loobkoob

I prefer real poo, personally.

rich people who ruin things

I wouldn’t say I’m consciously boycotting Ubisoft, personally. But I sure as hell haven’t bought one of their games for a long time, and with the way they’ve been going as a company in general, I can’t see myself buying anything from them in the near future. If they do release something worth buying then I’ll consider it, though.

My usual go-to is to ask what their latest/current obsession is. It works really well for a few reasons:

• it’s nice and simple to ask - it doesn’t require a monologue/wall of text to set up, and it doesn’t require you to know anything about them to ask it;
• it’s both as personal and as low-stakes as they want it to be. They can give very intimate, in-depth answers if they feel like it, or they can just mention something like the latest film they enjoyed. There’s no risk of making them uncomfortable by asking it;
• it lets you filter out boring people who don’t really take interest in anything;
• assuming they do have interests, it often gives you plenty of opportunities to dive into deeper conversation;
• it’s often engaging for them because they get to talk about something they’re passionate about;
• it’s often interesting for you because people talking about things they’re passionate about is awesome (and often attractive).
• it’s pretty much always relevant and fresh because their latest obsession will change over time. This makes it particularly great for things like dating sites/apps because people’s bios will often be out of date and/or they’ll have talked about the things mentioned in their bio so much that they’re kind of sick of them.

I’ve actually had multiple people on dating sites tell me how great a question they think it is, and that they’re going to use it themselves in the future. So obviously it’s not just me who thinks it’s a great question!

I don’t know about you, but I’m definitely not hydrated enough to take a piss break every five minutes!

“I can’t find a source because the government and [[[globalist]]] mainstream media is covering it up. Do your own research”

Must be nice to never have to worry about defending yourself from attackers who overpower you or who have weapons.

As someone who lives outside of the US: it is nice. You guys should try it.

It’s better to be remembered as being good from the start.

I think NMS is an exception. If it released today, I think most people would end up feeling that it’s just kind of “fine” and it’d die down somewhat quickly. It’s managed to get a lot of goodwill because of how they turned it around and I think it gets a lot more publicity and positive attention because of that.

I’d generally agree, but one huge exception that comes to mind is No Man’s Sky. It feels like its updates get far more attention than most games’ just because they did manage to turn it around. Even though it was generally considered “redeemed” years ago, it still gets credit and publicity for its redemption every time there’s an update, to the point where I think it does far better today than it would be doing if it had released in the state it was supposed to.

It’s not a strategy I’d recommend other companies try to emulate, though. I think Hello Games got very lucky with people letting them redeem No Man’s Sky, along with it taking them a lot of extra time and work. It was a phenomenon, not something that can be worked into a strategy.

You only get to make a first impression once, after all.

If everyone’s super(rich), no-one is.

I think they’re just the Western publisher for it; they didn’t actually have a hand in developing it as far as I know.

People can be angry or upset about more than one thing at a time. And you’ve no idea whether the person you responded to has been outraged about the US’ strikes or not. Just because a society as a whole has a viewpoint that trends a certain way doesn’t mean you can assume each and every individual you talk to has that exact viewpoint.

By all means, criticise society as a whole - it’s a very valid thing to be critical of. But making assumptions about individuals - and being rude to / critical of them based on those assumptions - isn’t the way to win anyone over.

Well I’m just glad Harry Mack managed to release his 100th episode of “Omegle Bars” this week. He decided to take a break from doing Omegle-based content at the right time, it seems.

For anyone who doesn’t know, Harry Mack’s a freestyle rapper. He has (had) a series where he’d ask strangers on Omegle to give him a handful of words and then create a full song out of them on the fly. And not just saying those words then immediately moving on like most freestyle rappers do; he actually creates entire verses on the topics he’s given and really raps around them. Plus he’d be calling out things the people were doing as they react to him, responding to things they say, mentioning things he can see in the room, etc, as he raps.

Here’s one of his freestyles that’s really stuck with me ever since I first saw it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehcA4zCeaPI

He takes what are some fairly negative, “cry for help” words from the girls and turns them into a really beautiful, positive rap overall. He’s a very positive guy in general, and I’ve watched him consistently since I discovered him. Binging his videos got me through a breakup, in fact.

My own experiences with Omegle have either been penises or just bland, and it’s not something I’ve used for many years as a result. But videos like Harry Mack’s show what wonderful things could come from it and I do think it’s a huge shame it’s gone. It feels like another part of the old internet’s gone, and that we’re moving even closer to the sanitised, heavily-monetised internet run by megacorporations. I hate that.

I’m attached the end of your rod, motherlicka

Even if Starmer and the Labour party were pretty much the same except they kept the mask on, that would still be a step in the right direction. Normalising the racism, bigotry, corruption and general inhumaneness that fuels the Tory party is absolutely something we should try to avoid.

However, I don’t think Labour is like this. I don’t think they’re perfect, but I think they’re much, much better. They’re not going to fix everything overnight, but I do think them getting into power would be an important first stepping stone in moving the country and politics towards being a better place in in 10-15 years. They may not be your ideal party but, if you’re pragmatic and have any kind of long-term vision, you’ll likely vote for them (or the Liib Dems, depending on which constituency you’re in) to make sure the Tories are eliminated.

The Overton window is far too far to the right at the moment and Labour getting into power is important for helping to gradually shift it leftwards. People simply aren’t going to vote in a “radical” socialist in the current political or economic climate; they want someone they can see as a safe pair of hands who can work on stabilising things somewhat. Right now, that’s Starmer - the boring man who’s politically central (by current standards) with a fairly clean record and an air of competence. When, in most constituencies, the options are Labour and Tory, you working to put everyone off Labour is just going to benefit the Tories.

Stop letting perfect be the enemy of good.

That and “Suella de Ville”. And she’s fully deserving of either title. I mentioned elsewhere in the thread, but where other politicians I dislike feel like they’re either doing the wrong things for the right reasons, or they’re selfish, corrupt or incompetent, Braverman feels like she gets off on the cruelty and is a genuinely evil person.

I think calling her the “second coming of Maggie” really undersells Braverman’s cruelty and capacity for evil. I think Thatcher really fucked up this country, and we’re still feeling the effects of some of her policies to this day. But Thatcher did genuinely think she was doing things for the right reasons - that she was making tough but necessary decisions.

Braverman seems to get off on the cruelty. A lot of her policies and ideas seem cruel for the sake of cruelty. There are plenty of politicians I’ve disagreed with and disliked, but they’ve all tended to feel like it’s either because they were doing what I’d consider to be the wrong things for the right reasons (ie, they thought it would help, different approaches to what I’d want but with positive outcomes in mind, etc) or they’ve just been selfish, corrupt or idiotic. Braverman is a whole different thing entirely. The purpose of her policies is often the cruelty, with no tangible benefits that even she can list. She’s a genuinely evil person.

Yeah. There are a couple of other factors, too:

• there are general economic issues around the world right now that are affecting most sectors. Borrowing is more expensive, utilities are more expensive, etc
• people had more disposable income and time to spend on things like gaming during COVID lock downs so games companies simply made more money because of that

So gaming (and tech in general) companies have seen a downturn in investment, their audiences are spending less money and the general economy is weaker. It’s no surprise so many of them are having to resort to layoffs. Some of that is down to poor management and overspending/over-expansion during the pandemic, and those companies’ management obviously deserves criticism. But some of it is just down to a collection of unfortunate circumstances all coming to a head at once.

Not to defend the guy because he seems awful, but a century is just absurd. There’s no way I’m going to be thinking in ~50 years’ time, “damn, I’m glad 80-year-old Sam Bankman-Fried is off the streets, I wouldn’t feel safe if he were free”. It just seems disproportionately high.

Dark really sucks me into a dark damp place

Very few places are darker or damper than Winden!