Originally posted by Hitchhiker's Guide To...View Post
Was looking up VR porn, just what the state of the market is, a few weeks ago, and it looks fairly class. It's surely a massive driver of VR to have that immersive an experience. Don't like that Oculus requires a Facebook account or what they are going to do with all that data (filthy data in my case), but thought the Valve VR looked class.
I've no Facebook account linked. I don't have one.
Isn't the Valve index like twice the price and you need the high-end gaming pc on top to make it all work?
I have seen numerous comments from people saying the same about the sound. Problem with the film or the cinemas? I might wait till I see if they can fix the issues before going to it. Good to hear a very positive review though as I am really looking forward to it.
Was genuinely considering asking staff if there was an issue with the sound in our screening. Only realised afterwards that it was a widespread complaint online. Some funny cunts on reddit suggested Nolan is stone deaf as an obnoxiously loud score and ott sound effects are a recurring theme in his movies.
The only thing I'll say is don't go in half asleep, actually grab a double espresso beforehand as it's quite a ride when things kick off.
Originally posted by Hitchhiker's Guide To...View Post
They just introduced a regulation a few weeks ago. You're going to be forced to open a Facebook (even as an existing user), but you have a bit of a grace period - new users have to use facebook.
Meh, it's not a big deal for most people. Just that I personally shut my Facebook down as dislike it so much and don't like the idea of being made to open one again for something unrelated.
What an awful decision. Seems like Zucks is still aiming to have FB as the ready player one universe of the future. Two year grace period when we will hopefully see loads more players entering the market and hopefully a backtrack on that crap from them. The problem is FB has the resources and is already quite a way ahead in terms of value and the platform itself. I'd happily drop them in the future for a better alternative. John Carmack one of the Oculus founders is such an impressive guy though in the industry that he alone could keep them ahead. I recently watched him on the Rogan podcast. He absolutely lives for this project and still codes with a huge percentage of his time. Takes time away from his family, books himself into hotels for say a week, and does marathon coding sessions alone. Good podcast overall on the state of VR and what could lie ahead in the future.
Trump is (rather bizarrely when you consider his record, and those of his associates) trying to spin himself as being a 'law and order' prez and to whip up fear of mob violence. It's crude, and has obvious holes in it if you give it even more than a cursory glance, but it could be effective.
"We are not Europeans. Those people on the continent are freaks."
Huge regret for me that in all the years I only managed to catch him live a few of times most memorably at Lisdoonvarna in the early 80's around the time of Handful of Earth which I went on to wear out multiple copies of . Unlikely he'll tour again as his recovery from a stroke has been slow enough. There has been a wonderful recording of a live concert from '82 that's well worth buying as it was organised explicitly to try to funnel cash to him to help his recovery. https://www.greentrax.com/music/prod...-harvard-tapes
Originally posted by Hitchhiker's Guide To...View Post
I saw fervent outrage, frotting at the teeth outrage, at the end of last week accusing an Irish Times journalist of racism for saying there was a 'lynch mob' after Phil Hogan. Apparently that was co-opting the suffering of black people. So lets not pretend that lefties are not their own worst enemies. The sooner the election the better really.
Ignore the outrage and take a step back to think. Do you see the problem that using a term that refers to the systematic murder of people for the colour of their skin, a practice that occurred recently and has many modern-day equivalents, with the pressure on a politician to step down from a role into a comfortable pension?
What's ridiculous? The riots are in blue cities in blue states. The mayors who won't police the riots are all Democrats. The police commissioners that oversaw the needless escalation at the start of all this were all Democrat appointees. The rioters are (notwithstanding some evidence of outside agitators) far left activists. The protestors who tolerate violence on their own side are still turning up every day despite the fact their "peaceful protests" turn into riots every single night. The journalists repeatedly gaslighting their audience by claiming there's no riots at all are at left wing outlets. The far right are turning up because they've been whipped up into a frenzy seeing images of burning buildings every night and no action being taken. I'm in both left wing and right wing circles and everyone is stewing for a barney, celebrating violence on their own side and screaming bloody murder about it on the other.
Biden has already condemned violence on both sides, but he'll have a hard time convincing America that he's not just saying that. What he really needs is cowards like Ted Wheeler to step up and shut this mess down before it really kicks off. It will of course be career suicide for Wheeler so Biden will have to engage in some serious maneuvering to fix this. And ff he gets elected he'll have a right job keeping the crazies happy without alienating the rest of the country.
Trump will capitalise on all this by claiming the far left are out of control, the Democrats have coddled them for too long, are secretly supportive of them etc etc. And of course he's got the solution... This will appeal very strongly to a lot of middle America. I just hope he's done too much bullshit to win back enough of them.
"I can’t find anyone who agrees with what I write or think these days, so I guess I must be getting closer to the truth." - Hunter S. Thompson
Ignore the outrage and take a step back to think. Do you see the problem that using a term that refers to the systematic murder of people for the colour of their skin, a practice that occurred recently and has many modern-day equivalents, with the pressure on a politician to step down from a role into a comfortable pension?
It's just a phrase m8, stop problematising everything.
"I can’t find anyone who agrees with what I write or think these days, so I guess I must be getting closer to the truth." - Hunter S. Thompson
Ignore the outrage and take a step back to think. Do you see the problem that using a term that refers to the systematic murder of people for the colour of their skin, a practice that occurred recently and has many modern-day equivalents, with the pressure on a politician to step down from a role into a comfortable pension?
No, thats bollox tbh. We’re not robots that need to watch every word for fear of offending the multitudes that Spend all day waiting for a chance to be outraged. This whole nonsense of trying to reduce the language we use to blandness and impotent murmurings...though that probably offends the brothers of the flaccid penis group or something...Is nonsense.
I dread to think what the world will look like in 30-50 years with everyone spending all their time hand wringing and afraid to speak for fear of causing offense to someone.
anyway, Before we start, i’m not getting dragged any further into this I’ll not change your mind, you won’t change mine and I can’t be arsed wasting the time and effort to get into a back and forth.
Ignore the outrage and take a step back to think. Do you see the problem that using a term that refers to the systematic murder of people for the colour of their skin, a practice that occurred recently and has many modern-day equivalents, with the pressure on a politician to step down from a role into a comfortable pension?
When outrage and political capital is used on things like this, people get fatigued and stop listening.
No, thats bollox tbh. We’re not robots that need to watch every word for fear of offending the multitudes that Spend all day waiting for a chance to be outraged. This whole nonsense of trying to reduce the language we use to blandness and impotent murmurings...though that probably offends the brothers of the flaccid penis group or something...Is nonsense.
I dread to think what the world will look like in 30-50 years with everyone spending all their time hand wringing and afraid to speak for fear of causing offense to someone.
anyway, Before we start, i’m not getting dragged any further into this I’ll not change your mind, you won’t change mine and I can’t be arsed wasting the time and effort to get into a back and forth.
You make a very good point, and it's easy for people to get carried away with more marginal cases, but I really don't think the term Lynch Mob is one of them. Can you imagine how Irish people would feel about the term had the Irish people been the victims of Lynch mobs? Can you think about the visceral impact the term might have on someone who had a family member lynched?
Scrolled by a tweet last week from a guy talking about how he always opens biscuits the same way, he mentioned OCD. A mildly humorous tweet.
The following day I read a tweet from him apologising profusely for it because somebody commented that they found it offensive as their sister has OCD.
Originally posted by Hitchhiker's Guide To...View Post
If a crowd decides that an often used word is no longer to be used, for valid reasons, then the first step is not to have thousands of people declare a user of that phrase a racist, but rather to politely note that it's best not to use that term. There's nothing wrong with the point about the phrase, there's something wrong with how those people acted.
You make a very good point, and it's easy for people to get carried away with more marginal cases, but I really don't think the term Lynch Mob is one of them. Can you imagine how Irish people would feel about the term had the Irish people been the victims of Lynch mobs? Can you think about the visceral impact the term might have on someone who had a family member lynched?
My next door neighbours when I was a kid were a family called the Lynches. We always called them The Lynch Mob.
I now feel shame and regret.
"We are not Europeans. Those people on the continent are freaks."
What's ridiculous? The riots are in blue cities in blue states. The mayors who won't police the riots are all Democrats. The police commissioners that oversaw the needless escalation at the start of all this were all Democrat appointees. The rioters are (notwithstanding some evidence of outside agitators) far left activists. The protestors who tolerate violence on their own side are still turning up every day despite the fact their "peaceful protests" turn into riots every single night. The journalists repeatedly gaslighting their audience by claiming there's no riots at all are at left wing outlets. The far right are turning up because they've been whipped up into a frenzy seeing images of burning buildings every night and no action being taken. I'm in both left wing and right wing circles and everyone is stewing for a barney, celebrating violence on their own side and screaming bloody murder about it on the other.
Biden has already condemned violence on both sides, but he'll have a hard time convincing America that he's not just saying that. What he really needs is cowards like Ted Wheeler to step up and shut this mess down before it really kicks off. It will of course be career suicide for Wheeler so Biden will have to engage in some serious maneuvering to fix this. And ff he gets elected he'll have a right job keeping the crazies happy without alienating the rest of the country.
Trump will capitalise on all this by claiming the far left are out of control, the Democrats have coddled them for too long, are secretly supportive of them etc etc. And of course he's got the solution... This will appeal very strongly to a lot of middle America. I just hope he's done too much bullshit to win back enough of them.
Some of that is very interesting. I think where we would differ is that I wouldn't put "peaceful" protesting on a pedestal. I believe the protests don't happen in a vacuum, the angrier people get the more likely they are to turn to violence. And the anger comes from both the issues at hand and violent policing.
In any case we can agree that Trump will do his best to use it to his advantage. On the plus side at least he isn't threatening to nuke somewhere - which in some different reality is definitely happening.
Ignore the outrage and take a step back to think. Do you see the problem that using a term that refers to the systematic murder of people for the colour of their skin, a practice that occurred recently and has many modern-day equivalents, with the pressure on a politician to step down from a role into a comfortable pension?
The problem is, that’s not what lynching means.
Lynching is extra-judicial killing by a group, typically a public mob. Race it not a factor in the meaning of the word. The term goes back to the American revolution to a Judge Lynch would would round up and sentence loyalist without trial, although not typically execution.
That meaning developed when mobs began killing suspects without trial. The early victims were predominantly white. Obviously, black victims became the victimised majority later. But it’s a bit much to redefine the word to a representation of that group only*.
*As Hitch suggested above, if we collectively decide that’s it should no linger be used due to the history of lynching, that’s fine also. But that needs to be decided and implemented first rather than acting like it’s been the case all along.
The problem is, that’s not what lynching means.
Lynching is extra-judicial killing by a group, typically a public mob. Race it not a factor in the meaning of the word. The term goes back to the American revolution to a Judge Lynch would would round up and sentence loyalist without trial, although not typically execution.
That meaning developed when mobs began killing suspects without trial. The early victims were predominantly white. Obviously, black victims became the victimised majority later. But it’s a bit much to redefine the word to a representation of that group only*.
*As Hitch suggested above, if we collectively decide that’s it should no linger be used due to the history of lynching, that’s fine also. But that needs to be decided and implemented first rather than acting like it’s been the case all along.
Who do you think is going to decide and implement it? How does it get decided?
Originally posted by Hitchhiker's Guide To...View Post
I saw fervent outrage, frotting at the teeth outrage, at the end of last week accusing an Irish Times journalist of racism for saying there was a 'lynch mob' after Phil Hogan. Apparently that was co-opting the suffering of black people. So lets not pretend that lefties are not their own worst enemies. The sooner the election the better really.
Your spelling mistakes are getting more bizarre.
TOP DEFINITION frotting
Rubbing/holding/masturbating two penises together for sexual pleasure. Usually, both men stand or lie down facing each other so that the undersides of both penises touch along their entire length, allowing one person to masturbate both penises simultaneously.
Who do you think is going to decide and implement it? How does it get decided?
We are, IPB.
To be serious for a second, you also need to consider context. If a journalist was saying there was a 'lynch mob after Phil Hogan', I really don't think she\he had a any racial connotation in mind whatsoever.
"We are not Europeans. Those people on the continent are freaks."
Originally posted by Hitchhiker's Guide To...View Post
If a crowd decides that an often used word is no longer to be used, for valid reasons, then the first step is not to have thousands of people declare a user of that phrase a racist, but rather to politely note that it's best not to use that term. There's nothing wrong with the point about the phrase, there's something wrong with how those people acted.
Thats the main point, but outrage is on trend. There needs to be a period of time where we educate people on phrases/words we feel are outdated for racist or other origins, rather than send the lynch mob after them straight away. But that doesnt feed the outrage. And the only punishment for a slip up seems to be complete public shame via the internet/ lose career if applicable.
Who do you think is going to decide and implement it? How does it get decided?
The public generally. Collective majority agreement. As has happened with many words previously. For example the word retard is seen as less acceptable despite its medical origin.
Its not a instantaneous or automatic as soon as anyone claims it’s redefined though. Some people claim that imbecile and moron are off limits too. Or that everyday expressions “long time no see” and ”no can do” are racist (which was news to me tbh).
Maybe this is the start of lynching being off-limited. But political motives would have to be removed before anyone can be taken seriously.
Who do you think is going to decide and implement it? How does it get decided?
exactly
Can it not be taken that lynch mob is strictly defined as "a band of people intent on lynching someone" (and lynch defined as "kill (someone) for an alleged offence without a legal trial, especially by hanging"? Who decides what connotations are associated with a word or phrase?
Jordan Peterson - How did a man with such an irritating voice become popular through podcasting and talking to sold out venues? Nails on a chalk board to me. Thus I know very little about him and it seems like that is a win.
Is Twitter that bad. I hear terms such as "Twitter outrage" "Mob rule" etc bandied about which would seem to indicate that some people attribute a negative connotation at having an opinion on that forum. Dont have an account myself but feel it's worth noting that one can share an opinion with someone else or a number of people but for different reasons. Yet when someone opposes that opinion they can just lump you in with the the morally outraged baying mob.
Seems like a lazy way to discredit a considered stance on something.
Also the emotive language used in arguments is interesting
"criminally incompetent" "baying for blood" "penis rubbing"
Obviously intended to be more persuasive.
Might do an exercise sometime and edit a few posts taking out all the emotive language to see the impact.
I listened to the Audible version of his 12 Rules one which he read himself and it was bizarre and garbage.
Just came across a few You Tube bits and he seemed to be making sense or at least doing better than the interviewer.
Loses me a bit with the terminology "post modern xyz's" etc which puts me off a bit.
Is Twitter that bad. I hear terms such as "Twitter outrage" "Mob rule" etc bandied about which would seem to indicate that some people attribute a negative connotation at having an opinion on that forum. Dont have an account myself but feel it's worth noting that one can share an opinion with someone else or a number of people but for different reasons. Yet when someone opposes that opinion they can just lump you in with the the morally outraged baying mob.
Seems like a lazy way to discredit a considered stance on something.
Also the emotive language used in arguments is interesting
"criminally incompetent" "baying for blood" "penis rubbing"
Obviously intended to be more persuasive.
Might do an exercise sometime and edit a few posts taking out all the emotive language to see the impact.
nuance is key and it's hard to do on twitter. Short snappy takes sell better, but complicated matters usually need more discussion. I think this leads to a lot of lumping opinions under one umbrella. I agree, it's generally a lazy approach.
The public generally. Collective majority agreement. As has happened with many words previously. For example the word retard is seen as less acceptable despite its medical origin.
Its not a instantaneous or automatic as soon as anyone claims it’s redefined though. Some people claim that imbecile and moron are off limits too. Or that everyday expressions “long time no see” and ”no can do” are racist (which was news to me tbh).
Maybe this is the start of lynching being off-limited. But political motives would have to be removed before anyone can be taken seriously.
This wasn't the start of the word being off-limited, it's just the first time the journalist became aware of it.
Here is a similar case where Robert Benmosche, the CEO of AIG apologised for using the term. In 2013
My point is that this is a messy process - there is not a clear dividing line that where a word goes from being acceptable to not; or who decides. And words remain, hanging around. Part of the process now is outrage. It clearly isn't an ideal process, but given there is literally no effective alternative that's what we are stuck with.
Edit: just to add that this is a difficult process for everyone.
Can it not be taken that lynch mob is strictly defined as "a band of people intent on lynching someone" (and lynch defined as "kill (someone) for an alleged offence without a legal trial, especially by hanging"? Who decides what connotations are associated with a word or phrase?
When I said, "Who decides?" My implicit conclusion wasn't everyone should just say what they want.
Has anyone read any of Jordan Petersons books and would they care to give a quick review.
His 12 Rules for Life is an exceptional book. I can't speak to the Audible experience of it, but some books need to be read and I imagine this is one of them as I would pause and reflect a lot while reading it. I have the highest respect for his mind, and consider him a deeply ethical thinker.
When I said, "Who decides?" My implicit conclusion wasn't everyone should just say what they want.
but who does decide? And when? And who gets to decide on interpretation of other's words?
If one associates the phrase "lynch mob" with the systematic murder of people for the colour of their skin, is that the fault of the person who uses the term?
His 12 Rules for Life is an exceptional book. I can't speak to the Audible experience of it, but some books need to be read and I imagine this is one of them as I would pause and reflect a lot while reading it. I have the highest respect for his mind, and consider him a deeply ethical thinker.
The points he was making in the clips I saw seemed sound logically. Will investigate further.
Originally posted by Hitchhiker's Guide To...View Post
I've invested, like all cool kids, in the nations favourite breadmaker. A stunning 4.8/5 rating from over 1500 reviews on Amazon. Can't seem to find anything other than the most basic flour in the local Tescos, Odlums plain white. Where would one source the good stuff? Strong flour, I think its called. Is it maybe that you need to go to a specialist place or just a bigger supermarket? Just a nice big flour shop: a flour emporium? Flour me up, people.
Haven't been able to source strong flour since the start of the pandemic. Down to the last bag of my stockpile.
but who does decide? And when? And who gets to decide on interpretation of other's words?
If one associates the phrase "lynch mob" with the systematic murder of people for the colour of their skin, is that the fault of the person who uses the term?
Personally, I would have thought 'lynch mob' these days means 'a bunch of gobshites moaning on social media'.
That would be the first meaning I would assign to it. Then maybe the historical one.
Same as if someone says 'you're looking very gay today'. Do you assume they mean a term that was commonplace as 'colourful' in the past, or something more modern?
"We are not Europeans. Those people on the continent are freaks."
His 12 Rules for Life is an exceptional book. I can't speak to the Audible experience of it, but some books need to be read and I imagine this is one of them as I would pause and reflect a lot while reading it. I have the highest respect for his mind, and consider him a deeply ethical thinker.
I will never understand this from you. The man advocated a meat, salt and water only diet. Claiming it cured depression and that he “never cheated” on it. The rapid onset of scurvy, among many other things, apparently doesn’t affect the deeply ethical thinkers.
The man is a dangerous quack. As we discussed before, I cannot speak to his expertise in his own field. He may be a world class mind there. But outside that all evidence suggests he is full of nonsense and half-thought out drivel dressed up as intellectual gold.
You are technically correct...the best kind of correct
World Record Holder for Long Distance Soul Reads: May 7th 2011
Personally, I would have thought 'lynch mob' these days means 'a bunch of gobshites moaning on social media'.
That would be the first meaning I would assign to it. Then maybe the historical one.
Same as if someone says 'you're looking very gay today'. Do you assume they mean a term that was commonplace as 'colourful' in the past, or something more modern?
so would I. But I don't think people should be held accountable to other's interpretations of their words. If something is clear cut, fair enough, but condemning people based on inferences is dicey territory imo.
Originally posted by Hitchhiker's Guide To...View Post
12 rules is brilliant. He just gets on a slightly odd detour when he talks about religion, but its a very smart book.
Its and odd detour all right.
Think of all the forced hours spent in Mass and school classes!
At least 10 years going on Sunday (at gunpoint practically)
Could have been learning a language or a new sport or perchance a new musical instrument (while a new language might have been at gunpoint too it would have at least some utility now)
PS
Was in a band for 2 weeks, Summer of 85. Parents and siblings all away for 2 whole weeks and had the house to myself. Unheard of normally as I am the youngest of 9.
Weren't too bad actually. Could have made it big if it hadn'tbeen for all those wasted hours praying to ..eh..make it big
I will never understand this from you. The man advocated a meat, salt and water only diet. Claiming it cured depression and that he “never cheated” on it. The rapid onset of scurvy, among many other things, apparently doesn’t affect the deeply ethical thinkers.
The man is a dangerous quack. As we discussed before, I cannot speak to his expertise in his own field. He may be a world class mind there. But outside that all evidence suggests he is full of nonsense and half-thought out drivel dressed up as intellectual gold.
Any recommendations of books on presenting and critically analysing an argument.
Have read "Straight and crooked thinking" a long time ago.
Any recommendations of books on presenting and critically analysing an argument.
Have read "Straight and crooked thinking" a long time ago.
I’m not sure there’s a single book I would recommend. It’s mostly about learning to avoid and identify logical flaws and fallacies. So any decent book on formal logic would be a good start. AC Grayling has a wonderful book on the history of philosophy which I think was imaginatively called “The History of Philosophy”. Daniel Kahnemann’s book “Thinking Fast and Slow” isn’t 100% what you’re looking for but it’s excellent and deals with logical and cognitive failings and flaws.
Maybe something like “The Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation” by Douglas Walton or something like that? It’s supposedly quite a good primer on what I think you’re after but I’ve honestly not read it myself.
You are technically correct...the best kind of correct
World Record Holder for Long Distance Soul Reads: May 7th 2011
Originally posted by Hitchhiker's Guide To...View Post
Where were you getting it before?
Aldi used to have it, though it was always a bit sporadic in supply. When it was in stock I used to buy about 6kg at a time, as you just couldn't rely on it being there. Got a bag of this Stapleton's yesterday. Won't be trying it for a couple of weeks. https://easyfood.ie/articles/staplet...es-nationwide/
I’m not sure there’s a single book I would recommend. It’s mostly about learning to avoid and identify logical flaws and fallacies. So any decent book on formal logic would be a good start. AC Grayling has a wonderful book on the history of philosophy which I think was imaginatively called “The History of Philosophy”. Daniel Kahnemann’s book “Thinking Fast and Slow” isn’t 100% what you’re looking for but it’s excellent and deals with logical and cognitive failings and flaws.
Maybe something like “The Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation” by Douglas Walton or something like that? It’s supposedly quite a good primer on what I think you’re after but I’ve honestly not read it myself.
I've posted before about how Libraries are a great resource.
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Comment