Adderbox76

Has anyone asked what your favourite dinosaur is yet?

For the most part, yes. By design. Conveying something in a movie is more challenging in that it has less time to do it than a book has less time to do it. So it HAS to be, to some degree, more blunt and on-the-nose than a book can take its time being.

You can write five pages of internal description discussing what your main character thinks about the world around them. But you can't show that in a movie and so you have to figure out how to get the gist of it across in a few lines of dialogue and some emoting.

It's why show don't tell is a rule. You have to simplify a movie in comparison to a book or else your audience will be sitting through a ten hour film.

When I thought the world had a future, I would have opted for cryogenics.

But I am 100% that we are on our way to the big reset button.

Not necessarily extinction, per se. But a societal bottleneck where a man-made catastrophe throws the survivors back technologically and we have to start the climb all over.

Getting past that point to the realm of actually achieving the technology necessary to unfreeze me seems unlikely. So cryogenics is just death with a preserved corpse.

I'll take death. The sooner the better, lately.

Trump will be dead and in the ground, either by bullet or by hamburger, long before any of this ever reaches the functional stage anyway. I can virtually guarantee it.

The very first thing written by a something called "proofreading services.com" is functionally wrong. That's a helluva start.

"exact" and "very accurate" are not the same thing. Not by a long shot.

"Very accurate" still leaves room for innacuracies while "Exact" does not. So why exactly would I trust a service whose very first sentence is an error?

I don't have negative sentiments towards A.I. I have negative sentiments towards the uses it's being put towards.

There are places where A.I can be super exciting and useful; namely places where the ability to quickly and accurately process large amounts of data can be critically life saving, ie) air traffic control, language translation, emergency response preparedness, etc...

But right now it's being used to paint shitty pictures so that companies don't have to pay actual artists.

If I had a choice, I'd say no AI in the arts; save it for the data processing applications and leave the art to the humans.

For that matter, why is it called "getting corn-holed" instead of "getting maize-holed"

Hardwired? No.

Victims of a decades long plot to erode civic education and demonize critical thinking in order to render a population of stupid voters? Yes.

Why does it look like they all just gathered in some dude's garage?

I keep expecting to spot a snap-on tools pinup calendar hung up on the wall in the background.

• Silent Hu ter 3

• Mass Effect Legendary edition. (Yes you said no compilations, so if I have to choose one it would of course be 2)

• Rimworld

• Kerbal Space Program (with a USB stick full of mods that I smuggled in up my butt)

• Fallout 4 (with a second USB stick full of mods smuggled in up my butt)

Why didn't I put them on the same USB stick? You're guess is as good as mine...

Yes. But in 99.9 percent of cases, it also happens to be plural, so my eternal hope is that if it can be grasped as "If there's as 's', use 'fewer'", maybe more people would get it.

Can I be the guy that's known around town for pointing out that in the given context, it's actually "fewer users"

And yeah yeah, I know about evolution of language and common usage, and all that crap. But it really does just boil down to the fact that fewer sounds more elegant when the object is plural. ie: "There are usually fewer unexpected costs associated with new home ownership", vs "There is usually less unexpected cost associated with new home ownership" (Both are correct in their given context)

It's about how language rolls off the tongue. If we lose that we might as well grunt at each other draw pictographs with our own feces.

/end of rant.