said anything about legality? I’m responding to a poorly thought-out, ageist meme about not understanding implications when all generations are making this mistake very regularly.
I know a guy who has always taken 10x more substances than anyone else, and seems to still crave more. I watched him eat an entire handful of Percocet once, and then work all day like it was nothing. Half of one of the pills he took knocked me on my ass. I puked, then passed out, and slept for six hours. He was eating like 8 of them at a time, several times per day. He does the same thing with alcohol, and any other drugs he can get his hands on.
Didn’t alcohol use actually go up during temperance? I swear I read some studies on that. Like that was the reason it failed – alcohol use not only increased, but the alcohol that was available became more dangerous, so temperance was reversed and regulations on how it was made and licensing were instated.
If there is one thing I could bring back from that era, it would be the durability of their appliances and materials. Much better than this throwaway culture we have, where everything is made to last a couple years past warranty, then thrown out at the first sign of malfunction. Shit from the 1950’s was built to endure decades of regular use, and repairs were simple and cheap.
so how come they’re so rare nowadays? I mean everyone had one back then, why aren’t the overwhelming majority of these appliances still with us? Survivorship bias, that’s why
but if they were “built to last” then surely we shouldn’t have needed much more produced after market saturation. And yet, they actually are vanishingly rare today. Which means most did break down
Don’t discount how much marketing convinces people they need to just buy new shit every few years either. I’ve seen a lot of perfectly functioning appliances replaced just because someone saw something they thought was nicer “on sale”.
Sure, I’ll agree that they did break down. Everything does at some point or another. Back then it was easier to repair your equipment and you had the right to. That’s why they were “built to last”
Then, as time passed, that changed. It became difficult to find the necessary parts for repairs.
Example: My father is a heavy equipment mechanic. I’d say somewhere in the last ten to twenty years, his suppliers started to refuse selling specific parts he needed because he’s an independent.
He also described to me how some jobs he takes today feel like he’s handling a bomb. If he so much as trips a stray sensor, a representative from the machine’s manufacturer will come sniffing around the yard to catch him.
Then there’s the knowledge required to perform the necessary repairs. The common sentiment I hear from people is that it’s cheaper to replace than to repair. They’re not wrong, however this way of thinking demotivates the need to learn how to repair it.
So yeah. Those built to last machines have broken down. Knowledge and parts for them have become difficult to acquire, however an enthusiast willing to put the time in to repair them will have a machine that hums for the rest of their lives.
Tons were thrown out for fashion or modernization, not because they broke down. Kitchens have trends that last around 7 years and even back then people wanted the latest designs.
I’ve lived in at least 20 residences across 4 continents and only one of those was from the 1920s.
It still had an original stove.
That stove was the fucking best shit ever. It was amazing. I swear to God I have never been able to cook bacon so amazingly as on that stove top.
I don’t disagree that survivorship bias is a thing. And perhaps I had the best possible option of that era. I mean, yes with an induction top I can do great things. With an MSR dragonfly gas stove I can cook the camp a great breakfast anywhere in the world. I’ve cooked on wood fire stoves. I’ve cooked primitive fires in outback Australia and the himiliaya mountains… But there was something special about that 1920s stove that I’ve won’t ever forget.
Side note, MSR dragonflys are the shit. I love everything about them, the literal drink bottle of petrol you have to carry around, the crazy aluminium foil windshield, the pumping, the way they spray fuel everywhere as you light them, then the tower of flame that almost burns down the building as it primes. Cheap to run, indestructible, perfection.
I recently heard an interesting take on a podcast that prior to electronic calculators and especially computers, doing calculations was very tedious, time consuming, and not as precise for complex calculations. This resulted in things being over engineered to compensate.
Once it was easier to make calculations, you could easily figure out the minimum amount of resources needed to make a product last during the warranty period. With spreadsheets, you could have a complex view of all variables and tweak the materials to maximize profit, largely at the expense of durability.
This is I think one of many factors, including survivorship bias, why people feel like they don’t make em like they used to.
memes
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.