Very much agree. I don't know who out there thinks "you know what Amazon is missing? Aisles and shelves like a real store that I can walk my Mii avatar down with a little shopping cart." I don't see any way in which Metaverse enhances digital experiences, including social ones.
Sitting around a cartoon table with other cartoon people is far less social than a group video chat. I can play online Catan with three other people whose faces I'm looking at while we play right now. I just don't get it, and not from a "kids these days" angle.
It's a good analogy because 3D TVs were ultimately a gimmick and after several years of throwing everything at it, including Z-axis interfaces, they realized no one was getting any extra benefits from it. It's just tech with niche use cases.
Except I'm not ignorant. I'm very into computers, interface technology, and digital spaces, not to mention I've spent like 3 decades reading spec fiction about this. My argument is that their pitch makes no sense.
Can't stop thinking about the recent episodes of #TheBookOfBobaFett and what they mean for the future of Star Wars and for my own personal relationship to the brand. I think Member Berries that come from a place of true love for the franchise is a fine artistic direction for me.
Thus far the TV Filoniverse feels a lot more like the "proper" future for the universe after Return of the Jedi, and the rough parts and limits of the budget actually give it more charm than a melodramatic $250 million bombast project that's made on the fly by committee.
Just thinking of the janky Luke Skywalker deepfake from Mando S2 and how it actually feels more charming than the way-higher-quality-but-also-janky digital Tarkin and Leia from Rogue One. It also had about a billion times more emotional impact than those two.
A city shouldn't be able to suddenly turn restaurant owners into vaccine card enforcers, and no this isn't like a liquor license, which is something you specifically apply for with the advance understanding that you'll need to enforce drinking age rules to serve alcohol.
"Guess what? The business you've run for 15 years now also depends on you demanding people show you a vaccine card or you need to kick them out and not have them pay you for your services even if both of you want to do business."
How the fuck does this make sense to people?
It just doesn't work like this. There are processes and and legislation and advance notices and adjustment periods. You can't just say "oh the mayor decided that 30 days from now your business gets shut down if you don't do this literally arbitrary thing."
I've found that none of these Twitter covid hawks who constantly retreat to "but kids" and "but vulnerable people" and "but but but" will never ever tell you what their personal covid endgame is. Not even hypothetically. It's because secretly they're still hoping for covid zero.
And yes, people who are like "keep covid restrictions in place because of my personal medical risks" are selfish people and don't think of the very real medical problems that were and still are created BECAUSE OF covid restrictions. Something I know about intimately.
"I might catch covid and I'm at risk" does not get to supersede "this person's medical condition has deteriorated because they had to stay home for two years and now they also can't find the specialized medical care they need because of restrictions and shortages." Screw that.
I am a firm believer in the philosophy of tone matching, and I generally feel fine being nasty to someone if they were being nasty. This was a particularly egregious example and so I don't think that by making a couple of munchkin jokes I stepped over some line.
Is this a universal? No. Am I entirely consistent with this? No. But nastiness is an emotional reaction, not a cerebral one. None of us are perfect. Reich was galactically gross but instead of just cursing him out I went for the jokes. Trust me, it was the nicer option.
I think someone's physicality is fair game when the issue is some sort of physical scenario (in this case, a bunch of men backhanding a woman). If someone threatens to punch you, him being a waif becomes relevant.
Is there a name for the reverse version of Motte and Bailey? Like when you argue a defensible position but then are expected by the other party to defend its more extreme and indefensible version by extension?
I get that it's basically a strawman, but that's too vague for this very specific phenomenon.
No the scenario I'm describing is that I said I think masks in schools being optional is considerate, someone was like "well so should all childhood vaccines be optional too? Since you're so committed to being considerate..."