B : backslash

D : delete

H : hour

L : llama

N : nave

P : pterosaur

R : rote

U : urn

V : veldt

X : xerographic

Z : zero

“I’m feeling lucky, give me the dee”

Blender.

10 years ago it was scarcely believable that a FOSS package for such a niche purpose could be so fucking good. And it got better in the meantime. If Blender had existed when I was a kid I would have probably spent every waking hour creating stuff with it. As an adult, I get limited time to do that, but I appreciate that it exists.

15 years ago was when I stopped using facebook. It had the potential to be a great way to organize and maintain social connections, but instead it was a toxic environment promoting the most annoying shit, particularly when posted by frequent users trying to broadcast their lives to the world. Simultaneously it did a great job of hiding anything I’d actually be interested to know. Fuck knows how bad it has become in the meantime. It was striking how much it seemed to bring out the worst in people, and equally remarkable how so many people just wanted to wallow in that.

“die” sucks so bad as a word. I propose we change it to “douse”

Jokes on you when you’re mid tasting and you notice the whoopee cushion on a different chair

Yes, I don’t believe there is a line such as you have mentioned because the difference between engagement and compulsion is only a matter of degree and varies from one individual to another. Indeed the link you gave illustrates how some individuals exhibit unhealthy compulsive behavior from overuse of an engaging product. Games are not generally considered to be “addictive” in the sense that it would warrant legal sanctions. The same could be said of social media addiction.

For clarity, I’m just talking about addiction here, not any of the other problems such as disinformation or active promotion of unhealthy or dangerous behavior. I think it’s odd that the reporting is primarily focused on addiction, because it’s the totality of these things that really makes it worthy of legal intervention.

I think your core issue is confusion over what addiction is and is not.

That’s right. Because if your definition of addiction is broad enough to include compulsive use of social media, there’s a lot of scope for confusion. That is a case of media companies using psychological tricks to get their users/viewers coming back for more, which is not fundamentally different from a lot of TV programming techniques. There are variations of degree or complexity, but it’s the same game, and one which we’ve routinely accepted for years.

Don’t you care about spreading misinformation online?

How is that relevant?

If a TV program ends a series on an unnecessary cliffhanger, should there be legal consequences? How about if a smartphone game has timed events to encourage the player to come back regularly? While I agree that these things aren’t typically beneficial, I don’t think legislation is always the answer. There’s a huge gray area around the question of whether a feature is beneficial or just designed to increase compulsive consumption. Trying to legislate something so ambiguous is bound to produce bad results.

I’m talking about a web page linked to by MoffKalast, see comments above

It could be, although it also seems that “opposing” representatives are usually of the left/green persuasion and the right wing is mostly “supporting”, which is not what I’d expect to see in that case. All I can say for sure is that it’s very confusing.

EDIT: thanks for that link 😁

I think the problem is how to separate those things, particularly in a legal sense. Social media could come under “compulsive use” but not physical dependence. But so could a lot of games and TV shows, insofar as they are trying to make you feel a strong urge to keep playing/watching which doesn’t derive from providing value (better entertainment). There’s so many products that use every trick they can to keep you consuming, should we legislate against them all? It would be nice to do something about all of that but using the law to do it can only lead to overreach.

It’s not the topic of the vote I’m trying to clarify but rather trying to make sense of that web page showing who is voting for what, and how, if at all that is connected to the European Parliament vote. That website suggests overwhelming support for the proposal at both state and representative level, I’m not sure what to make of that.

Green = “opposing”, red = “supporting”… “chat control extension”. I guess the greens are against the chat control proposal, though that’s hardly clear, and there seem to be more reds than greens so that suggests the chat control proposal was accepted, or is there some other layer to this? Also the stance of a state bears no relation to that of its representatives. Very confusing

“Try to keep up ‌Zolfaqari, we’re way past that stage. Negotiations are over, now we’re just hell bent on destroying ourselves”

Next frame… multiple missiles, the closest goes in the hole and hits the near side, so all the blast is deflected up and away. These guys should buy themselves a lottery ticket

Looks like it went into the pre-existing hole. Incredibly lucky indeed

You even get a free cremation. Saves time and money!

AI my ass, they just don’t want people to bypass the paywall

“I do believe I’ll be the honor of – have the honor of taking Cuba. That would be good. That’s a big honor,” said the president.

“Taking Cuba. In some form, yeah,” the president confirmed. “Taking Cuba.”

“I mean, whether I free it, or take it… I think I can do anything I want with it, to tell you the truth,” Trump said.

Wasn’t he trying to make people forget about the Epstein files? Because jfc that isn’t how you do it