On this note, if I say something like "Mute _____ if you don't want to see this thread." or talk about how I am threading about D&D or Muppets to shake loose the new followers who don't want that content and you reply "Joke's on you, that's why I'm here," I 100% despise you.
A tweet isn't about you if it isn't about you. I cannot stand people who take a tweet that is not in any way speaking to or about them and reply in a way that simultaneously acknowledges that a statement has targeting parameters that exclude them, while making it about themselves
"Mute if you don't want to read it."
"But what if I DO want to read it?"
Then you read it, Blichael. You read the thread if you want to read it. You and twenty-three of your most asinine friends really had to jump in and seek clarification on that point?
I know this one is innocuous as far as medium-big Twitter account pet peeves go, but it hits all my buttons. It feels like learned helplessness. It feels like that thing where you cannot qualify a tweet with enough specificity to not have someone come along and demand more.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I love the way that Vampire Survivors gameplay evolves over a 30 minute run. Like the Axe, which moves in an obvious homage to Castlevania's classic axe, but on a top down screen. It does a TON of damage early on if you come at the enemies from the right direction...
...which is useful in the early game when combat still feels like individual engagements, but its fully evolved form loses that element by becoming omnidirectional, as the late game is more about keeping an encroaching horde from reaching you.
Oh, I may be talking about this game a lot. Before someone pops in with, "So you recommend this game?" I do not. My usual recommendation of "You might like this thing, if it's the sort of thing you like." applies times infinity here.
Friendship ended with Wordle, now Vampire Survivors is my best friend
I will probably keep playing Wordle. It just wasn't something I thought of today the way I did the other days since I started playing.
Vampire Survivors is not anything like Wordle but I feel like they both exist within a similar space of games that have figured out ways to sort of gently caress the addiction buttons.
So that "own a color on the blockchain" thing is less of a pipe dream and more of a pipe nightmare. It's a system you have to opt in to. This dude has created a pseudo-financial ecosystem where joining it means you have to agree you'll pay money every time you create art.
The thing is, there isn't a "smart contract" that's smart enough to know every single time you use a color. Even if you've opted in, you could use whatever colors you want and mint them through an unconnected protocol. It requires voluntary cooperation every step of the way.
Which, I mean, it's good. It's good that this joker can't actually use arbitrary code to lock you out of using a digital color combination freely whenever you want.
But it demonstrates how every promise made by NFTs and crypto is a lie. "Smart contracts" require participation.
Spotify "losing $4 billion of value" doesn't mean they lost $4 billion or that $4 billion worth of business was taken away from them by cancelations.
It's referring to the market valuation of the company. It's not nothing, but it's also not quite money.
Like so many tech companies presenting as media companies, presenting themselves as a solid choice for investors is a big part of their strategy. "Line go up" = success. But the line going down is temporary until it's not.
If you've been wondering why Spotify isn't panicking or why "spending $100 million to lose $4 billion" doesn't immediately trigger a reversal, it's because they don't yet have any reason to fear their share price won't recover.
Every time I'm not watching Star Trek Discovery, I forget that Tig Notaro is on this show as an ascerbic lesbian Star Fleet engineer named "Jett Reno" because this information is too awesome to retain.
Like, "Jett Reno, hotshot engineering genius from the future" is obviously a character she made up after casually wandering into a shoot one day.
...oh, actually, my mistake, she's not one of the "from the future" characters. I mean, she's from the 23rd century, which is the future relative to us, but she's not one of the characters from the future of the future.
As handy a metaphor as the Emperor's New Clothes is about speaking truth to power, I feel like the relative ease of conning people who are desperate to be seen as wise and in the know is an under-discussed aspect of it.
In the story, it's not just the threat of going against the Emperor socially that keeps the crowd going along with the illusion. The core of the swindle is that the ability to see the miraculous, magical garments is held up as a test of the viewer's intelligence and competence.
NFTs and crypto currency generally grow via cult-like dynamics, one of the key ones being the appeal of secret knowledge that elevates the holder and makes them special and powerful.