Are you having a stroke?

+1 for GraphineOS, but I can't get behind NFTs. The technology is cool, but for me, the definition of "owning" something includes not only the ability to view it, but also the ability to modify it. If I own an NFT of a song, then I could listen to the song, but I still couldn't, say, make a remix of it, which for me is the entire point of owning it in the first place.

I mean I agree with this part. That's why I'm commenting on this site and not the other one, but that doesn't mean we have to pretend the other one doesn't exist and that we don't care what's going on there. I agree that everyone should move here, but nevertheless, most of them aren't, and I cannot control that. The fact is that most people are not deep enough into the internet to make a pros and cons list of social media sites. They just use what other people use, or what pops up first on Google. We are neither of those things, and until we are, I have a vested interest in what happens at the other place.

From your comments, it seems like you may just not be in the target demographic for these kinds of films. It sounds like you're a teenager, and while there may be some teens who enjoy these films, they're definitely intended for adults. Also, you mentioned that you live in a non-english-speaking country. There's a lot of English films that manage to translate well to non-english-speaking audiences, but LOTR is unfortunately not one of them. The characters speak heavily in metaphor and idioms, most of which don't translate well. It's the same reason Western audiences often have difficulty with older Japanese media.

I agree with your examples, all of which have been heavily criticized for anti-consumer behavior, particularly Disney and Netflix, so I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make. Just because Netflix does it, doesn't make it okay for Nintendo to do it. Digital media companies have strong incentive to practice anti-consumer behavior, so public outcry is important to counterbalance that.

I don't think the Ford and Apple examples apply, as these companies make primarily physical products. Both of these companies really do want you to use their products for two reasons:

• Most of their marketing is literally just people seeing their products being used.

• Cars wear out with usage, as do computers, so the more you use their products, the sooner you'll buy a new one.

Digital media is unique in that it's not highly visible and using it more doesn't make it degrade.

Personally, I feel like most of the problems in the modern world come down to issues of scaling. We evolved our brains to coordinate in small bands of people, but we try use those same brains to coordinate groups of hundreds of millions.

The larger an organization (corporation, government, npo, etc.) gets, the worse they get at coordinating around a central goal or set of values, and the more likely they are to evolutionarily optimize around something entirely divorced from the values of any individual member.

A company of 100 employees is entirely capable of creating a high-quality product, compensating their workers well, and avoiding anti-consumer practices. This doesn't mean they'll always do this, but it's possible. Meanwhile, a multinational corporation of millions of people, even if run by the most ethical CEO on earth, will always gravitate toward maximizing profit at the expense of everything else. Even libertarians recognize this as a fundamental flaw in unchecked Capitalism.

Similarly, a government of a few thousand people can create a good constitution for an orderly society, but in a massive government of a country of 300 million people, trying to make any sort of effective, positive political change is borderline-impossible because everyone has different goals that gridlock each other. Even proponents of large government recognize this.

It's tempting to believe in some sort of easy action that could fix this, but truth be told, I think any simple solution would be horrifying, and I think any good solution is going to take an incredible amount of thought and be more complex than the sort of thing you'd see every day on the internet.

Whether or not you personally agree with the military's choice of language is not relevant. You're assuming the trainer agrees with your political views, but you weren't there, so you have no idea what they said or didn't say.

At least that scene is funny and develops the plot. I think they're talking more about stuff like all those 90s movies that have the plot grind to a halt so two characters can punch each other for ten minutes.

For me, it just came down to how unintuitive and slow Windows's desktop environment is. Setting up the most basic customizations requires going through like 15 sub-menus or dealing with the registry. Also, GNOME and KDE are just so much prettier than Windows's desktop environment.

You're coming dangerously close to re-inventing the kilt

This is the real answer. It's easy to forget that for most people who are famous for their unusual political views, most of their overall content has nothing to do with that. There's something about politics that can turn even the most open-minded of individuals into raging idealogues.

It's hilarious to me that Joe Rogan is now known for his like 3 conservative views when I mostly remember him as the guy who hosted Fear Factor, did every drug known to man, interviewed scientists in every field out there, and did that really popular interview with Bernie Sanders a couple years ago.

The point is that every hobby and niche interest has someone who gets way too hung up on one particular issue and devotes way too much time to talking about it, dragging the whole community down with them.