Recent comments

Ndtphoto t1_jeg1mjj wrote

When it comes to friends/family/co-workers, I'll only recommend films that i think are in their wheelhouse after talking about other things they liked.

My grandma isn't going to get a damn thing out of watching The Godfather except that it was horrible about the horse. Meanwhile my cousin would probably be riveted.

As for critics, their job should be to inform THEIR audience. If you have a national generic audience, you should recommend/pan things with no particular person in mind. I would say something like Top Gun Maverick is exactly the type of film a national critic would review with everyone in mind. Versus a critic working for a horror website, they should review films with horror hounds in mind.

That said, it's actually wise to find specific critics or reviewers that have similar tastes to yourself - it'll give you a better idea if you should spend your time watching something.

1

raltyinferno t1_jeg1m54 wrote

What? Crazy talk. Honeycombs were my unhealthy cereal of choice. My mom would never buy sugary cereal, so when I went to one of my friends' houses he'd have the full selection, and honeycombs were my favorite of them.

2

AutoModerator t1_jeg1lei wrote

Welcome to /r/relationship_advice. Please make sure you read our rules here. We'd like to take this time to remind users that:

  • We do not allow any type of am I the asshole? or situations/content involving minors

  • Any sort of namecalling, insults,etc will result in the comment being removed and the user being banned. (Including but not limited to: slut, bitch, whore, for the streets, etc. It does not matter to whom you are referring.)

  • ALL advice given must be good, ethical advice. Joke advice or advice that is conspiratorial or just plain terrible will be removed, and users my be subject to a ban.

  • No referencing hateful subreddits and/or their rhetoric. Examples include, but is not limited to: red/blue/black/purplepill, PUA, FDS, MGTOW, etc. This includes, but is not limited to, referring to people as alpha/beta, calling yourself or users "friend-zoned", referring to people as Chads, Tyrones, or Staceys, pick-me's, or pornsick. Any infractions of this rule will result in a ban. This is not an all-inclusive list.

  • All bans in this subreddit are permanent. You don't get a free pass.

  • What we cannot give advice on: rants, unsolicited advice, medical conditions/advice, mental illness, letters to an ex, "body counts" or number of sexual partners, legal problems, financial problems, situations involving minors, and/or abuse (violence, sexual, emotional etc). All of these will be removed and locked. This is not an all-inclusive list.

If you have any questions, please send us a modmail.


#This is an automatic comment that appears on all posts. This comment does not necessarily mean your post violates any rules.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

supapoopascoopa t1_jeg1l0i wrote

It is a great idea to spell this out and good advice.

I don’t like at all this idea of “being a burden” on the family as a criterion for withdrawal of life supporting care. I’m an ICU doctor and almost always the family wants the patient kept alive more than the patient does, as the family loves them and doesn’t want to let them go. But the patient is the one who has to suffer the reality of their quality of life. And many will be in nursing facilities so not a “burden” on the decision maker. In addition it is unlikely the decision-maker would use being a burden as their explicit reasoning.

Focus instead on what an acceptable quality of life means to you. Knowing that they are following your wishes is usually what gives people the strength and love to let go.

31

PDV87 t1_jeg1kig wrote

The whole ghost army thing was kind of lamely adapted in RotK. The relative ease with which they dispatched the forces of Sauron at Minas Tirith is almost insulting to the men of Gondor and Rohan who gave their lives at the siege and on the Pelennor Fields.

It’s my second least favorite thing about the movies after the omission of the Knights of Dol Amroth.

1

Apprehensive_Park951 t1_jeg1k9g wrote

I think you’re a little misguided. Texture has almost no dependence on plastic material, as far as keycaps go. It’s purely the molds used when the keycaps were made. The roughest keycaps I’ve ever used were abs. The smoothest I’ve ever used were pbt. DSS and CannonCaps respectively. In the photo, you can see my CannonCaps is so soft and smooth that my nail rubbing against it during typing has scratched it up pretty bad. In addition, which texture is more comfortable is also purely preference, so there’s really no objective better or worse. Like everything in this hobby, the best is whatever you like the most.

https://preview.redd.it/glrmyr2x16ra1.jpeg?width=3024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=d2e5a16e96d32af2929b208e4f53f998f22530bf

11

TallOutside6418 t1_jeg1k06 wrote

>No - another day is well within my natural lifespan.

We were created by nature. What we do is inherently natural, as natural as a chimp that uses a stick to get termites out of the nest.

I didn't sign a contract before I came into this world. If I can get some extra years, centuries, or millennia out of this existence - then I'm not breaking any rules.

​

>But seeking immortality for its own sake?

That's like saying you're seeking to live another day for its own sake. I would seek immortality to have more time with my friends and family. More time hiking, biking, playing tennis. More time learning. More time for everything. No different than you seeking to live another day.

​

>I do not think it's a great idea to create a caste of immortal billionaires

Stop rewatching Elysium. Every useful medical intervention, even though it's expensive at first, eventually filters down to being affordable by the general population. Assuming we survive ASI and immortality is available to people, there's no reason to think that everyone couldn't avail themselves of the technology.

​

>the planet couldn't possibly handle it

No offense, but this line tells me that you're opining on a topic about which you're woefully ignorant. You need to catch up if you're going to be taken seriously. I suggest you start with some Arthur Isaacs videos to broaden your mind. You'll learn a lot about the possibilities of future societies that will be able to leave the earth and create habitats in our solar system that could accommodate trillions of people. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlmKejRSVd8&list=PLIIOUpOge0LtW77TNvgrWWu5OC3EOwqxQ

Even without those technological advances, most advanced nations actually have negative population growth. It could very well be that people living extremely long lives don't even wish to keep reproducing. At some point we might need to heavily incentivize people to have kids just to account for accidental deaths.

4