WaltJRimmer

Huh... For troubleshooting, would you be able to boot into something other than Windows and see if the problem persists?

Any de-federated instance doesn’t have the money or resources to start DDOS attacks.

It's shockingly cheap and easy to DDOS people, especially if you know something that makes them exceptionally vulnerable as is mentioned in the post above. Small-time wanna-be hackers can put their allowance savings into getting a DDOS running just to be spiteful little shits.

Sure, could it be a corporate attack? Of course it could be. But could it also be some spiteful little fanboy who just wants to piss on people who want to do their own thing? Of course it could be that as well. And dismissing that as impossible is simply wrong.

They can ask, and even sue, for the property back but it’s not a guarantee that they’ll win.

They're guaranteed to win if the person they're suing can't afford to live for years embroiled in litigation.

I miss Cantor's more experimental stuff like this. His work with Tally Hall is a lot of fun, and Not a Trampoline is a favored album of mine. Like many, I originally found him because he blew up on YouTube a couple of times, with his biggest being this Shia LaBeouf video. Nowadays, though, he's got a steady income making children's music in a collaboration with a couple of other artists, and I can respect wanting that stability in your life. But... Man, do I miss his experimental style.

mostly the people seem to date in order to find a compatible match for sexual relief, rather than a deep relationship

I find that to be a very pessimistic and dismissive view of most people. While sex is important to a lot of people and a lot of relationships, to say that most people just want sex and not a meaningful relationship is wrong and paints most people in a very negative light. In my experience, most people are looking for something meaningful. It's hard to succeed at finding that, but it's what most people are searching for.

I'm not a 16:10 zealot, but I can understand why some people like it. Firstly, no, it's not inconvenient to have black bars along the top and bottom of media. I don't see why it would be. That used to be the most common experience for watching widescreen media, and it still is the experience with some ultra-wide screen media for anyone without an ultra-wide screen display. I don't see anything that would be inconvenient about it and can even see the convenience if you, say, need to pull up a status bar on the top or bottom and don't want it to obstruct the media playing.

But the biggest argument I've heard is for people using the display at least partially as a workstation. A lot of UIs on production software are cramped for space, trying to give you as many tools as you need on screen at once. Yes, these are somewhat customizable, but screen real estate can be critical in some of these. I never thought about it until someone mentioned 16:10 and how it can help, but there are a lot more times when I could have really used just a little more vertical space to make things more convenient than horizontal. The example that really made me think about looking at 16:10 the next time I get a monitor is that I do video editing sometimes, and they mentioned that a 16:10 will give you an extra channel or two to work on compared to a 16:9 display.

Does that mean 16:10 is better? Not inherently. It's going to be better for some people. Maybe for most people. But not everyone is going to need it, not everyone is going to use it, and not everyone is going to even want it. I grew up with SD TVs watching VHS tapes with big black bars on the top and bottom because I wanted to see the whole movie and not a pan-and-scanned half-frame re-edit, so I don't see any problem with having black bars on the top and bottom of my screen. That's just normal. But you kind of called it an inconvenience, so to you it's bound to be weird. So for you, maybe a 16:9 is better than a 16:10 could ever be because it fits your use case better, fits your tastes better.

Certainly something I'd considered as well. Though, I would say that kind of strategy hasn't generally proved successful in television in the past, at least not over the average. However, streaming kind of makes that a little foggier. Futurama, along with The Office, were some of the most repeatedly streamed shows on Netflix before their contracts got canceled and they were moved to Hulu (The Office eventually moving to Peacock). So while that strategy tends to not work very well, every time that it does work may be a big enough boost to retention that it's considered a viable strategy. I don't know, of course, since I don't work for Hulu or in any relevant field, so it's all amateur speculation.

To everyone saying, "That's a stupid take," or, "But who cares?" Probably Hulu.

It's a numbers thing. You have fans of Futurama, that's one market, and you're likely to get a good percentage of those as people coming in to watch the reboot, but not 100% of them. But if they're the only ones who stick around to watch the full new season, that's a really limited market. That's a relatively teeny tiny audience. There are plenty of shows that tried to continue marketing themselves in their later seasons, especially episodic (as opposed to serial) shows. Because you always want your numbers to grow. You want to bring in new fans.

I also don't see it being a huge thing because I don't think a lot of people who have never heard of Futurama before are going to be particularly interested in the reboot, but the thing is that some would be. And hitting them with inside jokes that they're not going to get without having watched the rest of the series, yeah, it's going to make some of them turn the show off instead of going back and watching the older stuff or keeping going. We've seen that happen before. And that risks making the audience shrink instead of grow. That's bad. That will probably lead to it getting canceled again. If the creators are fine with that, I as a long-term fan am going to watch the new season anyway and would prefer a good, clear artistic vision to shine through than something that's simply looking to draw in the widest possible prospective audience, but from a publisher standpoint, from the viewpoint of a new fan, and even from the viewpoint of someone who simply wants more seasons, I can kind of understand why potentially alienating new viewers would be seen as a concern.

Hmm. That's an interesting question that I'm not entirely certain how to answer. There's a lot about myself, including my personality, that I would change if I could. But being bi isn't one of them. It's also something that when I accepted the label felt somewhat freeing. I no longer denied certain things about myself. I wouldn't want to go back to before that. But it's also not something that I did choose, it's just something that I am.

As for the prejudice against bisexuals, even in the community, my feelings on it are that some people will simply be hateful. There are plenty of reasons people might be hateful towards you. Your sexuality is only one of many. One of the baseless ones, too. You know that if someone hates you for being bi the kind of person they are at that point. The kind that will judge you based on how you were born rather than the choices that you've made in life. I don't see appeasing those kinds of people worthy of changing something about myself. Again, I have much that I regret and many things I would change about myself. But being bi, no. Does that mean I like it or dislike it? Neither. It's just something that... Is.

I used to and still have a not really impressive but cumbersome VHS and DVD collection, but I can't really afford to collect physical media anymore. Even if I could, finding space for it all is difficult.

I really miss physical media for a few reasons. I know that streaming services have started flirting with the idea of bonus features, but as someone who was interested in filmmaking, mostly not having access to behind-the-scenes and other special features with most of the films I watch has been really sad for me. I also like owning the media, being able to watch it when the internet is down, things like that. But... Man, when money is tight and space is tighter, it is really tough to keep up a physical media collection.

Of course, the unprompted violence against a people must be the first thing to be addressed. But this new policy does nothing to actually help in that fight while doing harm to the peace which one would hope would happen afterward. There have been nations in perpetual states of war, and it's rather horrible. No one should want this to become one.

When times are tough like they are now, some people will tear apart, but others will band together for a strengthened front. With the amount of concentrated wealth and the difficulty people are having making a living wage, there does seem to be a rise of attempts to unionize and to use those unions to actually get greater benefits.

Now, the real question is if that will be successful. The last couple of times this started to happen in the US at least, there was resistance, sometimes bloody resistance, to the power being given to the workers. And what started with good intentions ended up in some cases corrupt, harming the unions for decades after with bad reputation and associations.

I think that somewhere like antiwork is going to see these things happening and assume that the movement is going strong. Others who don't hear about these efforts at all will assume much more negatively. I believe it will be somewhere in between. A hard and continuous fight, but one that is being fought.