A finch is is a unit I made up in my head to make sense of the weird customary system. It’s 4 inch (four inch -> finch) or rather 10 cm. Makes converting my instinctive scale to USian easier. It helps, that it’s also a plausible size of the finch bird.
I know that this is a low bar, but seems like that’s where we are on internet grammar: I’m proud of you for correctly using two different forms of “its”.
This is the Central Intelligentsia of the Chinese Communist Party. 您的 Internet 浏览器历史记录和活动引起了我们的注意。 YOUR INTERNET ACTIVITY HAS ATTRACTED OUR ATTENTION. 因此，您的个人资料中的 11115 ( -11115 Social Credits) 个社会积分将打折。 DO NOT DO THIS AGAIN! 不要再这样做! If you do not hesitate, more Social Credits ( -11115 Social Credits )will be subtracted from your profile, resulting in the subtraction of ration supplies. (由人民供应部重新分配 CCP) You’ll also be sent into a re-education camp in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Zone. 如果您毫不犹豫，更多的社会信用将从您的个人资料中打折，从而导致口粮供应减少。 您还将被送到新疆维吾尔自治区的再教育营。
I hate this mainly due to the number of penises per button. The playstation buttons are actually numbered based on the number of lines associated with the symbol (circle = 1, cross = 2, etc). This flys directly into the face of that. The circle button needs to have 1 dick where the tip curves and touches the balls, and the triangle needs to have 3 dicks. 0/10
Interesting observation, but maybe it is just a coincidence since I am not aware these numbers appearing anywhere? Found this reddit thread that talks about same thing.
Here’s an interview with controller′s designer that explains the meaning behind symbols. I think number theory is just a coincidence since I think it would be mentioned in this interview as well.
Other game companies at the time assigned alphabet letters or colors to the buttons. We wanted something simple to remember, which is why we went with icons or symbols, and I came up with the triangle-circle-X-square combination immediately afterward. I gave each symbol a meaning and a color. The triangle refers to viewpoint; I had it represent one’s head or direction and made it green. Square refers to a piece of paper; I had it represent menus or documents and made it pink. The circle and X represent ‘yes’ or ‘no’ decision-making and I made them red and blue respectively. People thought those colors were mixed up, and I had to reinforce to management that that’s what I wanted.
Imagine old people talking like this in forty years. Utterly brain rotted, actual terminally online octogenarians with fifty years of memes and social media kicking around in their heads instead of thoughts.
Now remember that unless shit changes, those will be the people in charge of the world.
I sometimes fantasize about needing to assemble a team of horrid people for a high stakes mission involving bad behaviour and worse jokes, like some kind of shitty Nick Fury. Can I count on your support?
Or… referencing old memes as shorthand/shortcuts for otherwise complex concepts or situations. It might be a tool in an updated kit for more efficient communication.
Then again, I might be a glass-half-full kinda person, in some respects.
There’s always this duality of human culture at play where clever and funny people are doing something new, whether it’s a new platform, a new medium, or new ways of speaking or joking around.
But sooner or later, everyone else shows up and starts doing it badly. People look at the rise and fall of the new thing and describe a “trend” that has died, and the whole process of trying to find out what the cool people are doing starts all over again. Influencers exist, but not in the self-aware way some of them have tried to claim. We chase social cache wherever it leads us, as social creatures.
On the internet, this happens in a really swingy way, slowly then all at once, owing largely to the nature of this form of media. Instead of movements, we began to talk about things in terms of pathogens. “Virality” and memes. Töpffer taught us to put funny words on pictures hundreds of years ago, what we call memes just adapted to the medium.
I think the speed at which new memes (in the Dawkins sense) are new developing and adapting is increasing in an interesting but startling way; is there a hard limit on how compelling an idea (trend) can be? Is there a sweet candy on the mountain top, or is it a tide pod?
Sorry to write a wall of extemporaneous blather at you, just got me thinking.
They do not ease in to Toxicity. So so good. I loved the self-titled album and even saw them live at that era, but the gravity of their message did not sink in until later.
lemmyshitpost
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.