Not even just the fucking UI. I have bad internet so it takes several minutes to watch a short, presuming jt ever works. And it’s just shorts. A full video loads no problem, but a short requires so much to even try to start playing.
I just hate the fact that when I open the youtube app, it just starts playing a random short. I have to stop the short to go to the search field which is the reason I opened the app.
You can take the video ID of a shorts URL and paste it into a regular video URL to open it in the less dogshit UI. Like this: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/fxJicOO_dBw -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxJicOO_dBw
You could make a greasemonkey script that does this automatically.
Oh wow that’s such a good idea. I’d probably still just continue not ever watching yt shorts since they are generally really bad but if I ever for some reason need to see one I’d love to be able to actually have video player controls on it.
IIRC Morpheus says it’s around 2199, but he’s working on faulty information because the people of Zion don’t know that Neo is actually the sixth “One”. I don’t think they mention how long a One cycle is, but building Zion itself must have taken quite some time (unless the machines help rebuild it after destroying it in the previous cycle).
Tetracycline, sold under various brand names, is an oral antibiotic in the tetracyclines family of medications, used to treat a number of infections, including acne, cholera, brucellosis, plague, malaria, and syphilis.
What does this have to do with gymnasts sponsored by cheese?
When I was 6 years old, an older kid pressured me into smoking a cigarette. I didn’t get sick or anything. I just didn’t like it and decided one was enough. Never knew the best decision of my life would be made at that age.
I dig this, six year olds are way more self-aware than I think a lot of folks know they are. Which is why I believe transfolks when they say the knew their gender around that age (4-6). When I was six I was forced to kiss a guy and like...I don't know anyone out here kissing guys period - but most def was not my bag. And then just a year later I had my first crush, and it was on this freakin' absolutely enamoring soccer player who seemed to have all the answers to life (even though she as like...a year older than me). But yeah, spoiler there, she was a gal. Eh, I don't think someone forcing me to kiss a boy turned me gay, but I def think my gay ass didn't want to kiss a boy =P!
Also I had a friend who told me they'd run around all over Spain and smoke cigarettes that people tossed down to be macho. And then I saw on Vice those poor Indonesian kids throwing down on smokes. Broke my heart. So yeah, while we are more self-aware than I think people recognize there's still very clearly a small mind that needs help being shaped and formed =P
I agree with a lot of the points you make here, but I actually think Batman will stay popular as a series and not just because of fan loyalty.
In Kill Bill the titular character does a long monologue about Superman being the real person and Clark being the made up one and is his critique on human culture. It’s a fabulous scene but I disagree with the point, Clark grew up as Clark that’s the real person.
But I do think that’s an interesting way to spin Batman, because Batman is the real person and Bruce is the act and you could and i believe they already did the most recent movie play it up as a scathing critique of capitalism, but it’s really long and I only saw it the once.
enough money, highly qualified personnel, and connections (both legitimate and clandestine) to bring real change to a blighted city
does none of the sort
He does use those resources to make change through charity and programs designed to improve the community. But that doesn’t instantly solve existing crime, particularly organized crime and corruption.
Plus, it will never actually fix Gotham because Gotham being shitty is part of the premise.
brutalizes mentally ill people (but it’s okay because he doesn’t kill)
He beats up violent criminals, generally when they are in the middle of either attacking him, or attacking someone else, or otherwise doing something that would harm or endanger innocent people. That some of these people have varying degrees of mental illness is unfortunate, but they doesn’t mean they don’t have to be stopped.
crime lords and terrorists walk free because of notoriously terrible corrections system and no-kill policy
Everyone of those criminals who walks free could have just as easily been murdered by any number of people during their time in custody. Why is it Batman’s responsibility to decide who lives and dies, and not any given cop or prison guard? And even if the system is broken, is it really better to have a masked vigilante killing people without trials (and appeals, and evidence, and oversight by some kind of authority)?
Also, let’s be real here, the reason they get out so predictably is not because of in-universe reasons, it’s because they want to keep bringing back villains. He could kill every supervillain in Gotham and most of them would be back in six months.
main appeal is cool gadgets made by other, more qualified people
He’s the world’s greatest detective, a ninja, a world class martial artist, a scientist, an inventor, and one of the greatest strategists who ever lived. If he’s not qualified, who the fuck is?
is it Batman’s responsibility to decide who lives and dies
I’ve had a profound realization while playing Ghost of Tsushima. If adherence to a self-imposed moral code causes unnecessary suffering and death that could’ve been preventable otherwise, then it’s part of the problem. Batman is not stupid, he has to know that the most significant villains will escape Arkham and go back to crime and terrorism. He has the means to stop that and is consciously choosing not to. Deliberate inaction is a choice all the same. Removing those elements might not be civilized, but Gotham is frequently closer to a warzone than a civilization.
That same logic applies to everyone else too. If Batman has some obligation to play judge, jury and executioner, so does anyone else who gets the opportunity. By that reasoning, cops who see criminals getting back on the street again and again should take matters into their own hands and just kill suspects who they believe are too dangerous to entrust to a broken system.
Batman isn’t just trying to beat up every criminal in Gotham, night after night, one by one. He’s trying to clean up the city, take down organized crime, fight corruption, and help fix the system so that it can deal with crime. Killing people prevents him from being able to work with people like Jim Gordon. And it forces the authorities to redirect resources away from fighting other criminals and instead use them to hunt down Batman because he isn’t just a vigilante trying to help, he’s a mass murderer.
And while that may prevent his victims from coming back to commit new crimes, it won’t prevent new criminals from taking their place, something that’s going to happen when he creates a power vacuum by killing a major crime boss. Plus, the calculus changes for any criminal he faces, because they have far less to lose by doing something stupid or desperate when their lives are already on the line. It destabilizes every situation, and makes dangerous people even more desperate.
Any lasting solution for Gotham has to involve fixing its failed institutions. That’s a long term goal, and one which Batman can’t do by himself. He can make a difference, he can protect people on a daily basis, and fight corruption wherever he’s able to find it. And he can inspire others to act, coordinate with them, and support those who try to create a real change.
Now, will he ever actually clean up Gotham? No, because then we wouldn’t have a story. Of course, that would be just as true if he killed people. I mean, Frank Castle has been gunning down criminals for decades, and yet, that doesn’t seem to have eliminated violent crime either.
In the lore, Wayne runs an extensive charitable foundation to deal with the structural problems of Gotham by building schools, orphanages, and clinics. He also pays for the psychiatric and physical treatment of many of the villains.
In-universe he’s an idealized good billionaire. In real life, of couse, there is no such thing.
Less a brand name because multiple companies can make parmigiano reggiano, but it’s a combination of requirements designed to protect local industry - for example, for it to be parmigiano reggiano cheese it has to be made with one of two lists of three ingredients, the milk has to come from cows from a specific region of Italy, a certain percentage of the feed for those cows must come from a specific region of Italy, is aged for a certain minimum time, etc, etc. It’s an entire set of industries protected by a legal definition of a cheese.
When you see “parmesan” instead of “parmigiano reggiano” it’s a similar sort of cheese that isn’t made within the legally protected definition. Most often it’s just not made in the one specific part of Italy with milk from cows from that part of Italy fed by feed from that part of Italy, it’s made somewhere else using dairy that doesn’t have to be imported. Or it’s aged “enough” for the flavors to develop but not the full time required. Or both.
There are a whole array of product designations in the EU that basically exist to protect individual agricultural industries from competition by requiring that products be made in a certain place, or using products from a certain place in order to prevent outsiders from duplicating the product, increasing supply and driving down prices.
Basically the same logic as “if it’s not from the Champagne wine region in France it’s just sparkling white wine.” Also the same reason why “real” balsamic vinegar costs a fucking fortune.
Not really. It doesn’t really prevent competition. You’re welcome to make your own cheese (or whatever) that competes with the protected variant. You’re just not allowed to call it the same thing.
It’s more like a measure to prevent shitty corporate cost cutting and skimpflation strategies from ruining a thing into oblivion and ensuring that you can rely on a certain level of quality that is associated with the traditional product.
The system might have it’s downsides, but I’m definitely on board with the intent.
B is the magnetic field. Both B and E fields generate measurable forces.
In particular, magnetic forces require the charge to be moving. If v = 0, the term v × B = 0, i.e. it disappears. The equation above is really why magnets are able to do stuff.
Some materials are just naturally “more chill with” having its charges magnetized into motion. These are your permanent magnets. Electromagnets use an external source to generate an electric current, which is charge in motion, which generates the magnetic field.
It’s wildly more complicated than that, like it’s literally several college courses, but IMO that’s the gist of it.
Its always been about waking the people up. First it was showing the people an ideal version of themselves. Then it was about showing the people a version of themselves who had quibbles but never gave up. Then it was about showing the people the kinds of monster people can become when their moral character was neglected. Now? Its about showing the people they’re seen. Showing them we understand each other and can have solidarity.
Comics aren’t just woke. They haven’t just always been woke. They’re an alarm clock ticking down to our collective awakening
Supervillains consider themselves to be superior to the common masses. Superheroes don’t see it that way. They see their power as a tool to help those who weren’t as lucky as them. The superpower lottery is a vehicle to tell the story. The moral is about how those powers are used.
I’m actually not making a comment about how the characters in the work view themselves at all. The entire premise of the genre is the “Great Man” view of history. That certain people, through ability or ambition, stand above others and define society by their actions. The difference between superheroes and villians isn’t self-image (which is frankly irrelevant) but that villians want to use their “greatness” to change things, while heroes want to maintain them.
In history, sure, the idea deserves criticism. But in fiction this archetype is called a protagonist and its very different to tell a story without at least one. Is Sherlock Holmes an example of Great Man theory? Most people are not as gifted as he is. What about Robin Hood? I’d argue that these characters share a lot of traits with Batman and Green Arrow respectively, so why is one ok but not the other?
As for the status quo thing, I honestly don’t know what to do about that from a storytelling perspective. “Guy who shoots lasers decides to enact social reform” is an odd pitch.
I mean Nietzsche was kind of woke. Fuckin, there is an argument to be had that slave morality is what we’d calll wokeness today. The whole Ubermensch thing just kind of feeds in to that.
kbin.life
Hot