Khrux @ Khrux @ttrpg.network

Posts

1

Comments

512

Joined

2 yr. ago

Late reply but I am really good with spice in the first stage, eating it. Then if it's really spicy, I'll have a few days of bad stomach ache and shits that actually feel like they're burning.

That's the real thing I wasn't ready to admit until you said it. I don't want a screwdriver because it's less impressive to see. People will look at me and make the mistake of thinking they couldn't do it, but when it felt like LEGO, people were more likely to be interested.

I'd really really like a phone with cameras that are flush with the back of the case, and don't care whatsoever how thin my phone is once it's under 1cm.

It feels like the entire ethos of smartphone design (led by apple) had sleek minimal design as it's guiding light, but keeps adding exceptions. As much as I enjoy a versatile, bulky laptop and photography camera, I really enjoy the style of a smartphone being a piece of glass in my pocket.

I'd have preferred a click lock of sorts, because in the cases I'm wanting to swap my battery, I'm probably on the move with no access to power / charging, such as hiking, coach rides, camping etc.

Currently I'm pretty happy with a portable charger but I'd much rather have one or two fully charged batteries, both for the speed of getting back to full charge and reducing the speed of battery degradation.

I'm already a big fan of having a minimalist daily carry, I have my phones with my bank cards on it, my house keys and maybe my camera or water bottle, and that's all. If be happy to shove a few spare batteries in a little case when I know I'll be out the house for some time, but a screwdriver is something I'd prefer to not have to carry every day.

I 90% agree, I swapped to wireless earbuds about a decade ago when my aux port on whatever phone I had then broke, and I immediately preferred it. I went from buying £10 wired earphones from a supermarket what sounded shit and broke every month to £25 wireless earphones that sounded shit and broke every 6 months, so for me it was am improvement. I was also a chronic "catch headphone cable on every handle" victim, to the point that I immediately preferred the wireless solution. Another thing is when my wireless headphones break, they fucking break; I go with one earbud for about a month then inevitably buy a new pair. When my wired headphones started to degrade, I always fought it, ending up in a losing battle of finding that perfect way to hold them to make them still work. The only downside I have nowadays is when I'm listening to music or a video and realise I've misplaced my phone, which isn't really an issue, just that it was impossible when it was tethered to my ears.

But I'm probably part of a very small minority when it comes to my preference. I carry a compact camera any day I leave the house intending to take photos, so my ideal phone would have one rear camera that prioritises efficiency over quality. I'd have no headphone port, and to be honest, I could live with no ports and wireless charging and data transfer. I've had two smartphones in the last that had their USB-C ports fail as chargers (both galaxy S8s), and I could go years without needing to use the port for anything else. My dream phone would have no ports, one rear camera without a bump, no front camera, minimal tactile side buttons, be pretty slim, have a swappable battery and run a FOSS OS and mostly FOSS apps.

I respect the voices that want a smartphone equivalent to a ThinkPad a lot, but I don't really think it's anywhere near as necessary as a ThinkPad would be, because for most tasks that need something like that, I'd just use that.

That being said, there's two reasons I don't 100% agree. The first is to do with the fairphone specifically. More battery space and better waterproofing don't really apply to a phone where I can swap the battery and it comes apart so much that it's not really competitively waterproof. The second is larger, which is that I can just not use a headphone jack if I prefer wireless, while people who prefer wired are having increasingly few options available on the market.

I'm actually quite fond of a large screen, but it's not enough of a selling point for me to not go for this as my next phone. I have large enough hands that I don't struggle with reach on a large phone, so the main drawback is the additional battery power. But the fairphone has a swappable battery anyway, so that issue is more or less nullified.

My pet peeve is the front camera, I cannot wrap my head around the lunacy of having a large dead spot on the front of the phone, to the point I'd rather have a phone with no front facing camera than a big dead spot. People throw out screens for less.

Fairphone is almost the ideal phone for me, except this, and although I can probably remove the camera module, I can't swap the screen for one without the dead patch.

Book your time travellers grand tour feast of flood beer, butter, cheese, whiskey, wine and chocolate.

For the cheaper package, there's the toxic runoff, coal and radioactive material tour.

50% of the list is "The great chocolate and beer flood, where everyone got drunk and full." And the other half is "The terrible toxic fossils fuel slip or ecological disaster and death", except both have equal deaths.

Also I actually have less of an issue with other people buying Gaiman's work. I have no love for the man and won't buy anything myself again, but if you buy something of his, the money goes to him, and stops there. Rowling directly funds bigotry; the money people spend on Harry Potter is in a direct pipeline to funding the suffering of innocent people.

At the very least, before everything happened with Gaiman, he was known for having positive philanthropic ventures. Even if you gave him money, a sizable portion went to him, another portion went on to better the world. I'd presume he still supports these trusts and charities too.

This guy pops up everywhere online with screenshots of his silly tweets, and every time I think it's Edward Snowden.

It takes me to the end of tweet to realise that's a crazy post for him, and go back and read his name properly.

I'm the opposite, I want romance, character death, low magic, a later era (1700s theming more than 800s), safety tools out the wazoo and in-game bigotry that my party can rebel against.

Gal Godot.

I'm very impressed with Lemmy here for not doing what Reddit would have and naming a long list of women. That being said, if I didn't feel a moral obligation to boycott Gal Godot, she is so talentless that she hasn't made anyone else's list because it's such a low hanging fruit.

She's very typecast, but she can act. If she actually got a role where she could show strong emotion, I think she could rise to it well. She's good in Challengers and great in Euphoria.

He's the only actor I can think of I actively boycott other than Gal Godot. Aside from his violent racism and American nationalism which is all well documented, I just absolutely loathe the type of character he likes to play; the macho snarky asshole who feels like he got kicked out of basic training and makes being a veteran his whole personality.

There's few archetypes I hate more than the "former soldier who could kill a man, harbouring some deep unnerving instinct", or the "American in a truck who loves the flag and is just a hard working guy", and somehow he always plays and glamorises both, despite not actually being either.

This was my hometown's team. It's super strange having it put on the map, where basically everybody knows this story, and before then nothing at all.

It's absolutely just a random investment in a potentially very lucrative industry. 21st century football is massively swayed by who can spend the most money, especially below the very top level where the money becomes too ridiculous. Wrexham had the oldest active ground in the UK and the ground itself is particularly goodnfkr the level of play. Wrexham had dropped from 3rd division to like 5th, near 6th when he bought it (I think). But Wrexham as a city isn't small, it's the largest population centre in North Wales, and before it gained city status in 2022, was a larger town than many of the cities near it. All it really needed to do well was investment, where it had the facilities to be tenfold more successful if anybody actually paid for it, it's the same for probably a dozen other teams across the UK.

But the investment worked of course, and the team has done amazingly well since then. But don't consider this anything but an investment where two celebrities used their image to aid it's success.

He is very involved in the branding that results in his typecasting, so I have no pitty for it.

I agree, I think he could have pulled off the same persona written for both Bale and Patterson's batmen. He's also played a lot of assholes, and I'm not sure how much that just develops into a feeling that gets under your skin.

He wanted the weird image. He implied he was intending to start some sort of harem cult a few years back, which was really a hippie holiday for millionaire women in a very LA way. He absolutely played up his image as a self obsessed creep looking to be worshipped to sell this experience. I honestly feel everything kinda gross about how Jared Leto feels is marketing, although God knows why, as it must hurt his career.

The internet made him his darling and then turned on him pretty quickly, a similar thing to what most female stars face, such as Jennifer Lawrence hugely had to deal with in the 2010s. Not that I'm fond of the guy, but this his internet attitude stinks and I think has coloured his image since. However:

He's had a really strange rise to fame. He was in Parks and Rec as the lovable goofball type, then the US army literally put him in Zero Dark Thirty (a film with unbelievable rewriting and military control) to be a recruiting tool, "Even Andy from Parks and Rec can Kill Bin Laden." Even though he was put on the map by nationalist military propaganda, I don't blame him for that.

He also attends a church (Zoe Church) which was modelled of an openly homophobic church (Hillsong), and founded by a former pastor of the homophobic church, although this church specifically has no open statement on LGBTQ+ people. This church and it's pastor are absolutely suspiciously absent on this stance, to the point many assume it's homophobic and transphobic but in LA and not wanting the backlash, particularly as the pastor has funded a Christian film, The heart of Man, that has an openly homophobic messages.

There was also a controversy with his wife and ex-wife that I think was more of a fuck up than anything else. He parted with his first wife who he'd been with since before his fame, not long after she had a baby that was born premature. He then married again and announced his gratitude for a healthy child. Obviously people didn't like this, but I don't think he meant it how it comes across. People also feel he showed disloyalty to his first wife in leaving her once famous, but even if fame did change him, that's still a forgivable reason for parting ways with someone.

Although I don't avoid movies with Pratt, I feel he wants to be funny like Robin Williams, and a hero like Harrison Ford, without the charm or wit to come close to either. What we're left with is a bland, typecast actor who feels he'd abandon any tolerance and compassion in his image if it stopped being in vogue, but maybe we just want to see him fall from grace.

I feel that's old enough not to be in the Tom Cruise produced issue area. In the 2000s, he was in War of the worlds, Collateral, The Last Samurai and even showed he still had range in Magnolia, Vanilla Sky and even Tropic Thunder. It wasn't quite the same as the 90s where he was cast in a huge range of great roles, and it definitely became less common over the 00s.

I'd say from 2010 onwards, he's stared in 0 films that don't feel warped to be an advert for his specific style of masculinity. Even if one was good, Edge of Tomorrow, it's still a Tom Cruise movie.